mattodd
commented
6 years ago Hi @cdsouthan. A lot to address in a single post, but thanks for starting. Briefly:
My move will not result in any major changes to how OSM works - we are online and a decentralised group by design. My aim (hopefully our aim) is for OSM to grow - we must if we are to bias the odds in our favour of progressing a molecule to preclinical. Pursuing major funding will be a priority for me. In the short term I will be able to put a chemistry postdoc on OSM for 2 years in London (advert coming soon). This person will work with Ed, Marat and Tha, who will work on their OSM-related PhD research in Sydney, hopefully with extended research stays in London. Besides we (as a group) seeking more support I am hoping that others will take a leaf out of @holeung 's book and pursue funding independently towards OSM projects, where OSM acts as a big in-kind resource that adds value to the direct grant funding. S4 has continued promise, particularly if the Pfizer compound displays potency and improved solubility. There are several other candidates vs ATP4 in development, absolutely, but none are yet there (this could change!) There is work remaining (and a paper) on predictive activity modeling with Kiaran Kirk and the refinement of the competition entries - coming soon once Kiaran's paper is accepted. If Series 3 continues to show promise, then there is work to be done there too. But there can always be Series 5, 6 and so on if people want to argue the case and take on the responsibility of posting initial data. Having several series to pursue will greatly improve the chances of core funding for the platform in the coming years particularly if we prioritise novel MoA. There is a huge amount to do on improving the ways we work - the difficulty of securing resources for this is one of the reasons platform (as opposed to project-specific) funding is so important. There is also a lot to do on crowdsourcing synthesis, where we need dedicated resources for coordinating student teams (Alice in Sydney and a new contact at my Alma Mater, Queen Mary, for example).
(Re the repository - Sydney and UCL both have robust repositories, as do most universities nowadays, but are you thinking of contributors who are not part of such institutions and who are regularly generating data? It might be easier to enable guest rights to existing repos?)
Lots to discuss here (please keep going below) but, briefly, upshot is: i) OSM needs to grow if we want to demonstrate that an open source-derived compound can progress, ii) several of my students in Sydney (plus new postdoc in London) will continue their research as normal, iii) we need as a group to be submitting significant applications for support for our work in the coming 12 months.
cdsouthan
MedChemProf
danaklug
MFernflower
edwintse
Given @mattodd s forthcoming move (congrats :) and the imminent output of the S4 paper it might be a good time to cogitate on the next big steps. For example a) will the OSM web stuff and or wet-work be mirrored to Brunswick Square? b) is there a sucession plan for someone to head up the Sydney wet-work c) are we going to draw a line under S4 and move on, since it seems a bit slow going and there are several PfATP4 inhibitors in more advanced stages of development? d) there are still some technical loose ends in our "ways of working" for the future. In particular what about setting up of an institutional figshare repositry (London or Sydney?) that the project data could permenantly persist in?