As debate grows over the role that taxpayer dollars play in drug discovery, an analysis finds one in four new medicines approved by regulators over the past decade benefited from publicly supported late-stage research or spinoff companies that were created by public sector research institutions.

Moreover, drugs that were approved following major public financing were more likely to have won speedier approvals by the Food and Drug Administration. These medicines were also more likely to be so-called first-in-class treatments, suggesting they offered novel approaches to therapeutic care and therefore were potentially more clinically important.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • As usual, the actual results don’t match the headline.

    A casual reader may conclude that “publicly financed” equals the NIH or a government-employed researcher.

    In fact, the authors use an expansive definition of the “public sector.” Here are examples of the “public sector institutions” that are listed as holding one or more patents: University of Chicago, University of Michigan, Massachusetts General Hospital, Sloan-Kettering, Mayo Clinic, et al.

    In other words, large, private, multi-billion, allegedly “non-profit” hospitals account for a substantial portion of the “public sector” in this analysis.

    All in all, very misleading research that appears to exist primarily to provide talking points to those who don’t bother to read the research and don’t want to consider whether any of these hospitals could have turned a single patent into a commercial product.

  • After reading the limitations that our scribe added at the end, while I appreciate the analysis required, I must observe that I doubt the study in question was worth his effort. Others may differ …

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy