The importance of new companies for drug discovery: origins of a decade of new drugs

Understanding the factors that promote drug innovation is important both for improvements in health care and for the future of organizations engaged in drug discovery research and development. By identifying the inventors of 252 new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1998 to 2007 and their places of work, and also classifying these drugs according to innovativeness, this study investigates the contribution of different types of organizations and regions to drug innovation during this period. The data indicate that drugs initially discovered in biotechnology companies or universities accounted for approximately half of the scientifically innovative drugs approved, as well as half of those that responded to unmet medical needs, although their contribution to the total number of new drugs was proportionately lower. The biotechnology companies were located mainly in the United States. This article presents a comprehensive analysis of these data and discusses potential contributing factors to the trends observed, with the aim of aiding efforts to promote drug innovation.

[1]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Rigid Disk Drive Industry: A History of Commercial and Technological Turbulence , 1993, Business History Review.

[2]  A. Saxenian.  The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy , 1994 .

[3]  A. Chandler,et al.  Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1994 .

[4]  L. Zucker,et al.  Costly Information , 1996 .

[5]  Alan Hyde,et al.  Working in Silicon Valley: Economic and Legal Analysis of a High-velocity Labor Market: Economic and Legal Analysis of a High-velocity Labor Market , 2001 .

[6]  Robert Kneller,et al.  Autarkic drug discovery in Japanese pharmaceutical companies: insights into national differences in industrial innovation , 2003 .

[7]  D. Normile.  Older Scientists Win Majority of Funding , 2004, Science.

[8]  S. Frantz.  2004 approvals: the demise of the blockbuster? , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[9]  R. Kneller.  The origins of new drugs , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

[10]  Robert Kneller.  National origins of new drugs , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

[11]  A. Savarino.  A historical sketch of the discovery and development of HIV-1 integrase inhibitors , 2006, Expert opinion on investigational drugs.

[12]  R. Rader,et al.  Biopharmaceutical products in the U.S. and European markets , 2006 .

[13]  S. Lawrence.  Biotech drugs blaze a trail , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[14]  Gary P. Pisano,et al.  Science Business: The Promise, the Reality, and the Future of Biotech , 2006 .

[15]  M. Haffner.  Adopting orphan drugs--two dozen years of treating rare diseases. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  R. Kneller.  Prospective And Retrospective Evaluation Systems In Context: Insights From Japan , 2007 .

[17]  R. Kneller.  Bridging Islands: Venture Companies and the Future of Japanese and American Industry , 2007 .

[18]  Lisa Jarvis.  ROCHE’S REVERSAL: ACQUISITION: Swiss drugmaker wants to bring long-independent Genentech into the fold , 2008 .

[19]  Bethan Hughes.  Pharma pursues novel models for academic collaboration , 2008, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[20]  J. Garnier,et al.  Rebuilding the R&D engine in big pharma. , 2008, Harvard business review.

[21]  Christian Sternitzke,et al.  Visualizing patent statistics by means of social network analysis tools , 2008 .

[22]  J. Mervis.  And Then There Was One , 2008, Science.

[23]  L. Jarvis.  THE NEW DEAL: Seeking closer ties, drug companies and universities SHAKE UP THE MODEL for research alliances , 2008 .

[24]  B. Munos.  Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[25]  Lars Engwall,et al.  Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation , 2010 .

[26]  Robert Kneller.  The Changing Governance of Japanese Public Science , 2010 .