Should pharma and biotech resource clinical development in-house or should precious budget be spent outsourcing to CROs? It is a debate that is continually being had in the clinical trial space and one that is central to the future success of research.
At Partnerships in Clinical Trials Europe, an Oxford debate was held with two teams arguing the benefits of both sides of the argument. Carl Emerson, Managing Director at Inside Outside Solutions, moderated the debate and afterwards pulled together the key arguments into a webinar. Watch the full webinar presentation, as well as six other on-demand webinars from the Partnerships in Clinical Trials Digital Week here.
Sponsors give a range of reasons for outsourcing - reduced cost, improved quality, better efficiency, access to operational expertise, process improvement - yet after three years, 59% of sponsors say they are getting worse quality than in-house.
However, with a number of different models - strategic partnerships, full service outsourcing, functional outsourcing - being used, it's clear that this debate cannot be boiled down to a simple answer.
For Emerson, ultimately it all comes down to one thing: 'It's really a question of value for money. We spend euros or dollars internally, what does that generate? Externally - is it better or worse?'
In this presentation, he explores the following aspects:
- Changes in levels of experience over the years
- Market forces and differentiation for suppliers
- Best practice evolution
- The problem of control
- Alternative agendas and their corrupting influence