Canine Brains, Human Profits (Part 1): Toward fair collaboration in neuro-oncology (#455)
- Rick LeCouteur
- 2 days ago
- 5 min read
In the past few months, three papers using dogs as models for brain tumor research have landed on my desk, and they’ve been hard to stop thinking about.
The first, by John Rossmeisl and colleagues, explores how high-frequency irreversible electroporation (H-FIRE) reshapes tumor-derived extracellular vesicles and nudges the brain’s immune landscape.
The second, led by Sheila Carrera-Justiz, reports a systemic mRNA vaccine that elicits rapid immune activation in pet dogs with naturally occurring gliomas.
The third, by Chris Mariani and co-authors, describes the technical and clinical adaptation of laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) for intracranial tumors in dogs using human neurosurgical hardware.
Taken together, these studies are impressive on several fronts.
They show that client-owned dogs with spontaneous brain tumors are now firmly embedded in the translational pipeline.
An idea that was first proposed in an abstract presented to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) in 1987.
In that same year, the manuscript that accompanied the abstract was rejected by the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (also known as the Red Journal) because reviewers stated that spontaneous brain tumors in dogs represented a flawed model. Reasons for the rejection included the wide variation in tumor sizes and locations and the difficulties involved in enrolling client-owned animals in research projects.
How short-sighted these reviewers were!
How devastated I was as the author!
Since that inauspicious beginning, many researchers have demonstrated that veterinary neurology and neurosurgery can safely deliver highly complex interventions - novel electroporation protocols, systemic mRNA platforms, MR-guided laser ablation - at a standard that satisfies not only academic reviewers but also human neuro-oncology and industry collaborators.
Science has come a long way in the past 40 years, and these days the spontaneous brain tumor occurring in client-owned dogs is accepted as a mainstay in oncological research.
My Question
As I read (and re-read) the papers that use the dog as a model, a second, quieter story emerged. One about who owns these innovations, who benefits from them, and where veterinary researchers sit in that ecosystem.
The dogs, their owners, and the veterinary teams are clearly central to the science.
The commercial value, however, often resides elsewhere. Inside biotech and device companies, and in patents that do not always (some exceptions) include the veterinary investigators whose patients made the work possible.
This blog post grew directly out of that tension.
It is not a critique of any individual author or paper. Indeed, all three mentioned here are examples of thoughtful, well-conducted work.
Rather, these papers prompted me to ask a broader question:
If veterinary hospitals are now key proving grounds for high-value neurosurgical and immunotherapy platforms, what would a fairer, more genuinely collaborative model of vet–industry partnership look like?
This post, Canine Brains, Human Profits (Part 1) presents a proposed model.
This is followed in a subsequent blog titled Canine Brains, Human Profits (Part 2), which is a short perspective piece.
What would a more equitable model look like?
Think in layers:
Governance → Intellectual Property → Money → Science → People → Ethics.
Governance & study design.
Joint steering committee.
Equal representation from: veterinary investigators, human-med/neurosurgery investigators, and the company.
Approves study design, endpoints, amendments, and publication plans.
Co-PI structure.
Named veterinary co-PI(s) and human-med co-PI(s) on all major grants and protocols.
Written commitment that canine work isn’t just supporting data, but a primary clinical study in its own right.
Intellectual property (IP) & fields of use.
Base platform vs. veterinary adaptations.
Company retains IP on the core platform (e.g., LITT hardware, generic pulse generator, base mRNA chemistry).
Veterinary-specific innovations (e.g., canine skull-specific bolts, workflows, dosing schemas, monitoring protocols, software adaptations) are:
Either co-invented and co-owned (company + university), or
Licensed back to the veterinary institution with generous, sublicensable rights.
Field-of-use licensing.
Company keeps human indications.
Veterinary school (or consortium) receives license and royalty participation for veterinary indications (e.g., canine glioma, feline meningioma).
Revenue-sharing for any combined human–vet IP where canine data directly underpin regulatory filings.
Revenue & commercial terms.
Veterinary market revenue-sharing.
A defined % of net revenue from veterinary sales (equipment, disposables, service contracts, or per-case fees) flows back to:
The vet institution(s) involved in the original translational work, and
A shared comparative oncology/neurosurgery fund.
Milestone payments.
When canine data are used:
In a human trial Investigational New Drug or Investigational Device Exemption,
In a device label expansion,
Or in pivotal regulatory submissions, there are pre-agreed milestone payments or research endowments to the veterinary partner.
Preferential access.
Partner vet hospitals get:
Preferential pricing,
Training slots,
Service/support commitments,formalized in the collaboration agreement.
Data, publication, and transparency.
Shared data access.
Both sides have full access to raw and processed data.
The vet PI can perform independent analyses, including veterinary-focused endpoints.
Publication rights.
Time-limited review period for the company (e.g., 60–90 days).
No veto of publication, only limited delay to protect patent filing.
Negative or equivocal results can still be published.
Authorship standards.
Pre-agreed authorship principles that reflect actual work, not corporate hierarchy:
Veterinary PIs as first/senior authors on veterinary-focused papers.
Joint senior authorship on key translational manuscripts.
Protection and benefit for trainees.
Guaranteed authorship for residents/PhD students who do substantial work.
Joint fellowship programs funded by the partnership:
Comparative neuro-oncology fellowships,
Imaging/technology fellowships shared between vet school and medical school.
Ethical and client-facing transparency.
Client consent that clearly explains:
Industry involvement,
Commercial potential,
How data may help both pets and people.
Institutional communication that:
Doesn’t oversell the vet school as a neutral entity if it participates in royalties/equity,
But also, doesn’t hide when it has negotiated a fair stake in the work.
Now, read Canine Brains, Human Profits (Part 2), a short perspective piece that explores these concepts further.
Additional Reading
Adapting Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy for the Treatment of Naturally Occurring Intracranial Tumors in Dogs. Christopher L. Mariani et al. Clin Cancer Res; 31(20), 2025. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12521916/
High-Frequency Irreversible Electroporation Alters Proteomic Profiles and Tropism of Small Tumor-Derived Extracellular Vesicles to Promote Immune Cell Infiltration. Kelsey R. Murphy et al. Cells 14 :1782, 2025. https://www.scilit.com/publications/4f97ed7da675ba231c52663a0d387ed9
Systemic mRNA vaccines elicit rapid immune activation in canine brain tumors. Carrera-Justiz S, et al. J Immunother Cancer 13:e011817, 2025. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12606501/pdf/jitc-13-11.pdf
LeCouteur RA, EL Gillette, SW Dow, BE Powers: Radiation response of autochthonous canine brain tumors. 29th Annual Meeting of American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Boston, MA, October 18-23, 1987. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13 (Suppl 1):166, 1987.
Comments