 If the team can acquire compelling evidence for advances over existing drugs (see 'New drugs: where did we go wrong and what can we do better?, 2019, 366/bmj.l4340)  Where the ADEV team can exploit some kind of unique scientific advantage for the progression of their compound. Examples might include synthesising a novel scaffold, targeting a previously unknow allosteric site, co-crystallising the target with a potent compound, pioneering a technically difficult screening assay or developing their own new disease model (e.g. a genetically engineered mouse strain or a CRISPR modified ES cell line)  If they happen to have chosen a novel, or at least understudied, target that they are seeking to validate (e.g. in oncology)  Stakeholders could (and arguably should) take the view that even if progression from preclinical to clinical is not successful (as is the case for the vast majority of commercial projects) the endeavour should not be seen as failure  The output of quality FAIR publications and non-obfuscated patents would not only have an inherent payoff in an academic context by enhancing the credibility of the ADEV teams but also represent tangible scientific advances  There will be equally important spin-off where published results and chemical structures (including flagging those that pass the probe criteria) flow into the databases mentioned including PubChem BioAssay  There is also the benefit of novel analogues being added back into screening collections  Publishing cases of data-supported target de-validation is a valuable community benefit