CNS Spectrums
www.cambridge.org/cns
Editorial
Cite this article: Eyre HA, Searfoss J,
Hopwood M, Berk M, Chen S, Cummings J,
Veron F, Zikopoulou V, Ibanez A, Kelly K,
Soares JC, Smith E, and Gilbert BJ (2023).
Open innovation: the key to advancing
brain health. CNS Spectrums 28(4), 392–394.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S109285292200092X
Received: 11 July 2022
Accepted: 12 July 2022
Key words:
Open innovation; brain health; corporate
innovation; venture capital; closed innovation;
entrepreneurship; equity
Author for correspondence:
*Harris A. Eyre, MD, PhD
Email: harris.eyre@gmail.com
Open innovation: the key to advancing
brain health
Harris A. Eyre1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8* , Jason Searfoss9, Malcolm Hopwood10,11,
Michael Berk3,10,11,12, Shuo Chen1, Jeffrey Cummings13, Francois Veron14,
Vicki Zikopoulou15, Agustin Ibanez6,7,8,16,17, Kacie Kelly1,2, Jair C. Soares5,
Erin Smith1,6,7,18 and Barnabas J. Gilbert19
1
Neuroscience-Inspired Policy Initiative, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development and the PRODEO Institute, Paris, France, 2Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute, Dallas, TX, USA, 3Institute for Mental and
Physical Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia, 4Department of
Psychiatry, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA, 5Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Health
Sciences Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA, 6Global Brain Health Institute, University of California, San Francisco,
San Francisco, CA, USA, 7Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland, 8Latin American Brain Health Institute, Universidad
Adolfo Ibáñez, Santiago, Chile, 9Boomtown Accelerators, Boulder, CO, USA, 10Department of Psychiatry, The
University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia, 11The Florey Institute for Neuroscience and Mental Health, The
University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia, 12ORYGEN Youth Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC,
Australia, 13Chambers-Grundy Center for Transformative Neuroscience, Department of Brain Health, School of
Integrated Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), Henderson, NV, USA, 14Newfund Capital, Paris,
France, 15Likeminds, Boston, MA, USA, 16National Scientific and Technical Research Council, Buenos Aires, Argentina,
17
Cognitive Neuroscience Center, Universidad de San Andrés, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 18School of Medicine,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA and 19School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
Abstract
With the exponential growth in investment attention to brain health—solutions spanning brain
wellness to mental health to neurological disorders—tech giants, payers, and biotechnology
companies have been making forays into this field to identify technology solutions and
pharmaceutical amplifiers. So far, their investments have had mixed results. The concept of
open innovation (OI) was first coined by Henry Chesbrough to describe the paradigm by which
enterprises allow free flow of ideas, products, and services from the outside to the inside and vice
versa in order to remain competitive, particularly in rapidly evolving fields where there is
abundant, relevant knowledge outside the traditional walls of the enterprise. In this article, we
advocate for further exploration and advancement of OI in brain health.
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge
University Press.
Brain health disorders include 5 of the top 10 causes of disability globally. It is essential that
therapy development initiatives ultimately succeed—large corporations are critical to developing and delivering new solutions in the brain health sector. Large companies have huge
resources, market penetration, and skills, especially in the dissemination of new ideas,
products, and services. In addition, they produce innovations such as smart devices and app
platforms that can help patients with neurological maladies and mental illnesses. They are an
important component of the innovation ecosystem that includes universities, start-ups, and
venture capital.
So why do corporate entities often struggle with innovation? Although they employ much of
the technical and scientific talent in the market, they are also dealing with a sharp gap in brain
health and entrepreneurship skills at present. Furthermore, many scientists are not trained in
how to operate in corporate environments. This has led to calls for the emergence of brain health
executives in the corporate setting.1 Technology innovation is proceeding at a faster rate than
hiring, acquisitions, and mergers can accommodate. In addition, bigger corporations, which can
usually accomplish incremental innovation, are not nearly as adept at disruptive innovation—the
kind we really need to bring new products and services into the marketplace and advance the
cause of brain health. What is needed is an open platform providing a rapidly deployable solution
for corporate innovation programs.
The concept of open innovation (OI) was first coined by Henry Chesbrough.2 It describes the
paradigm by which enterprises allow free flow of ideas, products, and services from the outside to
the inside and vice versa in order to remain competitive, particularly in rapidly evolving fields
where there is abundant, relevant knowledge outside the traditional walls of the enterprise.
What is the solution to this technology gap between innovators and companies capable of
large-scale implementation? What that means in practice is that large companies can more
effectively advance their innovation goals by partnering with an OI platform providing the best
start-ups, entrepreneurs, and researchers in the field of brain health. This is not dissimilar to
https://doi.org/10.1017/S109285292200092X Published online by Cambridge University Press
393
CNS Spectrums
pharma, where small biotech companies develop products that are
taken to commercialization by big pharma.
Nearly everyone knows someone who has been impacted by a
brain health condition, and the interest for many is sparked by
circumstances that are deeply personal. Understanding the intricacies of the space is not easy, and we think that investor expertise
will be developed along a curve like that of biopharma. Due
diligence will be needed at every phase of technology development
to understand if it serves the investor’s purpose and how close to
“market ready” the product or service has progressed.
External innovation platforms can be simultaneously open and
bespoke, providing a turnkey solution to the talent gap. Carefully
constructed OI platforms that identify and meet gaps can drive
major progress in the brain health field. The OI platform can
provide the setting for due diligence, comparative analysis, and
landscape scoping.
To provide concrete examples, major electronic health record
companies like Epic and Cerner are well positioned to help clinicians and patients in the brain health sector, given their robust
standing in that market. Health insurance companies are in a
unique position to deploy and reimburse novel approaches to care.
Companies like Johnson & Johnson, Apple, and Roche-Genentech
can also contribute with their digital-drug solutions and innovations in digital therapeutics and wearable medical devices. Social
media entities like SNAP and Meta can uniquely pair biometric
data with rich digital phenotyping data to develop new screening
and diagnostics insights. University innovators and start-up entrepreneurs can provide expertise and promote products useful at all
levels of brain health therapeutic development—from drug discovery to late-stage trials and to the marketing of approved agents.
However, there has been little investment success to date. For
example, Alphabet’s X, Google’s “Moonshot Factory,” announced
in 2020 its Project Amber had failed to identify a single biomarker
for depression after 3 years of searching for one (researchers then
said that it is likely no such biomarker exists). More rapid information regarding the availability of desired products and possible
use of the platform to crowdsource new solutions are features that
could accelerate solving major pharmaceutical and biotechnology
challenges.
We note the early success of the Canadian Baycrest (https://
www.baycrest.org/; an academic health sciences center providing a
continuum of care for older adults, including independent living,
Closed innovation relies on internal idea
generation and development
assisted living, long-term care, and a post-acute hospital) in the
development of the Centre for Aging þ Brain Health Innovation.3
The Centre provides a foundation for the funding, development,
and preliminary testing of new neuro-gero technologies.
Corporations have been slow to adopt the changes in operational approach and governance that are necessary for success in
the brain health innovation field.
Traditionally closed innovation models fail to make use of a
network of talent that can more readily advance brain health
products, services, and solutions.
By contrast, in an OI paradigm, “seekers” (firms, including Big
Tech and Big Pharma companies, looking for advances in a
particular field) interact with “discoverers” (innovators developing novel approaches) and “solvers” (resource and translational
platforms with a proven track record of devising solutions to
innovation challenges). Figure 1 outlines closed innovation
versus OI.
No one enterprise possesses all the resources and knowledge
needed to drive innovation. Embracing OI is an optimal way to
accomplish major progress in the brain health field.
Real innovation and progress in brain health challenges are not
aligned with short-term return on capital needs. There is an urgent
need to source “patient capital” from investors who are impatient
for progress and solutions to debilitating disorders but can be
patient for the financial returns that will follow. It was encouraging
to see British Patient Capital launching a £600-million Life Sciences
Investment Programme in July 2021, in collaboration with Mubadala Investment Company, although there is presently no explicit
focus on neurological or psychiatric drug development.4 Other
solutions such as healthy brain bonds and venture philanthropy
were recently outlined in our paper exploring brain capital impact
investing.5-7
Of course, governments play a major role in the provision of
brain health care and in the funding of brain health innovation, and
they could therefore be key partners in OI platforms. Public-private
partnerships, such as the Davos Alzheimer’s Collaborative, provide
a model for this.8
Such an open platform could be instrumental in fighting brain
health innovation inequities in low- and middle-income countries.9 In these settings, development in brain health innovation
is hampered by a lack of expertise in entrepreneurship, technology
commercialization, and technology implementation.
Open innovation platforms pull from external
and internal sources
Internal idea
Internal idea
Corporate limit
Corporate limit
External
collaborators
External idea
Alternate
markets
Market
Figure 1. Open versus closed innovation.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S109285292200092X Published online by Cambridge University Press
Market
394
Acquiring and applying the knowledge and experience of external partners can help gain access to talent, resources, and new
markets—in short, the expertise of those who are close to innovating the solution to a problem. Finally, robust OI platforms can be a
hedging strategy beyond a single product, through the creation of a
portfolio of products and services targeting different elements of
the brain health paradigm (eg, different technologies, geographies,
or indications), and which consequently diversifies risk.
For these reasons, we are confident that OI platforms can
provide a solid foundation for advancing brain health.
Financial support. This work received no specific grant from any funding
agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author contributions. Conceptualization: A.I., B.J.G., S.C., J.L.C., E.S., F.V.,
J.S., J.C.S., K.K., M.B., V.Z., and H.A.E.; Data curation, Funding acquisition,
Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision,
Validation, Writing—original draft, and Writing—review & editing: H.A.E.
Disclosures. J.C. has provided consultation to Acadia, Alkahest, AriBio,
Avanir, Axsome, Behren Therapeutics, Biogen, Cassava, Cerecin, Cerevel,
Cortexyme, EIP Pharma, Eisai, GemVax, Genentech, Green Valley, Grifols,
Janssen, Jazz, Karuna, LSP, Merk, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, ReMYND, Resverlogix, Roche, Signant Health, Sunovion, Suven, United Neuroscience, and
Unlearn AI pharmaceutical and assessment companies. J.C. owns the copyright of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. J.S. reports income and equity from
Boomtown Accelerators. M.H. has received grant or research support in the
past 5 years from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Medical
Research Future Fund, Ramsay Health Research Foundation, BoehringerIngelheim, Douglas, Janssen-Cilag, Lundbeck, Lyndra, Otsuka, Praxis, and
Servier, and has been a consultant for Janssen-Cilag, Lundbeck, Otsuka, and
Servier. M.B. has received Grant/Research Support from the NIH, Simons
Foundation, CRC for Mental Health, Stanley Medical Research Institute,
MBF, NHMRC, Beyond Blue, Geelong Medical Research Foundation, Bristol
https://doi.org/10.1017/S109285292200092X Published online by Cambridge University Press
Harris A. Eyre et al.
Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Organon, Novartis, Mayne
Pharma, Servier, Astra Zeneca, and Meat & Livestock Australia. He has been
a paid consultant for Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo
SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, and Pfizer, and a paid speaker for Astra
Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag,
Lundbeck, Organon, Pfizer, Sanofi Synthelabo, Solvay, and Wyeth.
H.A.E. and E.S. report income from PRODEO LLC. J.C.S. has received
research grants from Compass, Alkermes, and Allergan, and has served as a
consultant for Pfizer, Sunovion, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, Livanova, and
Boehringer Ingelheim. V.Z. reports income from LikeMinds and Amana
Global Partners. There are no other relevant disclosures. M.H., F.V., A.I.,
K.K., and B.J.G. do not have anything to disclose.
References
1. Eyre HA, Berk M, Smith E, et al. Brain health executives: a transdisciplinary
workforce innovation—A commentary. Innov Clin Neurosci. 2021;18(4–6):
24–27.
2. Chesbrough HW. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and
Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press; 2006.
3. Centre for Aging þ Brain Health Innovation; 2022. https://www.cabhi.com/.
Accessed November 7, 2022.
4. British Patient Capital; 2022. https://www.britishpatientcapital.co.uk/.
Accessed November 7, 2022.
5. Smith E, Ali D, Wilkerson B, et al. A brain capital grand strategy: toward
economic reimagination. Mol Psychiatry. 2021;26(1):3–22.
6. Dawson WD, Smith E, Booi L, et al. Investing in late-life brain capital. Innov
Aging 2022;6:igac016.
7. Eyre HA, Faulkenberg M, Das S, et al. Brain capital: an emerging investment
opportunity. Psychiatric Times. 2022. https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/
view/brain-capital-an-emerging-investment-opportunity.
https://www.
8. Davos
Alzheimer’s
Collaborative;
2022.
davosalzheimerscollaborative.org/. Accessed November 7, 2022.
9. Ternes K, Iyengar V, Lavretsky H, et al. Brain health INnovation Diplomacy:
a model binding diverse disciplines to manage the promise and perils of
technological innovation. Int Psychogeriatr. 2020;32(8):955–979.