DOI:10.1002/cmdc.201900565 Editorial

Six Laws of Open Source Drug Discovery Matthew H. Todd[a]

1. Open Source Applied to Drug Discovery ble, but not the transformative feature of initiatives like Wikipe- dia. In open source the community participates in peer-re- Creating and developing new medicinesrequires astream of viewedpublicwork. Depending on the exact licence of the innovations. Many of these are in the technical side of our dis- project, one will have high levels of freedomtoact. Crucially, cipline:methods in organic synthesis, assay technologies, ma- one may act while the work is happening, rather than merely chine learning, or approaches based in fundamentalbiology. after it is complete. Youare aplayer,not an observer.There is Some innovations arise in allied disciplines of economics, or cooperation towards goals that operates alongside an open law.But in parallel we must try to notice when our work pat- competition in how work is done, i.e.,collaborationwithin a terns are constrainedbysocial structures that may limit our ratherbrutal, open arena of expertise. abilitiestofunctionmost effectively.Are we going about Over the last 15 years, Ihave worked with large numbers of things in the right way?Are we innovating in the way that we people who are interested in open source in drug discovery work? because the approach promises to be able to solve problems There are large-scale initiatives in pharma trying to address in exactly the way that the pharma industry,ifacting alone, this under the banner of “”.[1] The term is neb- cannot. If one values competition, as Isuspectall scientists do, ulous, but there is typically some re-orientation of acompany then acompetition of approaches must be seen as healthy.If to be more outward-facing—to place problemsinthe public open source can competewith proprietary methods in acom- domain and attempt to broaden the net of expertise in order mercial space as valuableastelecommunications(i.e.,the proj- to solve those problems faster.The broad range of such initia- ects leading to Android vs. iOS) can the same competition of tives means that while some are highly valuable, others are ideas benefitanother commercially-important area:drug dis- branding exercises. Either way they will in general not change covery? the way we work:just as for secretive, inward-facing endeav- Istrongly suspectitcan. The answer depends on the dis- ours, participants in open innovationprojects typically work in ease. But Iamrunningthis experiment with others because closed groups, revealing only that which is felt worth sharing. the answer is not yet clear. The open part of open innovation is the shared problem, but This article is intended to clarify key terms. One cannot set not necessarily the proposed, and attempted, solutions. off for the moon without some basic principles of operation, Examples of an alternative way of workingare all around us, and vaguenesscan be worse than nothing. We ought to be but largely viewed as insufficiently seriousfor science. Wikipe- clear what “open source drug discovery” means. When Istart- dia has transformed the way knowledge is curated,aggregat- ed in this endeavour the term was aspirational,but we have ed, and shared, yet is probably the tool that scientists deny now run several successful projectswith aclear and unified set using mostfrequently.The softwarethat underpins the inter- of principles, and Iwould like to highlight these because they net was built using amethod similartothat behind Wikipedia, are useful. Operations have been distilled to six laws that have specifically that the details can be seen by anyone andpeople held stronginthe real world and which are the subjectofthis can work together openly to improvethe content or take it in article. anew direction. There is no appetite for secrecyorsilos be- cause those stifle our ability to access the best ideas, and why 2. How the Laws Came About would you want to do that?This methodisopen source,dis- tinct from open innovation and to be distinguished from ,which term refers to our ability to read papers—valua- Aswith any endeavourdesigned to elicit maximum inclusion and productivity,there is afine line to navigate between free- dom to operate on the one hand and asense of order and uni- [a] Prof. M. H. Todd fied purpose on the other.Yuval Noah Harari makes anice SchoolofPharmacy University College London point in his book Sapiens that corporationsexist beyondthe 29–39 Brunswick Square, WC1N 1AX London (UK) physical–that they may possess alasting identitywithoutany The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this articlecan be permanent assets.[2] It is the same with open source initiatives. found under: The lack of atangible “thing” or “building” remains one of the https://doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.201900565. most challenging ideas for those coming to an open source  2019 The Author. PublishedbyWiley-VCH Verlag GmbH &Co. KGaA. project for the first time, yet the fluidityofits structure and This is an openaccessarticleunder the termsofthe Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in constitution provides the kind of resilience you observe when any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. trying to spear ashoal of fish. “What is an open source proj-

ChemMedChem 2019, 14,1804 –1809 1804  2019 The Authors. PublishedbyWiley-VCH Verlag GmbH &Co. KGaA, Weinheim Editorial ect?” is acomplicated question, but ashort form answer to date, over 300 people on the four OSM campaigns. The might be “people, andtheir enthusiasm for ashared public Laws can apply equally well to the next campaigns that I, or mission”. others,create under OSM’sbanner or to similarprojects in The SixLaws attempt to capture someofthis structure, but other areas of drug discovery that people might want to run.[8] were not set up apriori. They arose from the first project Iran The Laws are intended to guide behaviour,tofree people to in an open way:the search for arobustroute to an enantio- act to the best of their ability within aframework that pro- pure version of the world’smost widely used anthelmintic, pra- motesadistinctive discoveryprocess. They do not hasp and ziquantel.[3] The need for such an improvement had been ex- hoop the contributors, and can be changed in the future if plicitly mentionedasaresearch priority by the tropical disease they are found to be faulty. research divisionofthe World Health Organisation. To solve it, The first three Laws clarify day-to-day operations. The others Iproposedsome chemically elaborate approaches and placed are more subtle, big-picture concepts. them online in an attempt to kick-start an open approach to solving this chiral switch. My intention was to mimic the hive mind that was, in late 2004, having amajor impact on the con- 3. The Laws struction of new software and Wikipedia. The project became busy once we were modestly funded. At this point reality col- lided with the grandeurofgrant proposals and the scientific approachwewere takingchanged in response to precisely the expert collective intelligence Ihad hoped for,freely given and mostly from the private sector.The solution emerged swiftly and was solid. The science was unquestionably accelerated through the inputs of well-qualified strangers. Over adinnerinCape Town hostedbyKellyChibaleIgot talking with TimWells, the CSO of the Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV), who asked the obviousquestion:could we use the same approach to the discovery not of betterchemical routes, but of new chemicalentities? The conversation went back and forth until we decided that conversation can only take people so far,and it is sometimesbetter to learn by doing. Open SourceMalaria (OSM, initially called Open Source Drug Discovery for Malaria)was born from that conversation and the invaluable wisdom of the MMV team of Jeremy Bur- rows and Paul Willis. Irealized that this might turn into a larger endeavour:there were no such initiatives anywhere else. Genomics collaborations, such as the Human Genome Project,had pioneered the sharingofdata sets with clear com- mercial potential, downstream. There continues to be agreat deal of impactful research into open source tools in cheminfor- matics.[4] The Open SourceDrug Discovery project in India was, despite its name, operating acrowdsourcinginitiative as op- posed to something that was open source.[5] The StructuralGe- nomicsConsortium were pioneering the bold sharingofchem- 1) All Data and Ideas Are Freely Shared. ical probes (not drugs or their analogs)and werenot propos- ing the sharing of the full research cycle that led to them.[6] We This is adeceptively short Law that we oughttounpick if we were proposing something different—secrecy-free creationof are not to miss some essential features. We might callit“The new medicines. Condensed” law.When experiments are performed, those To minimize confusion, it was important to capture the core need to be recorded in alaboratory notebook (obviously), and principles of OSM in away that would be simple to under- that notebook(wherever it is) needs to be available to read in stand for potentialincomersand to ensure those joining in its entirety.This means it needs to be online and, to be of any knew the level of mischief they would be getting into. So on practical use, not behind apassword wall. It is remarkable how July 25th 2011, led by what Ifelt to be the most important les- many academic scientists are still using paper lab books that sons learned from the WHO project, Iwrote down the ‘Six reside on desks, as if in homage to Leonardo da Vinci. We Laws’ of OSM.[7] The list alwaysbrings out the most phone have not the space to cover the subjectofnotebooks here cameras when Ispeak about open sourcedrug discovery, an (typically“Electronic Laboratory Notebooks” or ELNs),[9] but observation that has led to this article. What Ifind remarkable given peoples’ propensity to have opinions, we cannot pro- is how well these Laws have stood the test of time, holding es- scribe aparticular ELN (which would be adistraction) and sentially unaltered for 8years and guiding the involvement of, should insteadfocus on the core FAIR principles of findability,

ChemMedChem 2019, 14,1804 –1809 www.chemmedchem.org 1805  2019 The Authors. PublishedbyWiley-VCH Verlag GmbH &Co. KGaA, Weinheim Editorial accessibility,interoperability,and reproducibility.[10] It is impor- 2) Anyone May Participate at Any Level. tant that there is an electronic record and that we can find it. An open source ELN would be desirable. Some exist, but they Science is ateam sport. There is no point in doing it unless are not perfect, or well-supported.[11] It is not as thoughacom- you want to work with others to get things done more quickly, mercial ELN is aderogation of the first law,ifthat solution and there is no point in workingopen source unless youwant allows all the data to be seen, exported and re-used (so, open to work with intelligent strangers. If you want to learn how to file formats are good). We should just find asolution that play with Lego, or you want to build something big with it, tip works forthe scientist or the team and ensure the contents the box on the floor and make room for others. If you are are openly available. In OSM there are many examples that going to define at the outsetwho can participate, then you aim for this;[12] some entries may fail to live up to all the are looking for atraditional collaboration. If you do not know formal requirements, and we can only try. who might be the best person to work with, go open source. The lab notebook needs to contain all the project data. That So:allow anyone to participate, and allow them to do any- means the TLCs, the NMR data (i.e.,the file, not just aPDF), ev- thing they want. This second Law,then, is the combined “Free- erything. Youmay say “but who will ever read such athing?” dom and Low-hierarchy” law. to which the answer is “who ever reads alab notebook cover The words “any level” remind us that people might want to to cover?” There must be aprimary repository of information do many different things, from commenting on data to design- from which everything else comes. Without full disclosurewe ing asynthesis to actually carrying out an experiment through break an important line of trust between participants. to starting awhole set of experiments themselves. All of these The word “ideas”isincluded in the Law since it is important thingshave happened in OSM. Senior pharma professionals not only what has been done, but what is going to be done. have run experiments.Cohorts of school children have inno- Naturally,ideas may be better placed in alocation more suited vated.Itisalmost alwaysthe case that people have contacted to focuseddiscussion of objectives than an ELN. For some me or othersfirst to ask, in essence, “are you sure, ImeanI time we struggled with this, and have found an efficient solu- can justgoahead and do that?” to which the answer is always tion on awidely-used software development platform called “yes.” But the words “any level” also refer to the freedom to GitHub,which has an “issue tracker” function(essentially a work across institutional boundaries, or to act in away that place to discuss, and resolve, smaller problems).[13] Ideas can subverts how one maybeseen by others. Undergraduates can be mooted, discussed, opened andclosed, assigned to individ- (and have) debated points of substance with senior professors uals for action, andincorporated into other discussions. Con- without rank becoming an issue. Unlike much of the execrable clusionsand decisions can be folded into asummary wiki de- online conversation we maysee in our daily lives, the interac- scribing where the project is up to. Thus forward planningis tions online in afocused science projectare refreshingly pro- essential, but needs functionality not present in ELNs. ductive. The words “freely shared” are included because people The second law meansthat we are intentionally setting up should not feel inhibited in sharing everything they can. But an arena of ideas and expertise, and entry is unrestricted. The there is the other,more substantial, meaning of “free” which emphasis on inclusiveness is auseful reminder that open brings up the subjectoflicences (the word “free” has aparticu- sourcedrug discovery is not “anti-pharma” and indeed has larly complicated nuance in software).[14] When things are thrived on the expert contributionsofmany talented scientists shared, what are the terms?Thereare many licences for open from the private sector. source software projects, noneofwhich quite work for us be- cause drug discovery involves tangible objects, ideas, data and assay platforms. To allow for an easily-understandable structure 3) There Will Be No Patents. in OSM we adopted the CreativeCommons CC-BY licence (used by Wikipedia)meaning you can use anythingyou want People with experience of the patent system, upon reading in the project,including for the purposes of making money, the no-patent Law,will remind me that apatent is an inten- providedyou cite the project.[15] This works as an interim, until tionally open statementofachievement, designed to be pro- we come up with something more robust. Note that there is vided in sufficient detail that someone else may replicate the no “viral” aspect to the licence:ifyou use something in OSM, work. This public statementismade in return for the protec- you need not share your work under the same terms. While tions apatent affords the inventortonurture the commercial this would be fundamentally desirable, and is clearly implied development of the invention. Permit me to put atemporary by participation in the first place, obligations of this sort might pin in the observation that the system sits on afirm bedrock preventpeoplegetting involved for no other reasonthan of protectionsgiven to inventors by the state. people are cautiousabout constraining their future. So, noth- People with experience of the patent system are also aware ing viral. that in many cases apatent provides not aclear declaration of The First Law establishes the day-to-day way of working. achievement but rather broad legal claims that border on sci- Conduct experiments, keep acomprehensive lab notebook entific obfuscation. Patents are frustrating to read and reading that people can see, and which contains all your data, shareit anew one is the triumph of hope over experience. with aclear (e.g.,CC-BY-style) licence, and be sure to use your The 3rd Law is intended partly for clarity—thatpatentsare conclusions to share your ideas of what should be done next. out. The law exists not because of the faults with patents

ChemMedChem 2019, 14,1804 –1809 www.chemmedchem.org 1806  2019 The Authors. PublishedbyWiley-VCH Verlag GmbH &Co. KGaA, Weinheim Editorial themselves. It exists because if one wishes to gain apatent, 4) Suggestions Are the Best Form of Criticism one cannothavedescribed one’swork and achievements in the public domain. The requirement to conceal is incompatible This is the “no asshole” rule that simply reminds us all to be with open source. constructivewhen being critical. Open source requires apo- The required secrecypoisons the effectiveness of the re- tentially confronting playing field of competence in which it is search that is upstream, devoiding it of the efficiencies that perfectly possible for an undergraduatetocorrect aseasoned one might gain through openness. So one cannotadopt the academic in apermanent public record.This structure needs workaround (suggested by many interested in the aim of af- to be embraced, but the publicly-viewable nature of the fordable medicines) of patenting and then licensing out the re- record of work is one of the concerns Ihear from senior aca- sults. This is aperfectly reasonable thing to do, but it is not demic colleagues:“What if we make amistake?” There are two compatible with an unrestricted open source R&D community. parts to such an objection: This 3rd Law takes us towards abiggerpicture view of mat- a) Data could be wrong, and people may waste their time. ters since it begs the question:ifyou don’thave patents, how As an objection to openness,this is mostly aphantom worry. are you going to take adrug through to market?Perhapsin Data can alwaysbewrong, and peoplecan always be led some cases this is amoot point, if for example there is not down unproductive paths.Weare all aware of clear,recent ex- going to be arealistic market or there is astructural problem amplesthat make us worried about reproducibility in the aca- with obtaining afinancial return (as currently plagues the field demic literature.[22] An advantage of an open lab notebookis of drugstocounter antimicrobialresistance). The answer to that the level of uncertainty can be laidout clearly (if, for ex- the question obviously depends on the nature of the relevant ample,afashionable positive result hasbeen obtained against disease, but the question is amajor one since an effective abackground of nine unfashionable negatives), and data can answer to it would subvert the statusquo of essentially all the surfaced with alabel saying “PRELIMINARY DATA (DRAGONS)” drug development work currently going on around the world. which is not alevel of disclosure one frequentlysees in high The answer is complicated and being discussed in many impact factor journals. places, with many possible solutions.[16] Space here preventsus b) Data could be wrong, and we may look foolish.This is from reviewing them all, but Iwould like to highlight just one possible, but Isuspectthis, too, is aphantom. If doing science that is of topical interest. teaches us anything it is to be humblebefore the experiment. Some time ago Iwas speculating on the core challenge of As humans we try to see truth by lookingatthe error-prone commercialdevelopment of open work—that one could not flickeringimages on the wall of the cave. It is natural to make “protect” an idea that was already in the public domain.[17] I mistakes, and good scientists forgive the mistakes of others. was struck by how appropriate it would be that one should be Yetatthe same time, the need to work openlyand in real time able to demonstrate that an invention works in the field and requiresthe best of us—thebest-keptrecord, the most careful then be rewarded somehow,after the fact. Particularly if the conclusions, the best-prepared arguments, much as we invention weredeveloped openly,allowing others to benefit vacuum and tidy before people come round for dinner. To do from the details of the research along the way.Clearly for such this “live”—to manage complexity,interconnected ideas, and athing to work economically (i.e.,torecoup expenses or reim- hypotheses “live and online”—is something that is thrilling to burse any investors) the inventor would need aform of tempo- do and, Ihope, for the public to watch.Itcaptures just the rary protection that triggers when acertain point is reached. It sorts of real ups and downs of sciencethat we see in the best turns out Ihave family history associated with this idea arising science dramas and does not sanitize the detailsinthe way from an invention duringthe industrial revolution, as Ihave that must happen for much of the we described elsewhere,[18] and there are examples of related might witness on the TV,for example. We learn quickly from ideas,[19] but to translate all this into drug discovery terms one our own mistakesand those of others, and it is ashame if would need, not apatent, but adifferent temporary exclusivity pride inhibits this. granted by the state that allows some level of cost recovery (I Error is inevitable. Weneed to encourage thebrightest am retrieving my earlier pin at this point). This mightsound amongus. These twin facts necessitate our being able to criti- outlandish to those focusedtoo much on patents, but it cize others in public.But one never knows what one’sfellow should not because it exists already,inthe form of variousfla- scientists are dealing with in their offline lives. Law 4says “Be vours of regulatory data exclusivity availabletodrug inventors kind, always”. and intended to protect them in just this way.The idea has been mooted as compatible with open source approaches[20] and has now been excitingly instantiated in areal company [21] 5) Public Discussion Is More Valuable than using this idea in its operations, M4K Pharma. Private Email. leadingtoanengaged community leveraging guaranteesaris- ing from existing regulatory arrangements as the business Asimple “no email” rule. Email is bilateral, or multilateral, but model.Thisisanexciting idea that we can try out in the not usually public. If we want to ensure there are no “insiders” comingyears, and one that anyone should welcomeinto the we cannot use it. chocolate box of competing ideas that we surely need if we This is again alaw that people can find difficult at first. Fre- are serious about trying genuinely new things. quently,initial contributors will email in ideas or data, and

ChemMedChem 2019, 14,1804 –1809 www.chemmedchem.org 1807  2019 The Authors. PublishedbyWiley-VCH Verlag GmbH &Co. KGaA, Weinheim Editorial there is acost of translating theseinto the public domain,with need never be done again,and that it is clear how someone permission and maybe redaction. As soon as peopleare com- else can build on it later.Toachieve this requires digital infra- fortable with writing publicly,that cost vanishes. In fact, the structurewith acommitmenttoalevel of permanencethat GitHub issue tracker(mentioned above)has anice feature in we are increasingly coming to rely upon (e.g. Pubchem, arXiv). that it is compatible with email (with an associated but accept- This makesone think of all the drug discovery campaignsthat able risk that peoplemay write aprivate note that appears on have been pursued in academia and industry that have either the public site). But we do not yet have aperfect solutionto not been published at all, or published incompletely,or light online conversations. SomeGitHub threads run to 100 stoppedfor strategic rather than scientific reasons and then comments or more and become alittle cumbersome if nobody not shared. It is unsettling to consider all the work we might digeststhem into asmaller number of active tasks or forks inadvertently repeat. To the public it ought to be ascandalous them to fresh conversations, but theseproblems beset email waste of resources. This is not to criticize the scientists who chains too. People are reticent to write trivially small notes in stoppedprojects on solid grounds, but merely to railagainst public, but there are platforms that might suit (such as Slack the assumption that nobody else knows better.There are alot and Reddit), and the reticence may anyway be agenerational of flags planted in sand that serve only to mark unpublished issue. But ensuring key conversationsare kept relevant and data where there should instead be trees of data awaiting gar- not swamped by contributionscan only really be solved by deners. active research coordination,and it is better for such coordina- If the laws resonate with you, then jumpin. tion to be in public (rather than email) so that we ensure ev- eryone is up to speed. Matthew H. Todd Chair of Drug Discovery 6) An Open Project Is Bigger Than, and Is Not University College London Owned by,Any Given Lab. The “Under aBus” Law.Ifaproject leader ceasestobethe leader (encounter with abus, or,worse, disinterest), it must be possible to continue the research.This law is therefore aquali- ty-control reminder of the need for Law 1—that all data and Acknowledgement ideas need to have been shared for aseamlesscontinuanceto Ithank Drs. Alice Motion, Chris Swain and Lindi Todd for fruit- be possible. Aproject’sleader is leaderbyvirtue of their be- ful discussions. Ialso thank all the many and talented contribu- haviour,not by virtue of aname tag (I am reminded of the tors to OSM and relatedinitiatives for boldly road-testing open tragicomic award of the Sherriff badge to Billy Curtis’ character source drug discoveryand, thereby, helping to create the six Mordecai in the Clint Eastwood movie High Plains Drifter). laws. Leadership in open source projects (the role of the “benign dictator”)isafascinating subject in itsown right, but the Law [1] N. Nilsson and T. Minssen, Drug Discov.Today 2018, 23,771 –775. here acts to remind us that the project and its outcomes are [2] Y. N. Harari, Sapiens: ABrief History of Humankind 1st Ed, Harvill Secker, king. In the first iteration of this Law there were the additional London, 2014,“The Legend of Peugeot”. words “The Aim is to Find aDrug for Malaria as QuicklyasPos- [3] a) M. Woelfle, P. Olliaro, M. H. Todd, Nature Chemistry 2011, 3,745 –748; sible,” to remind us that all these laws and considerations were b) M. Woelfle,J.-P.Seerden, J. de Gooijer, K. Pouwer,P.Olliaro, M. H. Todd, PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2011,5e1260. there in order to help us leverage the power of anew way of [4] E. L. Willighagen et al.,J.Cheminf. 2017, 9:33. working in order to develop amedicine to help people enjoy [5] C. Šrdaland J.-A.Røttingen, PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2012,6e1827. their lives. If Idecide that acertain target or series of molecules [6] S. Mueller et al. eLife 2018, 7,e34311(10.7554/eLife.34311). is no good then Ineed to leave open the option that someone [7] M. H. Todd, Opensource drug discoveryfor malaria. Synaptic Leap 2011, Node 343, Available at http://www.thesynapticleap.org/node/343 (ac- else disagrees and needs to be able to build on what Ihave cessed Sept 10th 2019). done, unfettered by my biasesand my hoarding of anydata. [8] a) Open Source Tuberculosis, Available at https://github.com/Open- This Law is also makingasubtle point about branding:that SourceTB(accessed Sept 10th 2019);b)Open Source Mycetoma, Avail- th if one wishes peopletoget together to work on something able at https://github.com/OpenSourceMycetoma (accessed Sept 10 2019);c)Open Source Antibiotics, Available at https://github.com/ voluntarily then one needs to minimize ownership. It is not opensourceantibiotics (accessed Sept 10th 2019); d) A. E. Williamson about the person, but the project. Wikipedia would unques- et al. ,ACS CentralSci. 2016, 2,687–701. tionably have been less successful if it had been called “Jimmy [9] a) S. Kanza et al.,J.Cheminf. 2017, 9:31;b)M.Schapiraetal., F1000Re- Wales Encyclopaedia”. The irony of my publishing this paper is search 2019, 8:87. ’ [10] M. D. Wilkinson et al.,Scientific Data 2016,3:160018. not unappreciated, but is countered by Law 2, that anyone [11] a) K. Badiola et al. Chem.Sci. 2015, 6,1614 –1629;b)P.Tremouilhac can take part at any level. et al., J. Cheminf. 2017, 9:54. The Law is also aboutimmortality.Ask acoder how to make [12] Open Source Malaria Series 4Wiki SourcesofData, Available at https:// their code immortal. Backitupto100 private servers?Place it, github.com/OpenSourceMalaria/Series4/wiki/Sources-of-Data#lab-note- books (accessedSept 10th 2019). etched,inatomb?No, the answeroften given is to open it [13] Open Source Malaria Series 4Issue List, Available at https://github.- up. If you need to stop, make sure that what you have done com/OpenSourceMalaria/Series4/issues (accessed Sept 10th 2019).

ChemMedChem 2019, 14,1804 –1809 www.chemmedchem.org 1808  2019 The Authors. PublishedbyWiley-VCH Verlag GmbH &Co. KGaA, Weinheim Editorial

[14] “What is free software?”, GNU OperatingSystem/Free Software Founda- molecular.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/the-economics-of-open-source- tion, Available at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (ac- pharma-what-about-data-exclusivity/(accessed Sept 10th 2019). cessed Sept 10th 2019). [18] M. H. Todd, Can Openness Pay?,TEDxSevenoaksSchool, March 6, 2019, [15] Creative Commons CC-BY-4.0 License, Available at https://creativecom- mons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (accessed Sept 10th 2019). Available at:YouTube https://youtu.be/DeC0YS3j2E4 (accessed Sept [16] a) M. Balasegaram, P. Kolb, J. McKew,J.Menon,P.Olliaro, T. Sablinski, Z. 10th 2019). Thomas, M. H. Todd,E.Torreele, J. Wilbanks, PLoS Med. 2017, [19] J. Penin, Research Policy 2005,34, 641 –656. 14e1002276; b) J. O Neill, 2016, TacklingDrug-Resistant Infections Glob- ’ [20] E. Marden, Minn.J.L.Sci. Tech 2010, 11,217. ally:Final Reportand Recommendations, The Review on AntimicrobialRe- sistance, Available at https://amr-review.org/sites/default/files/160518_ [21] M. R. Morgan,O.G.Roberts,A.M.Edwards, Wellcome Open Res 2018, Final%20paper_with%20cover.pdf (accessedSept 11 th 2019);c)M.Maz- 3:154. zucato et al., The people’sprescription:Re-imagining health innovation to [22] a) C. G. Begley and L. M. Ellis, Nature 2012, 483,531 –533;b)Reproduci- deliver public value,UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose bilityProject:Cancer Biology,eLife, Availableat: https://elifescience- 2018,Available at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/publi- s.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibility-project-cancer-biology (ac- cations/2018/oct/peoples-prescription(accessed Sept 10th 2019). th [17] M. H. Todd, The Economics of Open Source Pharma –What about data cessed Sept 10 2019). exclusivity?,Intermolecular Blog,Feb 23, 2015,Available at https://inter-

Mat Todd was born in Manchester, Anote from the Editor England. He obtained his PhD in or- Having been involved mostly with ganic chemistry from Cambridge Uni- biology-heavy projects when Iwas an versity in 1999, was aWellcome Trust active researcher,Ionly truly learned postdoc at The University of California, about Mat’spassion for open source Berkeley,acollege fellow back at Cam- drug discovery when Ijoined Wiley bridge University,alecturer at Queen and ChemistryOpen in 2015, as Mat Mary,University of London, and be- served (and continues to serve) as an tween 2005 and 2018 was at the Editorial Board Member of that sister School of Chemistry,The University of journal. Surprisingly,itwas only at last Sydney.Heisnow Chair of Drug Dis- year’sEFMC-ISMC meeting in Ljublja- covery at University College London. na, when Ifirst met him in person and His research interests include medicinal chemistry,synthetic meth- heard his excellent talk on his open source projects. That was also odology,and catalysis. He has asignificant interest in , the first time Iheard of his “Six Laws”, despite these existing for and how it may be used to accelerate research towards new medi- seven years, as he shares in his Guest Editorial. Iknew right then cines. He founded and currently leads several open source drug that this was an interesting and important message to communi- discovery consortia including Open Source Malaria (OSM) which in cate in print. Iamthankful for Mat’swillingness to finally write 2012 won one of three Wellcome Trust/Google/PLoS Accelerating down his thoughts in this truly insightful article. Iampersonally a Science Awards. His lab motto is “Tomake the right molecule in strong believer in the the open movement. Iget asked often if the right place at the right time”, and his students are trying to open science and open access are the the future of publishing and work out what this means. research, and Isay NO. These aren’tthe future, because they are the NOW of research, and anyone who ignores the significance and speed of the open movement is bound to stagnate and be left in the dust. That said, there is still so much more to be done, and there’snobetter time to dive in than now.Atthe recent Euro- pean Research and Innovation Days, Prof. Karl Luyben (European Open Science Cloud Chair) mentioned, “If Open Science is the new normal, it would just be called Science.” This is why ChemMedChem and Wiley-VCH are committed to open research and open access more than ever.This is reflected in our support and publication of works from various open consortia, discussions and essays on open science such as this, the development of open and collabora- tive tools/hubs like Authorea, and the signing of impactful, trans- formative deals, like the Wiley–Projekt DEAL partnership, that don’t just push for OA, but open science in general. As Mat puts it in his essay,Open Science and its Laws are here—jump in. –David Peralta, Editor-in-Chief

ChemMedChem 2019, 14,1804 –1809 www.chemmedchem.org 1809  2019 The Authors. PublishedbyWiley-VCH Verlag GmbH &Co. KGaA, Weinheim