Alpha Risk is happy to present you its first edition. We are surprised to see so much unpublished work. So much quality work, locked away in laboratories and universities.
So much knowledge, that we do not dare to share, because it is not part of the trendy subjects. We believe that there is no one better than the scientist himself to judge the value of an article.
The freedom of scientific expression has been abused in recent years. Certainly because many have been wrong. Because many have taken a stand. Only scientists, men of the field, know how difficult it is to tell the truth.
Why is this so?
Because the truth does not exist. The truth is linked to a space-time variable. We know what we know, at a given moment. It was not true in the past, and it will not be true in the future. Science knows this, and it makes its beauty and its perpetual progress.
In this new kind of scientific media, we will respect three things: The right to speak for everyone, the evidence and the love of the object
The right of each one to speak. Any scientist, controversial or not, will have the right to publish an article. Its form, its sources, but especially the appreciation of the scientific community will allow it to be in the physical version of the journal. And nothing else. We often criticize the review committees. Alpha Risk is very clear on this subject: who can judge an innovation, if it is unique and unpublished?
The proof. The community will be able, with justification, to demonstrate that a word is false. Let us agree on this term. Something is false at some point in the history of humanity, either because it has been demonstrated to be false, or because it has not been demonstrated to be true. In both cases, each scientist can propose corrections or deletions.
The love of the object. It is important to keep traditions, especially when a journal like us tries to change the codes. Paper is, and will remain, the natural medium of man. And as such, the medical community, through its action, will define which articles will be in the paper version of each month.
Approach:
Since the first year of our graduate studies, we have been made aware of the ethical issues raised by the practice of our future profession as physician-researchers. We have been immersed in a world where scientific research requires constant innovation. Research allows us to improve our knowledge, some of which can claim to be able to respond to medical needs and challenges: to treat more people, more pathologies, more quickly, and more effectively.
Faced with the numerous needs that we have observed in the medical field, and with the richness of the French scientific landscape, we have faced the new ethical questions that all these innovations pose. Following this reflection, we wondered about the legitimacy of research that does not aim at an ethically valid innovation applicable to humans.
And it is in search of answers that we decided to write this essay. Each of the axes of study that make up this essay begins with an inventory of the subject in order to express the current problems. Thereafter, these axes are composed of questions and partial answers, which we hope will contribute to these debates.
Essay Summary:
First, we felt it was important to begin by defining the major terms discussed in our essay. This part was essential for us, as it provided the foundation for a lifetime of thinking. Then, we made an inventory of the organization of the research topics in France, as well as a questioning on the ethical dimension of a research which does not have for objective an application on the human being.
Finally, we thought it relevant to share with the reader a broader reflection on the impact of systematic ethical reflection upstream of research projects.
I. Introduction:
Scientific innovation is permanent and essential in all fields. Our dual training as physicians and researchers encourages us to discover what will treat the human beings of tomorrow. The role and legitimacy of scientific research are no longer in question, especially at a time in our history when a pathology as complex as cancer is the leading cause of death in developed countries. Man has always wanted to understand the world and the body in which he lives. It is scientific research that tries, in part, to meet this need, and for this purpose tries to find solutions against medical issues such as disease. Science and technology have caused profound changes in our societies. By changing our vision of the world and our way of life, they have become essential components of human activity in modern societies.
Scientific research in the field of health is faced with a dilemma:
Respond to the need for invention and creation of publishable scientific knowledge, because publication brings funding. This invention must therefore be rapid and productive. The expression "publish or perish" expresses this fact perfectly.
Responding to the need for innovation in order to better screen, diagnose and treat leads to an inventory of clinical needs and an obvious ethical reflection, which is time-consuming, upstream of the experiments, and increases the time required to achieve a publication.
Before going further in our reflection, it is essential to define invention and innovation according to our vision of the subject. Invention is the discovery and creation of a new technique or a new art. Innovation, on the other hand, is the fact of not only inventing, but also applying this invention to the construction of a tool, a solution, that meets a real need.
The need to invent quickly and brilliantly in order to be published in a journal and to be recognized by the scientific community implies a real lack of ethical questioning about the impact of inventions. It is therefore from this dilemma, which is paradoxical for biomedical research, that a first questioning will arise.
Moreover, following these innovations we are faced with ethical questions, due to their novelty and their still vague applications, but also due to the impact of the reflection itself. Some points of reflection seem important to us to address.
Let's start with this first question: Can we conduct research in all fields? No, research on the embryo is forbidden in France, except with a waiver from the Biomedicine Agency for example. It is therefore necessary to start thinking about the experiments to be carried out from the very beginning of the project. It is naturally that we ask ourselves what are the means of reflection upstream of research projects on the impact of their results, at the present time?
Would increasing the ethical reflection on the research project, in order to integrate its clinical stakes, be a brake on rapid and permanent innovation?
II. Is research without medical application ethical?
In France, there are different ways to create knowledge. French public research is a strong driver, ranked 6ème in the world for publications1 . Research teams are organized in structures such as INSERM and CNRS, and can be part of multi-organization thematic institutes (ITMO), in order to better collaborate. To mirror this organization, industry has built a structure similar to the ITMOs: the Alliance for Research and Innovation in the Health Industries (ARIIS). These different structures work, in part, in biomedical research, which aims to understand and treat human beings.
Although France is ranked among the best in research, it struggles to turn its inventions into innovations1 . Indeed, creating knowledge without pushing its development to a commercialization and thus benefiting the population and the economy, makes our country a creator of knowledge that does not improve as much as it could neither the health of its citizens nor its economy. According to the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, this lack of valorization of our inventions is due to a rather open dialogue between public research and industry. In our opinion, it goes deeper than that. Innovative public research is not necessarily the watchword in our country. Its objective is not to meet a need, but to create knowledge. It is therefore natural to ask what the real goal of research is, to produce knowledge or to produce solutions? This is where the distinction is made between basic and clinical research. Basic research is oriented towards the discovery of knowledge. While clinical research is aimed at discovering medical solutions. Translational research, which is in full expansion, brings these two approaches together towards a common goal.
This is the first question we had when we discovered the world of research. Should we develop solutions or knowledge? Both can be combined. Translational research makes this possible. Solutions are undeniably linked to knowledge, but the reverse is not true. This is what we personally seek to do in our clinical and scientific practices. This stepping back, which consists in questioning the future of the discovery in solution, does not only have an ethical advantage. Too many resources are consumed in the development of innovations that are not destined for preclinical or clinical use.
However, we are currently observing a turning point in our environment, which signals the need for research to focus on current biomedical issues, in order to invent, to innovate. Many research teams are developing a two-phase approach:
First of all, a "bed to benchside" model which consists in analyzing clinical problems (bed) and bringing them to the laboratory (benchside)
Then a development of "bench to bedside" solutions. The principle is to create research that starts at the bench and ends at the bedside, thus focusing on clinical needs. It is therefore research that alternates clinical and pre-clinical work, and that aims to produce knowledge only in areas of clinical utility.
Should we limit biomedical research to the creation of clinically applicable knowledge? From the point of view of technological productivity, it would be desirable to refocus all French research teams on bench-to-bedside themes. Nevertheless, how can we differentiate between what has a medical use, what does not yet have one, and what will never have one? Let's take the example of genome analysis. The first genome was completely sequenced in 1972.
At that time, such a work had indecent financial and temporal costs, and therefore no chance to be used in clinical routine. Bench-to-bedside research would certainly have redirected the research teams in this field towards more accomplished and accessible themes. This was not the case. A growing number of teams have acquired equipment, allowing a reduction in the price of the latter. This decrease gave access to these devices to smaller teams, a chain reaction phenomenon occurred. In 1994 it took 2.7 billion dollars and 13 years to sequence a human genome. Only 1 million dollars in 2007, and now 1000 dollars, for 24 hours, in 2014.
We therefore observe here that this technology, which was not usable in the clinic in 1994, has become a very accessible tool, with real clinical utility in the analysis of tumors for example. It is therefore very difficult to imagine the potential of an invention, its innovative potential and its usefulness in the clinic. This is the main reason why ethical reflection upstream of a research project, which aims to evaluate its ethical legitimacy to be developed, is difficult to put in place. Even if it is not applicable at that moment in the clinic.
Moreover, an ethical problem remains. How can we justify scientific research that is sometimes directed towards subjects that may not be useful to humans? Research is financed by French citizens in order to improve their living environment and their health. It is therefore legitimate to think that research, supported by public funds, should return this investment to its citizens in the form of knowledge and innovations. The question of the unsuspected potential of an innovation remains. Can it be answered upstream of the research work? Indeed, genetic sequencing poses several ethical questions to which we have no answer: What should we do if during a diagnosis we find mutations that could induce, but not in a certain way a pathology? Should we tell the patient, knowing that the probability of 100% cannot be guaranteed? The patient still has difficulty in understanding the concept of risk factors.
Moreover, it also raises questions about pre-natal diagnosis? Namely, would it not lead to a selection of children to be born? All these questions have not been thought about before the implementation of the project . However, this would have made it possible to initiate the debate beforehand. As for the newly created ethical questions, the National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE) is very clear: "society would benefit from organizing without delay the ethical reflection and the public debate on the new ethical problems created by the advances of science and which could be anticipated as early as 2010"2 . It is an opinion published in 2009, taken up again in 2018. This opinion, and the questions it raises, have never been so topical, if we look at facial recognition and the drifts that arise from it3 . However, the clinical usefulness, the efficiency of the research is not mentioned in this opinion. In our opinion, this is a missing line of thought. Ethical reflection at the genesis of a project is indeed present, to evaluate the ethical dimension of experiments, but not to evaluate the future of discoveries.
While animal experimentation is regularly criticized, even though it is highly controlled and regulated, and work on stem cells is highly supervised, these regulations do not encourage researchers to take a necessary step back and consider the future of their innovation. The committees that study a research project validate the compatibility of the experiments with animal welfare and animal ethics, according to the principles of the national charter on the ethics of animal experimentation4 . For cells, compliance with bioethics laws, an opinion from the biomedical agency and a committee for the protection of individuals is required. These authorities are not encouraged to question the future of the invention, and its future impact once it has become an innovation.
Moreover, they do not encourage researchers to do so either. The scientific world should therefore question itself not only on the ethical dimension of its experiments but also on the role that its invention can play.
The scientific world does not only include researchers in laboratories. The medical profession has a duty to be present and informative in the reflection process. Indeed, the medical profession is an essential partner in the proper functioning of translational research. This is still not well understood by most of the medical community, who consider that the sole objective of their work is care. This is, in our opinion, another main cause of the lack of reflection on the ethical relevance of a research topic. Without the involvement of the medical profession, the laboratory remains too far removed from current issues.
To conclude this first line of thought, it seems important to develop an ethical reflection oriented towards the legitimacy of the research subject to be developed, while keeping in mind that an invention, or even an innovation, will not cease to evolve and surprise us.
III. Ethics upstream of biomedical research, a limiting element to the progress of research?
Following our first reflection on the scientific community's need to step back from its work and its application to humans, we were interested in the impact of such reflection on scientific developments. Can ethical reflection within a research process slow down the latter?
Mary Warnock, in 1994, summed up the main moral problems raised by current innovations in medicine with this question: "Should we do everything we know how to do?6 . This can be translated as an application of the precautionary principle6 , adopted at the international level since the Rio Declaration in 1992: "The principle that the absence of certainty, taking into account current scientific and technical knowledge, should not delay the adoption of effective and proportionate measures to prevent a risk [...]"7 . This principle, originally intended for the environment, has been extended to the health and safety of present or future generations, at the suggestion of P. Kourilsky and G. Viney8 . It specifies that measures must be taken when there is sufficient reason to believe that an activity or product is likely to cause serious and irreversible damage to the health or safety of present or future generations, or to the environment. But above all, that the absence of knowledge does not justify a lack of action by the authorities. It is therefore an incentive to have a pro-active behavior in front of the dangers of the technological evolution.
Medical ethics can be a hindrance if it is considered restrictive. But what is the purpose of research? To produce knowledge, or to produce solutions? If the answer is to produce solutions, then ethics upstream of research can only be beneficial to move towards solutions. It would enable research to be focused on questions of clinical interest, and thus concentrate resources on these solutions. The ethical dimension of research would therefore be a driving force and not a brake on it. In the second part of our essay, we briefly set out the current ethical obligations for animal and cell experimentation. For a part of the scientific community, these obligations are considered to be a brake on their work, because of the time it takes to receive an answer from the ethics committees, but also because of the restriction of the means that can be used. Can adding a new step of ethical reflection to this process be perceived as slowing down by the scientific community? After having questioned the ethical reflection within a research process as a limiting element of this reflection, let us test this hypothesis to the end: should ethics be an obstacle to invention?
Let's take the example of Dolly the sheep to make our point. Dolly was born from the fruits of a considerable scientific research work. Indeed, she was born by cloning on the same principle as a cutting. The researchers implanted a cell nucleus in an ovum without nucleus. What made this act a prodigious discovery is its result. We thought that only embryonic cells, a few days after conception, could differentiate to create all the organs and tissues of a complete individual. Once specialized, the cells were deemed incapable of regaining this potential. However, once this ovum was equipped with a nucleus and implanted in a carrier sheep, a complete sheep was born.
Despite the scientific advances of this discovery, Dolly created a general protest. Indeed, the researchers had not thought about all the ethical questions that their invention and its future would raise. The main ethical debate that emerged was about human cloning: is it morally acceptable, not to mention the psychological and social dangers, the genetic impoverishment, and the risks of abnormalities that may result. As a result of these questions, cloning has been banned in many countries, including 19 European countries. Even if cloning is forbidden, many fruitful researches have resulted from it. Indeed, researchers have used the principle demonstrated by cloning to try to transform undifferentiated cells into cartilage cells, bone cells, nerve cells, etc. These discoveries raise immense therapeutic hopes, since it is possible to replace defective cells in a patient with other healthy cells and thus cure many diseases.
A reflection then arises: if we had thought about all the ethical problems posed by cloning before the implementation of the project, it would certainly not have been carried out and thus all the research that results from it. And thus perhaps deprive future generations of possible treatments. The ethical reflections already carried out have put a brake on certain possible drifts of this technique and have thus protected us from genetic, moral, social and environmental disasters.
IV. Conclusion
Thus, this reflection, which allowed us to write our essay, led us to become aware of the challenge we face in the scientific field, namely the ethical interest of undertaking research. It is now obvious to us that combining the medical field with the scientific one allows for better care in the long run.
It is as an opening towards another reflection, on the value of those who wish to change things in our society that we will quote Spinoza:
"Boldness is that desire which leads a man to brave, in order to accomplish an action, a danger feared by his equals."
Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation: http:// www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid50301/la-valorisation-de-larecherche-publique.html
« Contribution of the National Consultative Ethics Committee to the review of the Bioethics Law 2018-2019" - Opinion 129: https:// etatsgenerauxdelabioethique.fr/media/default/ 0001/01/8a7b70ff460d2e08c49786ec1d4ea7c620fc7329.pdf
Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation: http:// www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid70598/l-encadrement-reglementairede-l-utilisation-d-animaux-a-des-fins-scientifiques.html
Warnock M., "Some Moral Problems in Medicine", Health Economics, 3, 297-300, 1994
From the reflection of Hans Jonas in his book, Das Prinzip Veranwortung (The Principle of Responsibility)
Law n°95-101 relating to the reinforcement of the protection of the environment.
Kourilsky P., Viney G.- Le principe de précaution. Odile Jacob, 2000.
I. Introduction
The Decentralized Science movement is picking up speed. At least that's what you can tell yourself after seeing DeSci Berlin.
However, according to the scientific community, there are still some obstacles to the global deployment of decentralized science.
Xiaofeng CHEN, editor from Management academic Journal in China say :
« Radical improvements are revolutionary, but it is difficult to gain widespread acceptance if the existing scientific publishing system is completely abandoned.Therefore, it is better to find a way to involve the existing scientific publishing system and form an ecosystem together.
We will see how the traditional industry adapts its operations to this novelty, but it is not certain that it will take the turn, at least quickly. »
II. What is Decentralized Science?
As Paul Kohlhaas described very well in the introduction of DeSci Berlin, decentralized science, and more precisely shared science or at least science liberation, is not a new idea, it has been around for decades.
However, multiple actors have prevented the creation of a real traction around this movement, the tools were not necessarily adapted, it is perhaps the right time now to see this solution emerge.
Having a decentralized science, it is also the infinite possibility to exchange knowledge, skills, experiences... Around a common project, without necessarily being part of the same laboratory, or even the same country or the same continent.
It is also the possibility, to represent, in digital form, the work, and its value, and to monetize it at a very early stage of the existence of a project, in order to be able to finance the continuation of the project, and to no longer see the valley of death appear in so many projects.
III. What are the positive points of this system?
In our opinion, it is the possibility of accelerated financing of projects that make sense, while maintaining intellectual property and distance from the funder in a consistent manner. The second contribution is a decentralized opportunity, that any researcher tomorrow can ask advice, proofreading, critical explanation to his colleagues without having to be part of a congress, being in the right network, the space-time problems disappear.
The number of molecules discovered by billions of dollars injected in the research is in free fall on the last 50 years, that extended to the regulation, the inflation, and the general cost of the research is increased with a certain discoloration with regard to the financing.
The first benefit is to allow patients to understand the work that is done by researchers to better rule, the temporality necessary for research to work properly, and the discovery of relevant things.
More broadly, decentralized science is not about changing the ways in which we prove something to be true, but is about providing an infrastructure to accelerate and improve the development of innovation.
IV. What are the limitations of this system?
Now let's talk about boundaries, and more precisely what good boundaries we lose through decentralized science.
It is difficult for us to define limits that exist in traditional science that we would like to see in decentralized science, but we will do the exercise anyway.
Decentralized science allows us to lose the framework of expertise imposed by the current academic and bibliographic structures, and to put forward, by other means still unknown, researches and researchers who did not necessarily prove themselves in the past. This is a problem and an advantage.
As we will see in the next section, the different structures and solutions that are being developed on decentralized science go in different directions, allowing to explore the potential, and the limits of this system.
The way to be recognized, listened to, and to have a weight in the traditional science is long, tedious, and requires a very important requirement.
We can very well imagine, as we see it appearing in other decentralized solutions in Web 3, a leveling down of the global requirement, to the benefit of communitarianism, and the gathering of people, on their ideas, around some influencers.
It will thus be a question of being able to put forward scientists with a sufficiently important level of work and requirement, to maintain the quality of work and information necessary to the good progress of a world scientific research in the long term.
The second limitation is structural, because it is quite possible to imagine a research team scattered all over the world, working on the same molecule, with a common goal, and yet it is difficult to finance and manage the logistics of a fundamental research when you have only one researcher per laboratory on the same subject.
It seems difficult to create open spaces on the bench, but as write these lines, it does not seem so crazy.
We will inevitably lose some advantages, and only time will tell if the balance between traditional science and decentralized science is in favor of the current movement.
V. What are the current dynamics?
The current dynamics are very interesting and we will try to draw a global picture of an ecosystem in full explosion which is very difficult.
This document, very well realized, and presented during the congress, gathers several types of structure in full development.
First of all, the sciences of August, whose objective is to carry out research, in structural support with a decentralized autonomous organization, allowing to make the choices of financing of the various projects.
We will also notice, a second type of structure in full explosion, which aims to finance scientific research in a decentralized way, with funds and decisions that are decentralized by nature.
You can also see the emergence of decentralized Biotech, which allow to carry out research, and to work on the infrastructure of this decentralized chance, with internal actors companies or external, which have a desire to make the code open source, the participation of the community in the decisions of work and how to publish and present solutions that have developed internally.
You also have, of which you are part, a whole world of decentralized scientific publishing. This world aims to test the potentials and limits of publishing articles in a decentralized way, 200 choices, to its financing and publication, and to be able to appreciate its limits. We see the emergence of various foundations and institutes that have the decision and ambition to fund the growth of this nascent ecosystem.
We also see a mix between art and science appearing in this world that is the Web... This is not to our displeasure, the long term potential remains however approved.
We see appearing, in structural base of this global innovation, concepts, like the one presented in this work that are the NFT, necessary to the exploitation of the theoretical potential of this movement. These are the tools that will make the session of tomorrow.
And as always, and this will not change the ecosystem, the scientific community is strong, and needs tools and to create groups to move forward together and in a relevant way.
I. What is Molecule
Molecule is a marketplace for funding, collaborating and transacting early-stage biopharma research projects. Researchers get to present their research projects, find investors and collaborators and advance their research projects. Investors and funds get exposure to new biopharma research projects looking for funding for their research goals. Molecule platform infrastructure is built on Ethereum enabling researchers and investors full access to the DeFi ecosystem. It's novel approach with the intellectual property NFT (IPNFT) enables anybody to share ownership on research projects as well as future outcomes such as IP, royalty rights, data and much more.
Early-stage bio-pharma research suffers from complex legal agreements, missing transparency, and reduced investments. This leads to potentially promising research projects all too often being abandoned before they get off the ground. Academia has termed the problem of missing funds between fundamental research and clinical trial "the valley of death".
Molecule aims to solve the "valley of death" by standardizing legal agreements and creating public and liquid markets for funding early-stage research projects. With the advent of decentralised ledger technology (e.g. Ethereum), the creation and management of financial assets have become easier than ever.
Via Molecule, researchers can offer different legal agreements for assets originating from their research (IP, royalty rights, etc.) and collect the funding they need. Investors can easily fund research and provide the funds in an instant given the integration of cryptocurrencies.
II. What is Decentralized Biotech?
Paul Kohlhaas summarized it very well in the article Medium by the same author: An Open Bazaar for Drug Development: Molecule Protocol.
Imagine a world where patients directly fund researchers developing the next therapeutic breakthrough they need. One where drug development is collaborative, open, and decentralized — an open bazaar anyone with the right intentions can join. A system that could radically increase the diversity of treatments, and lower costs and time to market.
The problem that decentralized biotech is trying to address is fairly well known. Early stage therapeutic research is complex to finance, the intellectual property generated by the projects is illiquid, making it difficult to finance.
The group of decentralized biotechs, of which molecule.to is a part, has the ambition to finance fundamental research projects by anyone, including the patient. And it is on this precise point that we must be vigilant. Indeed, having research funded by a community can lead to inequalities in funding because we know more about Alzheimer's disease than about rare genetic diseases.
The advantage of this model is that it is not up to investors and industrialists to choose whether or not to develop therapeutics in a certain field of application.
The second advantage of molecule.to is that it accelerates basic research, by speeding up its financing. How many talented researchers have had to wait several years for funding before they could hold a pipette?
Molecule has two layers - Molecule Discovery and Molecule Finance. Combined, they enable the creation of a dynamic ecosystem for decentralized modular drug development.
Molecule Discovery exists to make research and intellectual property accessible worldwide. The goal of this part of molecule.to is to create an appropriate funding system, to get through the famous valley of death, and see research that is too often abandoned today come to fruition.
Molecule Finance, on the other hand, exists to foster the fully decentralized modular development of drugs. This is where we are most impressed with this project.
Indeed, it puts forward the possibility of making research teams, built to the need of the project, remotely, in a modular way.
Molecule is thus a very smart solution package, allowing the decentralization of pharmaceutical research. So far, it's succeeded, and brilliantly.
III. From the researchers' point of view
In order to have its project funded by investors, the research project will be tokenized.
This essentially means that a unique digital representation of the research project will be added to the blockchain in the form of a non-fungible token. This token will be tied to a legal agreement you have with the investors.
In a way, all research seeking funding will therefore be financed, and with ease, by this mode of financing. We are no longer obliged to go through multiple contracts as a researcher, to see his project being funded. On the other hand, as an investor, his investment is much more liquid, since it is based on an NFT.
This NFT can be resold at the investor's discretion. Unfortunately, for the moment this is certainly in OTC, because we do not find a way to resell our IP-NFTs on the marketplace.
IV. From the investors’ point of view
Investors must of course be verified to invest in projects.
The first part of your journey as an investor will be to explore research projects in your area of interest. This is the time when you will understand the project, you can talk to the founders, discuss with the Molecule team.
This is an important step and should not be neglected. Maybe some investors not specialized in Science will read us. Don't expect the same kind of operation you will find in DeFi or NFT. Good science takes time.
Once you've shortlisted your favorite projects, you'll interact with Molecule to have them retrieve your account information to make trading easier.
Now it's time to bid on the projects, and more specifically on their underlying tokens (IP-NFTs). The price is not fixed, at least it doesn't look like it. It seems to have a supply and demand process, where the searcher is able to refuse a price (or an investor).
Then the exchange of funds for IP-NFTs takes place, and you can bid on your NFT and view its legal terms.
I. Introduction
Clemens Ortlepp explains very clearly the problem that this technology solves, on the Medium of Molecule : Globally, early-stage biopharma research suffers from chronic underfunding, leading to discontinued research in the early stages of the pharma development cycle. This is happening so regularly that academia has coined the phase of research up until clinical trials the “Valley of Death”.
This notorious lack of financing leads to the problem of financing the legal costs necessary to protect an invention. The same is true for early-stage project development, development studies, how to protect one's invention, the ability to share confidential data, having protected it beforehand... All this requires specialized expertise, 2 levees that are complex to obtain without funding.
It was therefore invented, thanks to the NFT technology and the ERC721 standard, a method to encapsulate the intellectual property in NFTs, and thus create IP NFTs.
II. What are the requirements to create a consistent and protective IP NFT infrastructure?
Molecule focuses on the specific aspects of biopharma in its Medium articles. She cites several aspects such as privacy, accessibility & verifiability and permanence.
Privacy therefore requires being able to protect all or part of the intellectual property, while being able to share all or part of it, all the same, during a deal. This is close to the properties present in the Secret Network blockchain, under Cosmos. It is therefore a question of being able to manage finely who sees what.
It remains, as we said, important to be able to share certain information, in order to demonstrate the value of an IP NFT. This value must be verifiable by everyone. Molecul gives the example of transaction data or the ownership of the NFT IP. It is therefore the accessibility and verifiability of the data.
It is also obviously necessary that this data is permanent. So that any researcher or industrialist can trace the life of the NFT IP.
III. Overview of the Molecule’s IPNFT infrastructure
What is important to understand in this process is that the first step in building an NFT PI is the signing of an agreement between parties A and B. This agreement is part of a transaction that is written in the blockchain forever.
In a second step the IP NFT is created, and it is sold by party A to party B, respecting the terms of the agreement. The data of this transaction, such as the seller, the buyer, the piece of IP transferred... are stored in the Molecule database.
Steps 4 and 5 of this diagram represent the means of tracing and viewing the contents of NFT IPs, by the owner. It is at this point that the buyer can own the whole innovation.
The Molecule protocol is completely open-source, which we believe is a guarantee of its good faith and proper functioning: https://github.com/moleculeprotocol
IV. But do NFT IPs have the same legitimacy as current legal acts?
Before asking whether NFT IPs have the same legitimacy as more traditional contracts, let's ask ourselves if this is functional? And in this regard, Molecule has taken another big step forward. We take the liberty of quoting directly from their Medium content here.
To showcase the usability of the stated infrastructure, Molecule is creating the first proof of concept (POC) for the biopharma IPNFT. Molecule has set up a license agreement for the “Longevity Molecule” with the Scheibye-Knudsen Lab of the University of Copenhagen. The newly formed longevity research organization called VitaDAO has communicated their interest in purchasing the IP via a sub-license agreement. The agreement (as a legal document) is created and will be cryptographically signed via a transaction on the Ethereum Blockchain. A record of the transaction will be added to the sub-license agreement in form of a cryptographic hash. After the signing process is completed, an NFT is being created and the signed document is added to the metadata JSON of the IPNFT.
After the agreed purchasing amount for the sub-license is being transferred to the license holder Ethereum Address, the NFT is being transferred to the buying party. VitaDAO now holds the NFT and, therefore, permanent access to the IP and licensing agreement.
So it's functional, and it was used, and has been used ever since on the various DAOs coming from Molecule, like Vita DAO and Psy DAO.
An NFT primarily represents the metadata of an asset that is added to a blockchain. This means that, while an asset is the basis used to create the NFT to make a unique representation of it, the NFT is generally not - unless otherwise provided for in the smart contract encoded in the NFT or in the associated terms of sale - the actual asset itself.
This is the subject on which Molecule has been relevant, by transferring ownership and use of the underlying asset, which in our case study is intellectual property.
The transfer of intellectual property rights on an underlying asset is therefore an important issue to make NFTs, currently in circulation, in the scientific or artistic world, valid.
The seller of an NFT (assuming that he also owns intellectual property rights on the underlying asset) can, of course, transfer these intellectual property rights to the buyer. This is the case in step 2 of the diagram extracted from Molecule.
However, to do so, the intellectual property must be assigned in writing. In the absence of written provisions to the contrary, in the smart contract or elsewhere, the sale of an NFT will not be automatic. And this is the problem with 99% of NFTs today, the owners have a right to use by acquiring the NFT, but not the commercial rights.
When you want to trade NFTs, which must represent underlying assets, it is important to verify who owns the underlying asset. Generally, the sale of the NFT does not include the sale of the underlying asset or any intellectual property rights vested in it.
However, there are some examples where an NFT must actually be sold with the underlying asset. One interesting example is Nike's patent, obtained in 2019, for a system called "CryptoKicks" where Nike could tokenize ownership of shoes by linking an NFT to a physical shoe. This system would allow designers/companies to have control over the design of their shoes - for example, by limiting the number of copies that can be produced.
There is one other issue to consider, and it is yet another advantage of the Molecule structure. Having an NFT is a good thing, even strategic when NFTs represent intellectual property of some kind. However, it is also necessary to check the availability, for a sufficiently long time, of the content of this NFT. This means that the site, and the database allowing access to the content of the NFT must have a duty of durability and maintenance. This is also something to keep in mind.
V. Royalties and business models
NFTs offer a potential new source of revenue to the owners of digital assets, and by exetension in some cases, to the underlying assets. Smart Contracts can be set up to pay the owner, the first owner, the creator, or whatever, a fixed or variable amount of money for each transaction.
It is thus possible, in a dynamic of license between a laboratory and an industrialist, who will himself decline the license, to remunerate the original laboratory at each transaction.
I. Submit an article
To submit an article for publication, simply fill out the following form: https://airtable.com/shr2o2XaOvPeHXLqP
This form contains the essential information for its submission. If your item is selected, then it will appear in the next month's edition. We take pleasure in surprising our authors with their presence or not in the edition.
Either way, your article will be referenced on the Alpha Risk website.
II. How will it be chosen among the proposed items?
For the moment, it is the Alpha Risk team that reads and audits the articles that will be presented in the monthly edition. This operation is temporary, in order to leave the time to the development of the web site, to the system of vote of this last one.
III. In the future, what will be the selection method?
The vision of Alpha Risk is very clear: the scientific community has the means, and will have the duty, to choose the articles to put forward in the monthly edition.
This means that all members of the Alpha Risk community will be able, throughout the month preceding the publication, to vote for the articles that will be present in our journal. For the moment, Alpha Risk remain to the number of 5 the number of article to present. We hope to increase this number in the future.
The DAO, constituted by researchers, doctors, scientists, artists... Will have for mission to put in light the best articles according to THEM. And not according to a particular committee...
The web site in construction of Alpha Risk will be the place of sharing of the scientific articles, but also the place of vote, discussion and exchange on an article.
We really believe in the immeasurable contribution that can create the discussion of several scientists around the same article, and this in a decentralized, asynchronous way. To remove the space-time barriers of the scientific exchange is a mission of Alpha Risk, that we will realize, thanks to you.
It is not yet clear to Alpha Risk how we will onboard DAO members. We don't want to see sybil attacks from illintentioned authors, just to promote their article. While we believe deeply in the goodness of humans, we must protect ourselves from deviants.
Several avenues are being explored, such as a decentralized and anonymous validated digital identity to identify all voters.
IV. What will be the benefit of being part of the DAO?
Actively participating in the DAO community, and in the selection of articles, discussion, and even editing is a profoundly good act for the future of science. These acts should be rewarded.
Alpha Risk explores with its users different methods of reward, as a part of the profits which could come from the commercialization, in the medium term. Other models, such as paid submission, are to be studied. Indeed, even 1$ per article, allows to reward all the persons who create value around the newspaper.
Alpha Risk takes to heart to realize this work, and the following ones, as she realized in the past scientific researches: Without prejudices, by testing all the possibilities, and especially by listening to her peers.
The reward of the readers will thus be defined by... the readers. Alpha Risk will propose models. The community also. And we will decide, together, the best way to make this journal last.
V. Conclusion and thanks
It is with great pleasure that we close this first journal. Whether you have read a paragraph, or devoured the entire pages of this book, we thank you. You have just given the most precious thing you have, your time, to read us.
Knowing that you read us gives us the energy to provide you with even more content next month.
Far from us wanting to have millions of followers on social networks, it is mainly for the team a way to estimate the number of readers of each publication.
So don't hesitate to follow the next publications on Twitter: