Accelerating biomedical innovation: a case study of the SPARK program at Stanford University, School of Medicine

Accelerating biomedical innovation: a case study of the

SPARK program at Stanford University, School of Medicine

The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available.

Please share

how this access benefits you. Your story matters.

Citation

Kim, Esther S., Paige M.C. Omura, and Andrew W. Lo. “Accelerating

Biomedical Innovation: a Case Study of the SPARK Program at

Stanford University, School of Medicine.” Drug Discovery Today 22,

no. 7 (July 2017): 1064–1068.

As Published

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.DRUDIS.2017.03.015

Publisher

Elsevier BV

Version

Author's final manuscript

Citable link

http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/120750

Terms of Use

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

Teaser

The

Stanford

SPARK

program

is

an

innovative

academic–industry

partnership

for

translating

academic

biomedical

research.

This

article

highlights

SPARKs

model,

which

can

provide

a

template

for

other

universities

and

institutions

interested

in

de-risking

and

facilitating

the

translation

of

biomedical

research.

Accelerating

biomedical

innovation:

a

case

study

of

the

SPARK

program

at

Stanford

University,

School

of

Medicine

Esther

S.

Kim

,

Paige

M.C.

Omura

and

Andrew

W.

Lo

1_{MITLaboratoryforFinancialEngineering,SloanSchoolofManagement,Cambridge,MA,USA} 2_{MITTechnologyandPolicyProgram,Cambridge,MA,USA}

3_{MITDepartmentofChemicalEngineering,Cambridge,MA,USA}

4_{MITComputerScienceandArtificialIntelligenceLaboratory,Cambridge,MA,USA} 5_{MITDepartmentofElectricalEngineeringandComputerScience,Cambridge,MA,USA} 6_{AlphaSimplexGroupLLC,Cambridge,MA,USA}

Translating

academic

medical

research

into

new

therapies

is

an

important

challenge

for

the

biopharmaceutical

industry

and

investment

communities,

which

have

historically

favored

later-stage

assets

with

lower

risk

and

clearer

commercial

value.

The

Stanford

SPARK

program

is

an

innovative

model

for

addressing

this

challenge.

The

program

was

created

in

2006

to

educate

students

and

faculty

about

bringing

academic

research

from

bench

to

bedside.

Every

year,

the

program

provides

mentorship

and

funding

for

approximately

a

dozen

SPARK

‘scholars,’

with

a

focus

on

impacting

patient

lives,

regardless

of

economic

factors.

By

reviewing

the

detailed

structure,

function

and

operation

of

SPARK

we

hope

to

provide

a

template

for

other

universities

and

institutions

interested

in

de-risking

and

facilitating

the

translation

of

biomedical

research.

Introduction

In this case study we profile the structure and impact of the SPARK Translational Research

Program at Stanford University School of Medicine, a partnership between academics and

individual experts in industry dedicated to overcoming the hurdles of translating academic

discoveriesintodrugsand diagnosticsthataddressunmet clinicalneeds.SPARK’sunderlying

philosophyisthatacademiahasanimportantparttoplayindecreasingthetimeandcostof

developingnewtherapeuticsanddiagnosticsthatbenefitsociety.Bystudyingthisinnovative

partnership,weaimtoprovideatemplateforotheruniversitiesandacademicmedicalcenters

interestedinlaunchingtheirowntranslationalmedicineaccelerators.

Academia—definedheretoincludenonprofituniversitiesandscientificresearchinstitutions

—isamajorstakeholderthatcanplayanimportantpartinprogressingmedicaldevelopment.

Theinteractionsbetweenacademia,thepharmaceuticalindustryandregulatoryauthoritiesare

ofparamountimportanceforensuringthequality,efficacyandsafetyofdrugsinclinicaland

Reviews

KEYNO

TE

REVIEW

Correspondingauthor:Lo,A.W. (alo-admin@mit.edu)

1359-6446/ã2017ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.

commercialuse.Newmodels,suchasthatofSPARK,canfacilitate

partnershipsamongstakeholdersandacceleratethe

commerciali-zationofbiomedicalresearch.

Translational

medicine

background

Thepastfewdecadeshavebroughttremendousbreakthroughsin

the fundamental knowledge necessary for understanding,

pre-venting, diagnosingandtreating manydiseases—breakthroughs

suchashumangenomesequencing,immunotherapiesandgene

therapies.However,theprocessoftranslatingnewdiscoveriesinto

productsseverelylagsbehindthepaceofdiscovery.Thetransition

periodwhenadevelopingtechnologyisseenaspromisingbutis

toonewtovalidateitscommercialpotentialandunabletoattract

the necessary funding for itscontinued development has been

coinedthe‘valleyofdeath’[1].Investorsarereluctanttobearthe

fullcostofenteringthevalleyofdeath,owingtothehighriskand

historicallylowreturnoninvestmentforearly-stageR&D.

Conse-quently, only 12% of active preclinical assets reside in large

pharmaceutical companies [2], and 80–90% of biomedical

re-searchprojectsneverprogresstotrialsinhumans[1].

Translationalmedicineisa growingfield,focusedon

addres-singthisgapbetweenmedicaldiscoveryandcommercialization

[3]. Within the past decade, the National Institutes of Health

(NIH) has made translational research a priority, forming the

National Center forAdvancing TranslationalSciences(NCATS)

and launching the Clinical and Translational Science Award

(CTSA) programin 2006.Additionally, at least three journals

aredevotedtofurtheringthefield:ScienceTranslationalMedicine,

JournalofTranslationalMedicineandNewHorizonsinTranslational

Medicine.

The risk-averse attitude in industry opposes the culture of

academia, where risk-taking is often rewarded by promotion

and recognition. The essentialrole of academic institutions in

commercialdrugdevelopmentcallsforabetterfunding

mecha-nism to reward academic contributions and a more efficient

academic–industry collaboration.Although thisprocess is

com-plicatedbythefactthatacademicandcommercialinterestsarenot

alwaysaligned,anevolvinghybriddrugdiscoverymodelcanbe

useful in mitigating risks and increasing productivity. SPARK

providesonesuchexample(Fig.1).

The

origin

and

mission

of

SPARK

The SPARK program was founded in 2006 by Professor Daria

Mochly-Rosen,whocameupwiththeideawhileservingasSenior

Associate Dean for Research in the Dean’s Office of Stanford

UniversitySchoolofMedicine.Twoyearsbeforeherappointment,

shehadtakenaleaveofabsencefromStanfordtofoundherown

company,KAIPharmaceuticals,whichwassubsequentlyacquired

by Amgenin 2011.From herexperiencewithKAI, Dr

Mochly-Rosen found that bridging the translational research gap was

extremely challenging and not necessarily an intuitive process

foracademics.Recognizingtheneedforeducationandfundingto

helpheracademiccolleaguestranslatetheirresearchinto

thera-pies,DrMochly-RosencreatedSPARKwithcrucialearlybacking

fromtheDean’sOfficeoftheSchoolofMedicine,whichallocated

thefundstolaunchtheprogramandcontinuestoprovide

finan-cialsupport.DrMochly-RosenthenrecruitedDrKevinGrimes,an

academicinternistwithdrugdevelopmentexperience,tojoinher

asco-directoroftheprogram.Nowinitstenthyear,SPARKoffers

training, support and mentorship to academic researchers to

pursuebasicresearchwithpotentialmedicalapplications.SPARK’s

statedgoalis‘tomovefivetotennewdiscoverieseachyearfrom

thelab tothe clinicand/ortocommercialdrug and diagnostic

development’[4].

How

SPARK

operates

TheSPARKprogramiscenteredonitsresearchers.Selectedproject

leaders,calledSPARK‘scholars,’receiveUS$50000annuallyfor

twoyears,in additiontoextensiveeducationalmentoringfrom

SPARKadvisors.Everyyear,SPARKselectsaclassof10–15scholars

that remain in the program for a two-year cycle. Since SPARK

startedacceptingopen applicationsin itsfourthyear, over400

projectshavebeen submittedforconsiderationintheprogram.

The SPARK scholars are required to attend interactive weekly

Wednesdaymeetingsthatincludelecturesfromindustryexperts

and project updates that occur on alternate weeks. Although

fundingislimitedtotheselectedscholars,everyuniversity

mem-beriswelcometoattendtheWednesdaymeetingsandengagein

educationalsessions.Currently,100individuals,including

scho-lars,Stanfordcommunitymembersand SPARKadvisornetwork

members,attendregularly.

REVIEWS DrugDiscoveryTodayVolume00,Number00May2017 DRUDIS-2007;NoofPages5

Pleasecitethisarticleinpressas:D.O.C.Kim,D.O.C.Acceleratingbiomedicalinnovation:acasestudyoftheSPARKprogramatStanfordUniversity,SchoolofMedicine,DrugDiscov Target

identification and validation

Screening, hit identification

Lead identification

Lead

optimization Preclinical

Clinical trials

(Phases I & II) Phase III

Academia

_Biotech

Big Pharma

Drug

IDEA

S P A R K

At Stanford

Drug Discovery Today

FIGURE1

SPARKfillsthegapbetweenacademicdiscoveryandindustry.

2 www.drugdiscoverytoday.com Reviews  KEYNO TE REVIEW

Throughoutascholar’sSPARKtenure,fundingisdistributedas

projectmilestonesaremet.Oncea milestoneisachieved,

addi-tionalfundscanberequestedforthenextstageofdevelopment.

Any unused funds revert back to the general pool of funds,

managedcentrallybySPARK.AccesstoStanford’sinfrastructure,

facilitiesandresourceshelpstomaximizeuseoftheUS$50000.

OnekeytoSPARK’ssuccessisitsabilitytotapintothemedical

school’sresources,providingacademicresearcherswithaccessto

clinicianstobetterunderstandthe clinicalimplicationsoftheir

research.

AkeyelementoftheSPARKtrainingisteachinginvestigators

to think using a translational approach.The scholars learn to

identifytheunmetclinicalneedofthepatientandtounderstand

the problem in tandem with product development. In other

words, theyare trainedto ‘keep the end in mind’throughout

theprocess.SPARKusesprojectmanagementtoolssuchastarget

product profiles andproject timelinesto help teams planand

identifykeymilestones,necessaryendpointsandcrucialdecision

points.

Management

The SPARK program, currently led by Drs Mochly-Rosen and

Grimes,operateswithamanagementteamoffiveindividualsthat

oversees communications with project teams, runs its weekly

meetings,overseesSPARK funds and otherwise manages

opera-tions.AlthoughthemajorityofthefundsforSPARKcomesfrom

the Dean’s Office, the program operates independently within

StanfordUniversityandismanagedsolelybytheSPARKteam.

The

advisors

OneofthemostimportantkeystoSPARK’ssuccessistheadvisor

network,thankstoitsstrength,expertiseandengagement.

Advi-sorsvolunteertheirtimetoworkwithSPARKprojects,attendthe

weeklymeetingsandparticipateinevaluatingpotentialprojects.

Theyhavenoownershiporrightstoanyinventionsorintellectual

property from the program. As of 2016, SPARK had over 100

advisorswithsignificantentrepreneurialorindustryexpertisein

drug development, generally in a specific therapeuticarea. On

occasion,advisorsareorganizedintoworkinggroups,focusedon

areassuchasmedicinalchemistry,biologics,financingand

ven-turecapital,businessdevelopmentandclinicaltrialdesign.

Toalleviateconcernsaboutthedisclosureofscholars’research

and assetsat the Wednesday meetings,SPARK mandates

confi-dentialityagreementsforallattendeesandhasworkedtocreatea

cultureoftrustandsharingwithintheprogram.Advisorsremain

engagedbecauseoftheirinterestinthecoresciencebehindthe

projects and the opportunity to remain part of such a strong

networkofindustryexperts.Mentoringisanopportunityforthese

advisorstohaveanadditionalimpactondrugdevelopmentina

low-riskenvironmentandcontinuetousetheexpertiseandskills

gainedfromtheir industryexperience. Further, workingwitha

mission-drivenprogramdedicatedtotranslationalmedicineoffers

anopportunitytohelpbringimpactfulproductstomarket,which

mightnothavebeentheprimaryfocusoftheadvisors’former

for-profitindustryemployers.Theadvisors’commitmentto

further-ingscientific knowledgewithout financialcompensation

main-tainstheintegrityoftheprocessand themissionofthe SPARK

program.

Funding

TheSPARKprogramisfundedprimarilythroughtheDean’sOffice

within the School of Medicine, with additional support from

nonprofitorganizationsandtheNIH.SPARKreceivesnorevenue

from itsprojects. Since 2006,US$7.1million hasbeen spent,

coveringstaffsalaries,scholars’researchexpensesandother

pro-gramexpenses.Additionalfundingfortheprogramcomesfrom

theChildren’sHealthResearchInstituteandgoestowardresearch

projectswithapediatricfocus.Itisakeyelementoftheprogramto

operateonfundsthatarenottiedtocommercialincentives.The

programhasalwaysturneddownfundsfromfor-profitcompanies

becauseofdifferencesinincentives.Whereasfor-profitcompanies

areoften drivenby profitability,SPARKis primarilyfocusedon

addressing unmet medical needs. Accepting funding from

for-profit companies suchas big pharma could dilute the mission

andcreaterealorperceivedconflictsofinterest.

Project

selection

AsignificantfactorcontributingtotheSPARKprogram’s

accom-plishmentsistherigorousprojectselectionprocess,conductedby

ahandpickedcommitteeeachautumn.Thecommitteetypically

consistsofthe SPARKmanagementteam,two-to-threeStanford

facultymembersandadozenSPARKadvisors.Thethreeprimary

criteriaforsuccessfulapplicationsarethattheprojectaddressesan

unmetclinicalneed,usesanovelapproachandhasthepotential

fortheSPARKprogramtoimproveitslicensingand/orclinicaltrial

prospectsoverthetwo-yearcycle.Notably,commercialpotential

isnotafactorintheselectionprocess(SeeSupplementarymaterial

onlineforfurtherdetailsontheprojectselectionprocess).

Program

results

and

benefits

TheSPARKprogramhasauniqueandrigoroussuccessmetric.A

project is deemed successful only if it enters a clinical trial, is

licensedortransferredtoanexistingbiopharmaceuticalcompany,

orleadstothefoundingofanewstartup.Inthe10yearssince

SPARKwasfounded,74projectshavegraduatedfromtheprogram.

Of these, 24 were licensed to startup companies, eight were

licensed to existing companies, four have been transferred to

industrywithoutlicensesand31areinclinicaltrials(tenwithout

licenses).Together,thisamountstoasuccessrateof62%(Fig.2)

(SeeSupplementarymaterialonlineforananalysisofthe

unsuc-cessfulor‘‘failed”SPARKprojects).

Additionally, although the SPARK project selection process

focusesonunmetmedicalneeds,theSPARKprogram generates

significant follow-on grants and funding to support further

re-searchforStanford.Thusfar,SPARKhasgeneratednearlyUS$38.7

million in additional grant funding, 4.95-times the amount

providedbytheDean’sofficeoverthesameperiod(Fig.3).Because

follow-on grants weregenerally received in the second yearof

SPARKparticipation,thismultiplewascalculatedusingadiscount

rateof5%andafundingintervaloftwoyears.

Keys

to

success

ThekeystoSPARK’ssuccessincludethestrengthofitsstructure

andmanagement,collaborativeculture,focusonitsmissionand,

inparticular,itsnetworkofadvisors.Thecombinationof

Stanford-affiliatedresearchersandindustryadvisorsleadsto adistinctive

and necessarydiversityofinterestsand experiences.Other

pro-www.drugdiscoverytoday.com 3

Reviews

KEYNO

TE

gramscomprisingjustacademicscouldhaveanarrowed

perspec-tive,whereasprogramsthathaveasingleorfewadvisorslosethe

checksandbalancesprovidedbyalargernetwork.SPARKadvisors

receivenofinancialcompensation;theyremaininvolvedwiththe

programbecausetheyseevalueinSPARK’smodelandmission.

Challenges

and

future

plans

Financing

OnemajorchallengeforSPARKistoprocuresustainablefunding

fortheprogram.Currently,theprogramreliesheavilyon

institu-tionalfunds,mainlyfromthemedicalschool’sDean’sOffice,as

well as grants from nonprofit and government agencies. The

programtakesnoequitystakeinprojects,andreceivesnoroyalties

fromitsprojects’revenuesorlicensedeals,becauseprofitingfrom

the projects’ commercialsuccesswould notalignwith SPARK’s

core educationaland socialmission. Asitcurrently stands, the

program needs US$2–2.5 million a year in funding. Ironically,

accordingtotheDean’sOffice,manydonorsfindthistoosmallof

an investment.Goingforward,waysthat SPARKmightfinance

itselfincludealong-termendowmentoranannualallocationin

Stanford’sbudget.

ToexpandSPARK’simpact,theprogram’sfounderswouldlike

to support projects further into the development cycle. Some

projects need more funding to reach a value inflection point;

forexample,anantibodytherapeuticcannotmoveforward

with-outhumanizationoftheantibody—anendeavorthatcostsmuch

morethanthetypicalSPARKinvestmentofUS$50000–100000.

However,expandingtheprogramwillrequiresignificantlymore

fundingthantheprogramcurrentlydeploys.

Institutional

support

AnotherkeyconsiderationisthatSPARK’slongevityreliesonthe

continuedpartnershipandsupportfromtheStanfordUniversity

SchoolofMedicine.ProgramssuchasSPARKneedinstitutional

buy-in,especiallyinthealignmentofthebroaderuniversitywith

their key values. For sucha partnership to thrive, institutions

cannotexpectsubstantialrevenuesorrewards—although

univer-sitiesdobenefitfromincreasedsuccessincommercializing

intel-lectualproperty. Institutionsmustrecognize the significanceof

thelesstangiblebenefits,suchasthecreationofastrong

institu-tionalmemoryandinfrastructure.Forexample,Stanford

Univer-sitybenefitsfromthesuccessesandengagementofformerscholars

whofindindustrypositionswiththehelpofSPARKandcontinue

toremaininvolvedinSPARK.

Measuring

success

Drug development and the translationof researchis a lengthy

endeavor,hencethe long-termimpactofSPARKisstillunclear.

AlthoughSPARK’scurrentsuccessmetricmatchesthe

contempo-rarylandscape,inmovingforwardSPARKwillneedtopinpointthe

rightmetricsandimplementthenecessaryprocessestotrackthe

directimpactof itsprojects.Similarly, SPARKwould benefitby

measuringtheimpactoftheindirectbenefitsoftheprogramtothe

university, such as increased education and job placement in

industry.

REVIEWS DrugDiscoveryTodayVolume00,Number00May2017 DRUDIS-2007;NoofPages5

Pleasecitethisarticleinpressas:D.O.C.Kim,D.O.C.Acceleratingbiomedicalinnovation:acasestudyoftheSPARKprogramatStanfordUniversity,SchoolofMedicine,DrugDiscov

28%

20%

14%

38%

74 Graduated projects

Commercial & in clinic (21) Commercial, not in clinic (15) In clinic, not commercial (10) Other (failed POC/unlicensed yet) (28)

62% Success

Drug Discovery Today

FIGURE2

DistributionofgraduatedSPARKprojectoutcomes.

Total SPARK project investment 7100000

Total additional funding generated 35200000

US$7.1 US$35.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Total SPARK project investment

Total additional funding generated

Millions (US$)

SPARK follow-on grant funding

Drug Discovery Today

FIGURE3

SPARKhasgeneratedsignificantfollow-ongrantsfrom2007to2015.

4 www.drugdiscoverytoday.com Reviews  KEYNO TE REVIEW

Replicating

the

program

Inthe recentdecadesince itslaunch, theprogram has learned

manythingsaboutthechallengesofdrugdevelopment,someof

themuniquetoacademia.Projectsaregenerallysuccessfulwhen

physician-scientistscanidentifyastrongmedicalneed,andwhen

theyarebasedonstrongscience.Furthermore,aclearor

identifi-ablepathwaytopatientsiscrucialfordevelopment.

SPARKhasmadesignificantprogressinbridgingthevalleyof

death, but its scope is currently limited to Stanford. Although

somemightarguethatSPARKisuniquelypositionedtosucceed

giventhestrengthofStanfordUniversity’sresourcesanditsSilicon

Valley location, the SPARK founders envision SPARK-like

pro-gramsatuniversitiesacrosstheUSAandabroadplayingalarger

role in systemically affecting early-stage translational efforts.

SPARK-like programshave alreadybeen startedin the USAand

in24universitiesineightcountriesabroad[5].Thesereplication

effortsrelyonaninstitution’sabilitytoobtainbackingfromthe

localacademic and biopharmacommunities,to createa strong

advisornetwork,tocollaboratewithtechnologylicensingoffices

andtomaintainastrongbiomedicalresearchprogram.

Concluding

remarks

SPARKhasachievedremarkablesuccessintranslatingbiomedical

discoveriesthusfar.However,forSPARKtobeanattractivemodel

forotherinstitutions,theprogramwillneedtofurtherarticulate

successmetricsandcollectdatafrompastandcurrentscholarsto

inform futuredecisions. Similarly, anunderstanding ofproject

failures can provide valuable information for future projects.

BecausemanybenefitsfromSPARKcannotbeeasilyquantified,

suchaseducationalandprofessionalenrichment,onechallenge

SPARKfacesismeaningfullycapturingtheimpactoftheprogram,

includingtotalgrantsreceived,prestigeoftheprogram,impacton

universityrecruitingandthefuturesuccessesofgraduatedSPARK

scholars.

Finally, stakeholders across the board, including the Dean’s

Officeofthe StanfordUniversitySchoolofMedicine,agreethat

SPARKhasthepotentialtoinitiateacriticalconversationamong

numerous stakeholders about the need for systemic changein

translationalmedicine.Suchaconversationwouldnotonly

re-ducethebarrierstodrugdevelopmentandincreasetheefficiency

oftheentirebiopharmaindustrybutcouldgetmorelife-saving

therapiesintothehandsofdoctorsandpatientssooner.

Conflicts

of

interest

E.K.andP.O.declarethattheyhavenocompetinginterests.A.W.

L. reports personal investments in BridgeBio Capital (also an

adviser), ImmuneXcite, KEW, MPM Capital, Novalere, Royalty

Pharma and Visionscope, and is a director of Roivant Sciences

andtheMITWhiteheadInstituteforBiomedicalResearch.

Acknowledgments

WethankDariaMochly-RosenandKevinGrimesforagreeingto

participateinthiscasestudyandprovidingaccesstotheSPARK

programstaff,scholars,advisors,supportersanddata.Wethank

KristinaBender,RobertBooth,LeonChen,MarciaCohen,Nina

Kjellson,KatharineKu,JoshLichtman,SteveSchow,Merhdad

ShamlooandEddaSpiekerkoetterforparticipatingininterviews

forthisarticle(seeSupplementarymaterialonlineforinterviewee

biographies).WethankEmilyEgeler,NancyFederspielandthe

SPARKprogramstafffortheirhospitalityandhelpfacilitating

interviewsandprovidinginformationforourresearch.Wealso

thankKailashSwarnaforhisthoughtfulcommentsthroughout

thedevelopmentofthecaseandJaynaCummingsforeditorial

comments.Theviewsandopinionsexpressedinthisarticleare

thoseoftheauthorsonlyanddonotnecessarilyrepresentthe

viewsandopinionsofanyinstitutionoragency,anyoftheir

affiliatesoremployees,oranyoftheindividualsacknowledged

above.

ResearchsupportfromtheMITLaboratoryforFinancial

Engi-neeringisgratefullyacknowledged.Allauthorscontributed

equally.A.W.L.firstconceivedtheideaofwritingacasestudyof

theStanfordSPARKprogramandheldseveralmeetingswithkey

programleadersinpreparationforthestudy.Interviewswere

arrangedandconductedbyE.K.andP.O.inconsultationwithA.

W.L.Allauthorscontributedtothepreparationofthemanuscript.

Appendix

A.

Supplementary

data

Supplementarydataassociatedwiththisarticlecanbefound,in

theonlineversion,athttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2017.03.

015.

References

1Meslin,E.M.etal.(2013)Mappingthetranslationalsciencepolicy‘valleyofdeath’.

Clin.Transl.Med.2,http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2001-1326-2-14https://clintransmed.

springopen.com/articles

2Mayhew,S.(2010)Dealwatch:trendsindiscoveryexternalization.Nat.Rev.Drug Discov.9,183

3Machado,C.M.(2015)Thesemanticwebintranslationalmedicine:current applicationsandfuturedirections.BriefingsBioinform.16,89–103

4Mochly-Rosen,D.andGrimes,K.,eds)(2014)APracticalGuidetoDrugDevelopmentin Academia:TheSPARKApproach,Springer, NewYork

5Gehr,S.andGarner,C.C.(2016)Rescuingthelostintranslation.Cell165,765–770

www.drugdiscoverytoday.com 5

Reviews

KEYNO

TE