research and development

India and China are Becoming Centers of Pharmaceutical R&D

jorgemata — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:36:09 -0700

Description

Excerpts:

Cost pressures, the need to tap global talent, and growth opportunities in emerging markets led Western pharmaceutical companies to shift substantial manufacturing and clinical-trial work to China and India. But a new study sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation on the globalization of the pharmaceutical industry shows that big pharmaceutical companies such as Merck, Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson are now counting on these countries for advanced research and development as well.

According to the study, The globalization of innovation: Pharmaceuticals. Can India and China Cure the Global Pharmaceutical Market?, Indian and Chinese scientists are rapidly developing the ability to innovate and create their own intellectual property as a result of the movement of research and development (R&D) to their countries. Several firms in these countries are performing advanced R&D and are moving into the highest-value segments of the pharmaceutical global value chain.

In 2006, 5.5 percent of all global pharmaceutical patent applications (WIPO PCT applications) named one inventor or more located in India, and 8.4 percent named one or more located in China. This had increased fourfold from 1995.

"Globalization is happening faster than people think. Having India and China conduct such sophisticated research and participate in drug discovery was unimaginable even five years ago," said Vivek Wadhwa, executive in residence at Duke University and a fellow at the Labor and Worklife Program of Harvard Law School, who led the team of researchers conducting the study. "The challenge is for America to understand this trend and realize the potential of globalization."

"The United States benefits from innovation wherever it occurs," said Robert Litan, vice president of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation. "Having more countries like India and China develop treatments for diseases is good for the world and will help reduce the overall costs of health care. But the United States benefits most when those discoveries are made by companies owned primarily by U.S. citizens."

Through detailed interviews with executives of 16 pharmaceutical firms in China and India on their business models, value-chain activities, partnerships and technology capabilities, the researchers found that:

1. Indian and Chinese companies are making strides in the most lucrative segments of global value chains. In less lucrative segments, such as preclinical testing, animal experimentation and manufacturing, Chinese firms appear to be more prevalent.

2. India is regarded as a more mature venue for chemistry and drug-discovery activities than China.

3. Domestic Indian and Chinese firms rarely have the capital and the regulatory expertise to develop a drug beyond phase II clinical trials. Their commercial development of new intellectual property therefore necessitates relationships with major multinational corporations.

According to the study, because Indian drug companies have the most experience in selling generic drugs that meet FDA standards, India is playing a more strategic role in early discovery. Companies such as Ranbaxy, Aurigene, Advinus, Nicholas Piramal and Jubilant have negotiated long-term deals with Western pharmaceutical companies to discover and develop new chemical entities.

In a growing number of cases, the Indian companies share the financial risk in discovery as well as the potential financial rewards. One Chinese company, Hutchison MediPharma, has formed a similar partnership with Eli Lilly. Others are likely to follow suit as Chinese contract research organizations gain experience and Western companies come to trust in China‘s ability to protect intellectual property, said the researchers.

According to the findings, it is too early to tell whether China and India will become important sources of new drugs. In contrast to industries such as software and electronics, in which there has been substantial growth in offshore R&D, the pharmaceutical industry takes many years for a new product to emerge from R&D and regulatory approval. Most of the new risk-sharing arrangements date from 2005, so it could be another decade before there are concrete results.

The early progress, however, is promising, say researchers. Several companies have reached significant development milestones with new chemical entities. Several drugs from these partnerships are going into clinical testing. As a result, the trend of R&D moving to these countries is likely to gain further momentum, according to the study.

Download the report from the link below.

Source

Innovation is Rapidly Globalizing: India and China are Becoming Centers of Pharmaceutical R&D says Kauffman Foundation Study. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, June 11, 2008. http://www.kauffman.org/items.cfm?itemID=1085

Technology prizes and challenges for innovations in sustainability and global problems

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:12:21 -0700

Description

Prizes and challenges have recently emerged as a substantial incentive for innovation in science and technology. They're also emerging in appropriate technology and sustainability. A few data-points:

The San Jose, California-based Tech Museum gave its first Tech Awards in 2001 to people "applying technology to humanity's most pressing problems by recognizing the best of those who are utilizing innovative technology solutions to address the most urgent critical issues facing our planet." Prize-winners are also made members of the "Tech Laureate Venture Network... to create opportunities for learning, networking, and exposure to assist the Laureates in furthering their work."
The Lemelson-MIT Award for Sustainability, "bestowed on inventors whose products or processes are viable and sustainable, and have high potential to improve the quality of life for future generations."
In 2005, the Grainger Foundation announced the Grainger Challenge Prize for Sustainability, "a million-dollar award for the most effective, inexpensive, reliable, and environmentally friendly solution to the arsenic problem facing Bangladesh and similar countries with tube-well-related problems. The United States' National Academy of Engineering was designated its arbitrator and in a little less than a year it received more than 70 entries. In February 2007, after exhaustive tests conducted by United States Environmental Protection Agency, the NAE finally announced the winner: Dr. Abul Hussam, a chemistry professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia."

One interesting feature of each of these prizes or challenges is that award winners are not chosen by the funders: they're chosen by third parties, either academic organizations or professional societies.

Science in the United States

Source

http://www.techawards.org/
http://web.mit.edu/invent/a-award.html
http://www.nae.edu/nae/grainger.nsf
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Issue-20/Winning-the-Water-Problem.html
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/science-prize-h.html

Overcoming "scientific apartheid"

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:38:05 -0700

Description

SciDev.Net reports on an April address by Bibliotheca Alexandrina Ismail Serageldin warning that "the world risks "scientific apartheid" between rich and poor countries unless research and technology is better used to benefit the poor."

He warned that science seems to be benefiting the rich, with not enough focus on solving the problems of the poor. "We need a little more than knowledge... we need wisdom," he said.

Serageldin called for developed countries to put five per cent of their research and development budgets towards addressing the problems of the poor. He said that even if the research were conducted in Northern universities, this would still contribute greatly.

"Different regions need to address different problems, but all will require the best of science," he said....

Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute, said that the world needs to run on two scientific tracks: putting existing technologies into practice for the poor, whilst simultaneously developing new technologies to address problems.

Addressing the conference by video message on 13 April, he outlined the need for "RDD&D" — research, development, demonstration and diffusion of technology to those who need them most.

What's interesting about this is that it's one of a growing number of calls to develop more thoughtful, locally-oriented, or development-focused approaches to doing research. A growing number of ambitious scientists in the developing world are less interested in emulating the Western model of R&D than in developing their own.

Source

http://www.scidev.net/en/science-and-innovation-policy/world-risks-scientific-apartheid-says-top-african-.html?utm_source=link&utm_medium=rss&ut...

Federal support for research in nearly all disciplines in now in decline (AAAS)

Jess Hemerly — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:29:47 -0800

Description

From the overview:

- Total federal support of research (basic and applied) would fall 2.1 percent to $55.5 billion, even after large proposed increases for physical sciences and related research in NSF, DOE’s Office of Science, and NIST. A rare cut in NIH research funding and steep cuts in research funding at DOD, NASA, USDA, and other agencies would more than offset the ACI gains. In real terms, federal research spending would fall for the fourth year in a row, down 7.4 percent from 2004

Science in the United States

Source

AAAS Report XXXII: Research and Development FY 2008. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2007.

2006 trends in science funding: US, Europe, and Japan are still in the lead... but for how long?

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:12:14 -0800

Description

Nature conducted a survey in 2006 that concluded that while a number of developing countries were growing domestic scientific capability rapidly, "the United States, Japan and western Europe have a commanding lead over the rest of the world."

The world's most advanced economies are losing their scientific edge, some analysts claim. Fearing, that weak research budgets will lead to weak economies, lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic are preparing to pour billions of dollars into research and development....

We measured the total government investment in research, which includes both civil and defence R&D, and, to give a better sense of scale, we also looked at that investment as a proportion of each country's gross domestic product (GDP)....

The United States, in particular, dominates global sciences, spending an astounding US$134 billion on R&D this year alone — more than any other country or region. Much of that money, about 60%, is spent on defence-related R&D, but even when those funds are subtracted, the United States is still the standard by which all other nations measure themselves.

Things may not stay that way, however. Science budgets in the United States, Germany and France, have been stagnant in recent years, whereas budgets in Asian countries such as India and China have been racing upwards. If current trends continue, China is predicted to catch up with European Union spending, at least in terms of GDP share, by 2010.

East and Southeast Asia: Science and Technology

Source

The scientific balance of power: Source: "The scientific balance of power," Nature 439 (9 February 2006), 646-647. doi:10.1038/439646a

EPA takes first step in filling nanotech information gaps

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:00:00 -0800

NOTE: This content was aggregated from RSS feed. Original source is http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/poen-etf012808.php

The US Environmental Protection Agency published today in the Federal Register its plan for the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The plan takes a positive first step by offering industry, non-governmental organizations and other groups the opportunity to voluntarily submit safety data on engineered nanoscale materials.

Move over US -- China to be new driver of world's economy and innovation?

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:00:00 -0800

NOTE: This content was aggregated from RSS feed. Original source is http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/giot-mou012408.php

EurkeAlert reports on a Georgia Tech "study of worldwide technological competitiveness suggests China may soon rival the United States as the principal driver of the world's economy -- a position the US has held since the end of World War II."

The study’s indicators predict that China will soon pass the United States in the critical ability to develop basic science and technology, turn those developments into products and services – and then market them to the world. Though China is often seen as just a low-cost producer of manufactured goods, the new “High Tech Indicators” study done by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology clearly shows that the Asian powerhouse has much bigger aspirations.

“For the first time in nearly a century, we see leadership in basic research and the economic ability to pursue the benefits of that research – to create and market products based on research – in more than one place on the planet,” said Nils Newman, co-author of the National Science Foundation-supported study. “Since World War II, the United States has been the main driver of the global economy. Now we have a situation in which technology products are going to be appearing in the marketplace that were not developed or commercialized here. We won’t have had any involvement with them and may not even know they are coming.”

Georgia Tech’s “High Tech Indicators” study ranks 33 nations relative to one another on “technological standing,” an output factor that indicates each nation’s recent success in exporting high technology products. Four major input factors help build future technological standing: national orientation toward technological competitiveness, socioeconomic infrastructure, technological infrastructure and productive capacity. Each of the indicators is based on a combination of statistical data and expert opinions.

A chart showing change in the technological standing of the 33 nations is dominated by one feature – a long and continuous upward line that shows China moving from “in the weeds” to world technological leadership over the past 15 years.

The 2007 statistics show China with a technological standing of 82.8, compared to 76.1 for the United States, 66.8 for Germany and 66.0 for Japan. Just 11 years ago, China’s score was only 22.5. The United States peaked in 1999 with a score of 95.4.

Changes in Competitiveness, 1993-2007: Chart shows the change in technological standing for several nations from 1993 to 2007.

China: Science & Technology

Diversification of research funding: from federal to industrial

Jerry Sheehan — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:31:49 -0800

Description

Historically, the modern university received substantial funding for scientific research from the federal government of the United States. These efforts, often driven by national priorities such as defense, helped support a research portfolio which balanced basic and applied research. In the coming decade this will change as we see an increase in the diversity of funding sources supporting academic research in America.

Recent concerns over American competitiveness lead to proposed increases in FY08 for federal support for academic research. However, federal R&D support is heading downwards (FY08 R&D budget growth is only 1.3%; Inflation is 2.4%; Non-Defense R&D spending has been stagnant for two decades). This lead the American Association for the Advancement of Science to conclude, "As a result, federal support for research in nearly all disciplines in now in decline, a decline that would accelerate in the 2008 budget..."[1]

Increased pressures on the discretionary budget, where academic federal research and development is primarily funded, will worsen as the burden from non-discretionary funding grow. Projections in this regard are dire enough that without intervention entitlements will crowd out other spending. As Brian Ridel noted in his testimony before the Budget Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives in February of 2006, "The real reason for concern comes from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, whose steep growth will likely crowd out ALL other spending."[2]

As the federal government struggles to keep pace with the breadth of investment necessary to support academic research other sources in particular from industry have increased. The most recent and substantial of these being when in November 2007 British Petroleum pledged to spend $500 million over the next decade to support alternative energy research led by Berkeley.[3]

The increased diversity of funding sources for scientific research in particular from industry will likely lead to new concerns on campuses about the ability to freely publish academic results and the balance between basic and applied research. In the extreme this will likely lead to campus protests over research partnerships. For example, the BP deal has already spawned a student led grass-roots effort to lobby the public and university to dump the contract, see http://www.stohpbp-berkeley.org

There is little academic research that has been conducted on the impact of funding source on the nature of scientific publications, quality of science achieved, etc. However, one of the few studies done in this area found no negative impacts. As Teresa Behrnes and Dennis Gray noted in 2001, "...according to our findings, industry-supported projects are just as likely as government-sponsored projects: to be doing academic quality research (as evidenced by the project being their thesis); to involve a faculty member who receives some support from industry; and to involve students who choose, as opposed to being assigned to, that project. Interestingly, while sponsored research was by far the norm, students report infrequent interaction with their research sponsors (whether industry or government). Consistent with this finding, industry-supported students perceive themselves to have as much influence on their research projects and to be doing research that is similar in terms of basic/applied, long-term/short-term, etc., as their government-sponsored counterparts. Since students supported by these two sectors appear to be having similar research experiences, it should come as no surprise that they also report similar outcomes in terms of publications, career goals and perceived climate for academic freedom."[4]

One of the unintended consequences of the increased acceptance of industrial funding for scientific research will a personnel based "technology transfer" as university research scientists leave to take on private sector research roles. This will occur as University researchers grow more familiar with business research and development and seeing their ideas taken to market.

[1] AAAS Report XXXII, Research and Development in FY08
[2] "Testimony Before the Budget Committee" Brian Ridel, U.S. House of Representatives, February 16, 2006.
[3] "Bell Labs is Gone. Academia Steps In" G. Pascal Zachary, New York Times, December 16, 2007
[4]"Unintended Consequences of Cooperative Research: Impact of Industry Sponsorship on Climate for Academic Freedom and Other Graduate Student Outcome" , Teresa Behrnes and Dennis Gray, Research Policy, Volume 30, Issue 2, February 2001, Pages 179-199

Signals

Corporate Labs Disappear. Academia Steps In.

Unintended consequences of cooperative research

Federal support for research in nearly all disciplines in now in decline (AAAS)

William Wulf's "Disturbing Mosaic"