Private and Public Investments in Biomedical Research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Durvasula M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8356751 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We quantify the impact of scientific grant funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on patenting by pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms. Our paper makes two contributions. First, we use newly constructed bibliometric data to develop a method for flexibly linking specific grant expenditures to private-sector innovations. Second, we take advantage of idiosyncratic rigidities in the rules governing NIH peer review to generate exogenous variation in funding across research areas. Our results show that NIH funding spurs the development of private-sector patents: a $10 million boost in NIH funding leads to a net increase of 2.3 patents. Though valuing patents is difficult, we report a range of estimates for the private value of these patents using different approaches.
| S-EPMC6818650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Longitudinal micro-data derived from transaction level information about wage and vendor payments made by federal grants on multiple U.S. campuses are being developed in a partnership involving researchers, university administrators, representatives of federal agencies, and others. This paper describes the UMETRICS data initiative that has been implemented under the auspices of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation. The resulting data set reflects an emerging conceptual framework for analyzing the process, products, and impact of research. It grows from and engages the work of a diverse and vibrant community. This paper situates the UMETRICS effort in the context of research evaluation and ongoing data infrastructure efforts in order to highlight its novel and valuable features. Refocusing data construction in this field around individuals, networks, and teams offers dramatic possibilities for data linkage, the evaluation of research investments, and the development of rigorous conceptual and empirical models. Two preliminary analyses of the scientific workforce and network approaches to characterizing scientific teams ground a discussion of future directions and a call for increased community engagement.
| S-EPMC4553239 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As pressures to maximize research funding grow, biomedical research funders are increasingly tasked with demonstrating the long-term and real-world impacts of their funded research investments. Over the past three decades, research impact assessments (RIA) have emerged as an important tool for analysing the impacts of research by incorporating logic models, frameworks and indicators to track measures of knowledge production, capacity-building, development of research products, adoption of research into clinical guidelines and policies, and the realization of health, economic and social benefits. While there are currently several models for RIA within the literature, less attention has been paid to how funders can practically select and implement a RIA model to demonstrate the impacts of their own research portfolios. In this paper, a literature review was performed to understand (1) which research funders have performed RIAs of their research portfolios to date; (2) how funders have designed their assessments, including the models and tools they have used; (3) what challenges to and facilitators of success have funders found when adopting the RIA model to their own portfolio; and (4) who participates in the assessments. Forty-four papers from both published and grey literature were found to meet the review criteria and were examined in detail. There is a growing culture of RIA among funders, and included papers spanned a diverse set of funders from 10 countries or regions. Over half of funders (59.1%) used a framework to conduct their assessment, and a variety of methods for collecting impact data were reported. Issues of methodological rigour were observed across studies in the review, and this was related to numerous challenges funders faced in designing timely RIAs with quality impact data. Over a third of articles (36.4%) included input from stakeholders, yet only one article reported surveying patients and members of the public as part of the assessment. To advance RIA among funders, we offer several recommendations for increasing the methodological rigour of RIAs and suggestions for future research, and call for a careful reflection of the voices needed in an impact assessment to ensure that RIAs are having a meaningful impact on patients and the public.
| S-EPMC9361261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe private versus public contribution to developing new health knowledge and interventions is deeply contentious. Proponents of commercial innovation highlight its role in late-stage clinical trials, regulatory approval, and widespread distribution. Proponents of public innovation point out the role of public institutions in forming the foundational knowledge undergirding downstream innovation. The rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation has brought with it uniquely proactive public involvement to characterize, treat, and prevent this novel health treat. How has this affected the share of research by industry and public institutions, particularly compared to the experience of previous pandemics, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika?MethodsUsing Embase, we categorized all publications for COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika as having any author identified as affiliated with industry or not. We placed all disease areas on a common timeline of the number of days since the WHO had declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern with a six-month lookback window. We plotted the number and proportion of publications over time using a smoothing function and plotted a rolling 30-day cumulative sum to illustrate the variability in publication outputs over time.ResultsIndustry-affiliated articles represented 2% (1,773 articles) of publications over the 14 months observed for COVID-19, 7% (278 articles) over 7.1 years observed for Ebola, 5% (350 articles) over 12.4 years observed for H1N1, and 3% (160 articles) over the 5.7 years observed for Zika. The proportion of industry-affiliated publications built steadily over the time observed, eventually plateauing around 7.5% for Ebola, 5.5% for H1H1, and 3.5% for Zika. In contrast, COVID-19's proportion oscillated from 1.4% to above 2.7% and then declined again to 1.7%. At this point in the pandemic (i.e., 14 months since the PHEIC), the proportion of industry-affiliated articles had been higher for the other three disease areas; for example, the proportion for H1N1 was twice as high.ConclusionsWhile the industry-affiliated contribution to the biomedical literature for COVID is extraordinary in its absolute number, its proportional share is unprecedentedly low currently. Nevertheless, the world has witnessed one of the most remarkable mobilizations of the biomedical innovation ecosystem in history.
| S-EPMC8535173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Estimating treatment (or policy or intervention) effects on a single individual or unit has become increasingly important in health and biomedical sciences. One method to estimate these effects is the synthetic control method, which constructs a synthetic control, a weighted average of control units that best matches the treated unit's pre-treatment outcomes and other relevant covariates. The intervention's impact is then estimated by comparing the post-intervention outcomes of the treated unit and its synthetic control, which serves as a proxy for the counterfactual outcome had the treated unit not experienced the intervention. The augmented synthetic control method, a recent adaptation of the synthetic control method, relaxes some of the synthetic control method's assumptions for broader applicability. While synthetic controls have been used in a variety of fields, their use in public health and biomedical research is more recent, and newer methods such as the augmented synthetic control method are underutilized. This paper briefly describes the synthetic control method and its application, explains the augmented synthetic control method and its differences from the synthetic control method, and estimates the effects of an antimalarial initiative in Mozambique using both the synthetic control method and the augmented synthetic control method to highlight the advantages of using the augmented synthetic control method to analyze the impact of interventions implemented in a single region.
| S-EPMC10981189 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5664960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The success of any biobank depends on a number of factors including public's view of research and the extent to which it is willing to participate in research. As a prototype of surrounding countries, public interest in research and biobanking in addition to the influence and type of informed consent for biobanking were investigated in Jordan. Data were collected as part of a national survey of 3196 individuals representing the Jordanian population. The majority of respondents (88.6%) had a positive perception of the level of research in Jordan and they overwhelmingly (98.2%) agreed to the concept of investing as a country in research. When respondents were asked if the presence of an informed consent would influence their decision to participate in biobanking, more individuals (19.8%) considered having an informed consent mechanism as a positive factor than those who considered it to have negative connotations (13.1%). However, a substantial portion (65%) did not feel it affected their decision. The majority of survey participants (64%) expressed willingness to participate in biobanking and over 90% of them preferred an opt-in consent form whether general (75.2%) or specific for disease or treatment (16.9%). These results indicate a promising ground for research and biobanking in Jordan. Educational programs or mass awareness campaigns to promote participation in biobanking and increase awareness about informed consent and individual rights in research will benefit both the scientific community as well as the public.
| S-EPMC3641386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn 2012, bedaquiline became the first new treatment from a novel class to be approved for tuberculosis in nearly five decades and is now a core component of the standard of care for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. In addition to the originator pharmaceutical company, Janssen, a range of governmental and non-profit entities have contributed to the development of bedaquiline.Materials and methodsWe identified various avenues of public investments in the development of bedaquiline: direct funding of clinical trials and a donation programme, tax credits and deductions, and revenues resulting from the priority review voucher (PRV) awarded to the originator. Data on investments were gathered through contact with study leads and/or funders; for non-responses, published average costs were substituted. The originator company's expenses were estimated by similar methods. Tax credits and deductions were calculated based on estimated originator trial costs and donation expenses. The value of the PRV was estimated by application of a published model.ResultsPublic contributions through clinical trials funding were estimated at US$109-252 million, tax credits at US$22-36 million, tax deductions at US$8-27 million, administration of a donation programme at US$5 million, PRV revenues at US$300-400 million. Total public investments were US$455-747 million and originator investments were US$90-240 million (if capitalized and risk-adjusted, US$647-1,201 million and US$292-772 million, respectively).ConclusionsEstimating the investments in the development of a medicine can inform discussions regarding fair pricing and future drug development. We estimated that total public investments exceeded the originator's by a factor of 1.6-5.1.
| S-EPMC7500616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In many Western societies there are rising concerns about increasing polarization in public debate. However, statistics on private attitudes paint a different picture: the average attitudes in societies are more moderate and remain rather stable over time. The present paper presents an agent-based model of how such discrepancies between public opinion and private attitudes develop at the scale of micro-societies. Based on social psychological theorizing, the model distinguishes between two types of agents: a) those seeking to gain or maintain a good reputation and status, and b) those seeking to promote group harmony by reaching consensus. We characterized these different types of agents by different decision rules for either voicing their opinion or remaining silent, based on the behavior of their proximal network. Results of the model simulations show that even when the private attitudes of the agents are held constant, publicly expressed opinions can oscillate and (depending on the reputational concerns of individual actors) situations can occur in which minorities as well as majorities are silenced. We conclude that the macro-level consequences of micro-level decisions to either voice an opinion or remain silent provide a foundation for better understanding how public opinions are shaped. Moreover, we discuss the conditions under which public opinion could be considered a good representation of private attitudes in a society.
| S-EPMC7688181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite a growing need for primary care physicians in the United States, the proportion of medical school graduates pursuing primary care careers has declined over the past decade.ObjectiveTo assess the association of medical school research funding with graduates matching in family medicine residencies and practicing primary care.DesignObservational study of United States medical schools.ParticipantsOne hundred twenty-one allopathic medical schools.Main measuresThe primary outcomes included the proportion of each school's graduates from 1999 to 2001 who were primary care physicians in 2008, and the proportion of each school's graduates who entered family medicine residencies during 2007 through 2009. The 25 medical schools with the highest levels of research funding from the National Institutes of Health in 2010 were designated as "research-intensive."Key resultsAmong research-intensive medical schools, the 16 private medical schools produced significantly fewer practicing primary care physicians (median 24.1% vs. 33.4%, p < 0.001) and fewer recent graduates matching in family medicine residencies (median 2.4% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001) than the other 30 private schools. In contrast, the nine research-intensive public medical schools produced comparable proportions of graduates pursuing primary care careers (median 36.1% vs. 36.3%, p = 0.87) and matching in family medicine residencies (median 7.4% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.37) relative to the other 66 public medical schools.ConclusionsTo meet the health care needs of the US population, research-intensive private medical schools should play a more active role in promoting primary care careers for their students and graduates.
| S-EPMC3663944 | biostudies-literature