1. OK Ewan?

2. COORDINATION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL MOUSE INFORMATICS RESOURCES WORKPACKAGE 6: Data acquisition, curation and ownership Nadia Rosenthal Mouse Biology Unit EMBL-Monterotondo

3. 1. University of Cambridge (Schofield) 2B. MRC-Edinburgh (Davidson) 3.GBF Braunschweig (Schughart) 4.GSF Munich (Hrabe di Angelis) 5A.EMBL-Monterotondo (Rosenthal) 5B.EMBL-EBI (Birney) 6.Fleming Institute Athens (Aidinis) 8.GENESERVICES Cambridge (Weaver) WP6: Participants

4. Assessment and recommendations for data quality control Financial and scientific assessment of curation practices in existing databases Effect of IPR issues on database submissions Recommendations to overcome problems WP6: Objectives

5. To address issues that affect database use and viability, financially and scientifically: quality of data systems set up to validate data mode of curation barriers to the free flow of information into databases generated by perceived IPR issues WP6: Purpose

6. The contribution of this work package is the assessment of data acquisition by the relevant databases. The accuracy of data and data annotation is crucial if databases are going to be widely supported by the scientific community. WP6: Rationale

7. Other factors which affect data submission: real or perceived IPR issues that restrict or delay data submission Databases will only contribute the maximum added value if they contain as much information as possible. This information will be essential for assuring database sustainability. WP6: Rationale

8. Public reporting is necessary to stimulate debate in the community of Researchers, Industry and National policymakers. This work package will generate a report to inform the discussions taking place in other Commission funded projects, funding agencies and policymakers, and with international partners. WP6: Rationale

9. 1.Examine current practice in existing databases regarding data quality assurance traceability provenance Reach a community consensus of best practice. WP6: Workplan

10. 2. Assess the range and costs of curatorial practices annotation strategies Compare the advantages and disadvantages of human expert curation and annotation WP6: Workplan

11. 3. Gather information concerning IPR concerns from the Participants and other stakeholders Compare practices between different funding agencies, companies and institutions Conduct round table talks to discuss a common approach to IPR constraints on data submission. Supported by EMBL Enterprise Management (EMBLEM) Technology Transfer GmbH. WP6: Workplan

12. EMBLEM: EMBL Enterprise Management ETF: EMBL Technology Fund Discovery Protect Idea Start Up Company EMBLEMBLEM ETF Licensing Technology Transfer at EMBL

13. EMBLEM Facts and Figures Wholly owned limited liability company (GmbH) of EMBL Established in 1999 to accelerate the transfer of basic research-derived Intellectual Property for commercial industrial applications A partner of the European Space Agency (ESA) and the German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ) More than 160 licensees including all the major players in the biotech/pharma/instrumentation market(s) Over 250 active license contracts in place More than 50 invention disclosures/year ca. 300 MTAs, 100 CDAs and 40 IIAs executed per year 8 spin-out companies Current Portfolio: >200 granted patents and patent applications 37 © (software/databases) 19 ® trademarks

14. EMBLEM Activities Identify, develop and protect IP Commercialisation (license, collaboration and consultancy agreements) NDAs/CDAs, MTAs, IPR Issues IP portfolio management Market potential and value assessment Structuring of EMBL spin-outs (IP portfolio, management, infrastructure) Training and Education

15. 4. Recommendations as to how the community might be encouraged to contribute at least publicly funded data to public databases. WP6: Workplan

16. 5. Investigate the potential for public/private domains in large databases as a potential source of funding with Biotech SMEs and the Pharma participants. WP6: Workplan

17. Month 18: Development and release of a community consensus statement of good practice for database curation through a publication on the CASIMIR web portal (from WP meeting in Year 1) Month 24: Production of a discussion document on the potential role of public databases for the Biotech/Pharma industry to be published in the scientific literature WP6: Deliverables

18. Month 27: Report on the issues inhibiting data deposition in public databases Report on IPR issues and the position of funding agencies to facilitate policy development for the future of mouse functional genomics (from WP meeting in Year 2) WP6: Deliverables

19. Month 18: preparation of Community consensus statement on good practice Month 27 : Preparation of Paper on role of public databases for the Biotech/Pharma industry and potential funding models Months 10, 21, 33: Three annual networking meetings WP6: Milestones