The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry

Abstract

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp11063.pdf Non-Technical SummaryWhile most economists believe that public scientific research fuels industry innovation and economic growth, systematic evidence supporting this relationship is surprisingly limited. In a recent study, Acemoglu and Linn (2004) identified market size as a significant driver of drug innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, but they did not find any evidence supporting science-driven innovation from publicly funded research. Their results are troubling for at least two reasons. First, a significant body of qualitative evidence suggests publicly funded biomedical research contributes to new drug innovation. Second, it calls into question the rationale supporting the enormous public investments into biomedical research.This paper generalizes existing case study research by examining the evidence for a systematic relationship between the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) investments into biomedical research performed in academic laboratories and pharmaceutical industry innovation. Novel data on NIH biomedical research awards from 1955 through 1996 are combined with the pharmaceutical industry's own R&D investment and a market size proxy to estimate a panel data model of pharmaceutical innovation by therapeutic market over time.The statistical analysis shows that NIH funded basic research, potential market size, and industry R&D all have economically and statistically significant effects on the entry of new drugs. The elasticity estimate in the preferred model implies that a 1% increase in the stock of public basic research ultimately leads to a 1.8% increase in the number new molecular entities (NMEs), an important category of new drug therapies defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For an average NME, the results also indicate the lag between public investment and NME applications to the FDA is seventeen to twenty-four years. The primary contribution of public basic research to new technological opportunities seems to occur in the years preceding private drug discovery.The analysis also finds a positive return to public investment in basic biomedical research. Using market sales data for an average NME, the direct return for the six therapeutic markets analyzed is about forty-three percent. One must interpret the magnitude of this estimate cautiously. The estimate does not reflect the plurality or totality of channels thr...

R&D and knowledge dynamics in university-industry relationships in biotech and pharmaceuticals: an agent-based model

“…These findings are in line with the results of econometric analysis (Jaffe, 1989;Adams, 1990;Acs et al, 1991;Toole, 1999aToole, , 1999b and historical case studies (Link and Scott, 1998;National Research Council, 1999;Angell, 2004), surveyed by David et al (2000), which show that government funded R&D generates beneficial spillover effects and stimulates commercial innovations. More specifically, in our model government funding has a twofold role.…”

“…Due to the growing importance of industry as an additional source of funding for universities, the role of public R&D funding with respect to private R&D has increasingly gained attention (see, David et al, 2000). Several econometric analyses (Jaffe, 1989;Adams, 1990;Acs et al, 1991;Toole, 1999aToole, , 1999b, as well as historical case studies (Link and Scott, 1998;National Research Council, 1999) demonstrate that public R&D has positive spillover and stimulating effects on private R&D and beneficial effects on the generation and diffusion of new technologies. In particular, in the case of UIRs, an increase in public research funding for basic research can reduce the pressure on universities to search for external funding from industry, thereby reducing the potential negative effects of these relationships.…”

An overview of knowledge sharing in new product development

“…Innovation and new products have emerged as a focus of competition for businesses [10]. Furthermore, the process of product development is considered to be a 'critical' factor for the manufacturing businesses that aspire to prosper in the competitive markets.…”

Rise of Clinical Trials Industry in India: An Analysis

“…With respect to biomedical science this is especially so. Government is the prime funder of basic research in the US [48,49] while industry primarily funds the applied research [49]. In President Obama's budget request for the financial year 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services, primarily through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), alone accounts for more than 50 percent of federal funding for basic research in the US [50].…”