A prospective view on European pharmaceutical research and development. Policy options to reduce fragmentation and increase competitiveness

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 181-190

  Kanavos, Panos ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; EDUCATION; EUROPEAN UNION; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; LAW; PATENT; PHARMACOECONOMICS; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; SCIENCE; TECHNOLOGY; UNIVERSITY;

DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; EUROPEAN UNION; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; RESEARCH SUPPORT;

EID: 0031916850     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199813020-00003     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Commission of the European Communities. Directive 89/105 [transparency directive]. Off J Eur Communities 1989; 40: 8
2. Commission of the European Communities. On the outlines of an industrial policy for the pharmaceutical sector in the European Community: Directorate General III (Industry). Brussels: European Commission, 1994
3. UK Office of Science and Technology. Europe: funding from the Fourth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. 1994-98. London: UK Office of Science and Technology, 1994
4. Commission of the European Communities. Directive 92/26, 1992. Off J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 5
5. Commission of the European Communities. Directive 92/28, 1992. Off J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 13
6. Commission of the European Communities. Directive 89/341, 1989. Off J Eur Communities 1989; 142: 11
7. Commission of the European Communities. Directive 92/27, 1992. Off J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 8
8. Commission of the European Communities. Directive 92/25, 1992. Off J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 1
9. Kanavos P. Tax harmonisation: the single market challenge. In: Stavridis S, Mussialos E, Morgan R, et al. editors. New challenges to the European Union: policies and policy-making. Aldershot: Dartmouth-Aldershot, 1997
10. LSE Health. European pharmaceutical research, development and innovation: assessment of the socio-economic impact of new drugs. Seville: European Commission. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 1997
11. Bangemann M. Completing the single pharmaceutical market. Eurohealth 1997; 3 (1): 22-3
12. Flynn P. The single pharmaceutical market and public Health. Eurohealth 1997; 3 (1): 25-6
13. Furniss J. The Bangemann Round Table: a beginning not an end. Eurohealth 1997: 3 (1): 27-8
14. European Union Working Group One. The European pharmaceutical market [report]. Brussels: European Union Working Group One, 1997
15. European Union Working Group Two. The single market in pharmaceuticals: Chairman and Rapporteur's summary. Brussels: European Union Working Group Two, 1997
16. Senior Advisory Group on Biotechnology (SAGB). Biotechnology's economic impact in Europe: a survey of its future role in competitiveness. Brussels: SAGB, 1994
17. United States Government. Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act (Public Law 96-480). Washington, DC: United States Government, 1980
18. United States Government, Federal Technology Transfer Act (Public Law 99-502). Washington. DC: United States Government, 1986
19. Miege R. Technology transfer policies in Europe, in Euro-CASE: technology transfer and diffusion. Paris: Euro-CASE, 1994
20. Wehster A. University-corporate ties and research agendas. Sociology 1994; 28 (1): 123-42
21. de Looze M-A, Estades J, Joly P-B, et al. The role of SMEs in technology creation and diffusion: implications for European competitiveness in biotechnology, INRA/SERD. Grenoble: Universite Pierre Mendes-France, 1996
22. Oakey R, Faulkner W, Cooper S, et al. New firms in the biotechnology industry: their contribution to innovation and growth. London: Pinter Publishers, 1990
23. LSE Health, American and Japanese (bio)pharmaceutical presence in Europe. Luxembourg: Luropean Parliament, Directorate General for Research, Office for Official Publications, 1994
24. Kanavos P. Pharmaceutical consolidation and public policy. Eurohealth 1996; 2 (4): 30-2
25. Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA). Promising therapeutic areas in pharmaceutical research & development: risk evaluation by Japanese and US scientists [in Japanese]. Tokyo: JPMA, 1992
26. Centre for Medicines Research (CMR). CMR key figures. London: CMR, 1994
27. Walker S. Trends in pharmaceutical R&D. A Presentation based on Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) data. LSE Health: 1996 Jul 8: London
28. Walsh V, Niosi J, Mustar P. Small firm formation in biotechnology: a comparison of France, Britain and Canada. Technovation 1995; 15 (5): 303-27
29. Hodgson J, The end of French biotechnology R&D? Biotechnol Europroduct Focus 1994; 7: 4-8
30. Kanavos P. Determinants of market structure in the international biopharmaceutical industry. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Biotechnology Unit, 1998
31. Bundesministerium fuer Bildung, Wissenschaft Forschung und Technologie Gesundheitsforschung 2000: Programm der Bundesregierung. Bonn: German Federal Government, 1993
32. Bundesministerium fuer Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie. Programm Biotechnologie 2000. Karlsruhe: German Federal Government, 1995
33. Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency. Biotechnology in the Netherlands: ready for the market. The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs, 1995
34. UK Office of Science and Technology. Technology Foresight Programme: progress through partnership. London: Link Programme, Department of Trade and Industry, 1995
35. INRA. Biotechnology and genetic engineering: what Europeans think about it in 1993, Eurobarometer 39.1. Report to the European Commission. DGXIV, Brussels: European Commisssion, 1993
36. US Office of Technology Assessment. Pharmaceutical R&D: costs, risks and rewards. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1993. Report no.: OTA-H-522
37. Kailin KI, Bryant NR, Lasagna L. The role of the research-based pharmaceutical industry in medical progress in the United States. J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 33: 412-7
38. US Office of Technology Assessment. Federally funded research: decisions for a decade. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States, 1991
39. Sykes R. Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry, BMJ 1994; 309: 422-3
40. European Commission. Task Force for Vaccines and Viral Diseases: first report, Directorate General XII - Research, Brussels: European Commission, 1995
41. Commission of the European Comnunities, Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on orphan medicinal products [preliminary draft]. Brussels: European Commission, 1996
42. Fracchia GN, Haavisto KH, Orphan drugs: European Union priorities for research and regulatory actions. In: Fracchia GN, Haavisto KH, editors. European medicines research: perspectives in clinical trials. Cambridge: European Conference Publications, 1996
43. European Commisssion. Communication on a programme of community action for rare diseases within the framework for action in the field of public health. Brussels: European Commission, 1997
44. United States Government. Orphan Drug Act: 1983 (Public Law 97-414). Washington, DC: United States Government, 1983
45. Japan BioIndustry Letters. The inauguration of a system for the Promotion of Orphan Drug Development. BioIndustry Lett 1994; 11 (1): 5-6
46. US Office of Technology Assessment. Biotechnology in a global economy. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1993
47. Congress of the United States. Venture capital and innovation: a study prepared for the use of the Joint Economic Committee. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States, 1984
48. Henderson YK. The emergence of the venture capital industry. N Engl Econ Rev 1989; 11: 64-79
49. Bank of England, Venture capital in the United Kingdom. Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 1990; 30 (1): 78-83
50. European Commission. Seed capital: DG XXIII, advance report 1996. Brussels: European Commission, 1996
51. London Stock Exchange, Listing rules, London: London Stock Exchange, 1996; 20. 1-20. 13
52. US Office of Technology Assessment, New developments in biotechnology: US investment in biotechnology - special report. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1988. Report no.: OTA-BA-360
53. Merrifield DB. R&D limited partnerships are starting to bridge the invention-translation gap. Res Manage 1986; 3: 9-12
54. US Office of Technology Assessment. New developments in biotechnology: US investment in biotechnology. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1988
55. Hall B. The private and social returns to R&D: measurement and findings. In: Anderson J. Fears R. editors. Valuing and evaluating: assessment of the value of R&D in creating national and corporate prosperity. London: Cross & Associates, 1995