Medical R&D at the turn of the millennium

Health Affairs

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2001, Pages 202-209

  Zinner, Darren E ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC RELATIONS; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; INTERINSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); PRIVATE SECTOR; RESEARCH SUPPORT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0035462941     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.20.5.202     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. See J.L. Read and K.B. Lee Jr., "Health Care Innovation: Progress Report and Focus on Biotechnology," Health Affairs (Summer 1994): 215-225; C.L. Littell, "Innovation in Medical Technology: Reading the Indicators," Health Affairs (Summer 1994): 226-235; and P.J. Neumann and E.A. Sandberg, "Trends in Health Care R&D and Technology Innovation," Health Affairs (Nov/Dec 1998): 111-119.
2. See J.L. Read and K.B. Lee Jr., "Health Care Innovation: Progress Report and Focus on Biotechnology," Health Affairs (Summer 1994): 215-225; C.L. Littell, "Innovation in Medical Technology: Reading the Indicators," Health Affairs (Summer 1994): 226-235; and P.J. Neumann and E.A. Sandberg, "Trends in Health Care R&D and Technology Innovation," Health Affairs (Nov/Dec 1998): 111-119.
3. See J.L. Read and K.B. Lee Jr., "Health Care Innovation: Progress Report and Focus on Biotechnology," Health Affairs (Summer 1994): 215-225; C.L. Littell, "Innovation in Medical Technology: Reading the Indicators," Health Affairs (Summer 1994): 226-235; and P.J. Neumann and E.A. Sandberg, "Trends in Health Care R&D and Technology Innovation," Health Affairs (Nov/Dec 1998): 111-119.
4. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Studies, National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2000 Data Update, Pub. no. NSF 01-309 (Arlington, Va.: NSF, December 2000).
5. Ibid.; and Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President: Federal Budget Receipts, Outlays, Surplus or Deficit, and Debt, as Percent of Cross Domestic Product, Fiscal Years 1934-2001 (Washington: Council of Economic Advisors, 2000).
6. Ibid.; and Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President: Federal Budget Receipts, Outlays, Surplus or Deficit, and Debt, as Percent of Cross Domestic Product, Fiscal Years 1934-2001 (Washington: Council of Economic Advisors, 2000).
7. J.D. Miller and L. Kimmel, Public Attitudes toward Science and Technology, 1979-1999, Integrated Codebook (Chicago: International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Literacy, Chicago Academy of Sciences, 1999).
8. Pew Research Center, News Interest Index Poll, 27 July 2000, 〈people-press.org/question naires/july00que.htm〉 (29 July 2001).
9. National Science Foundation, Directorate of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Studies, What Is the Federal Role in Supporting Academic Research and Graduate Research Assistants? Pub. no. NSF 99-342 (Arlington, Va.: NSF, April 1999).
10. NSF-SRS, Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development: Detailed Historical Tables: Fiscal Years 1951-2000, Pub. no. NSF 01-308 (Arlington, Va.: NSF, November 2000).
11. Association of University Technology Managers, "AUTM Licensing Survey, FY 1999: A Survey Summary of Technology Licensing (and Related) Performance for U.S. and Canadian Academic and Nonprofit Institutions, and Patent Management Firms" (Northbrook, 111.: AUTM, 2000).
12. Institute for Scientific Information, Science Citation and Social Science Citation Indexes; CHI Research, Science Indicators database; and NSF/SRS, special tabulation, Tables 6-53 and 664 (Arlington Va.: NSF, November 2000).
13. U.S. General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer Administration of the Bayh-Dole Act by Research Universities, Pub. no. GAO/RCD-98-126 (Washington: GAO, March 1998).
14. AUTM Licensing Survey, FY 1999.
15. Current Drugs Ltd., Investigational Drugs Database-IDdb3, "Current Drugs Ltd Names World Leaders in Pharmaceutical Biotechnology Research," News release (London: 19 January 2001), 〈current-drugs.com/news/releases/biotech%20leaders.htm〉.
16. BioWorld, The BiWorld Biotechnology State of the Industry Report, 1998-2001, 〈bioworld.com/bw/public.htm?path-resources/ann/index.html〉 (8 March 2001).
17. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-2000, Pub. no. NSB-00-1 (Arlington, Va.: NSF, 2000), Table 2-50. Other sources estimate the value to be $19.85 billion in 1997. See U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Policy, Technology Administration, and National Science Foundation, U.S. Corporate R&D: Volume 1, Top 500 Firms in R&D by Industry Category, Pub. no. NSF 00-301 (Arlington, Va.: NSF, September 1999).
18. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-2000, Pub. no. NSB-00-1 (Arlington, Va.: NSF, 2000), Table 2-50. Other sources estimate the value to be $19.85 billion in 1997. See U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Policy, Technology Administration, and National Science Foundation, U.S. Corporate R&D: Volume 1, Top 500 Firms in R&D by Industry Category, Pub. no. NSF 00-301 (Arlington, Va.: NSF, September 1999).
19. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Corporate R&D.
20. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, "Fact Sheet: One New Drug = $500 million and 12-15 Years of R&D," 〈phrma.org/publications/documents/factsheets/2001-03-01.210.phtml〉 (20 June 2001).
21. William Haseltine, chairman and CEO of Human Genome Sciences, calculates that for a toptier pharmaceutical company to achieve a 10 percent annual growth in sales revenues, the firm needs to bring an innovative drug to market every six months, compared with the current estimate of nearly every two years. See W. Haseltine, "The Promise of Genomics," in Convergence: The Biotechnology Industry Report, Millennium Edition (Palo Alto, Calif.: Ernst and Young, 2000).
22. Ibid.
23. BiWorld Biotechnology State of the Industry Report, 2001.
24. Biotechnology Industry Organization, "Biotech Medicines on the Market Top 110 with Hundreds More in the Pipeline," Press release (Washington: BIO, 2001).
25. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Equation and Research, "NDAs Approved in Calendar Years 1990-2000 by Therapeutic Potentials and Chemical Types" (Washington: FDA, 2001), 〈fda.gov/cder/rdmt/pstable.htm〉 (29 July 2001).
26. In Phase I clinical trials, researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people (20-80) to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects. In Phase II clinical trials, the study drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people (100-300) to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety. In Phase III studies, the study drug or treatment is given to large groups of people (1,000-3,000) to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely. National Institutes of Health, (21 June 2001).