Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Quantifying the economic impact of government and charity funding of medical research on private research and development funding in the United Kingdom

Authors: Jon Sussex, Yan Feng, Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, Michele Pistollato, Marco Hafner, Peter Burridge, Jonathan Grant

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Government- and charity-funded medical research and private sector research and development (R&D) are widely held to be complements. The only attempts to measure this complementarity so far have used data from the United States of America and are inevitably increasingly out of date. This study estimates the magnitude of the effect of government and charity biomedical and health research expenditure in the United Kingdom (UK), separately and in total, on subsequent private pharmaceutical sector R&D expenditure in the UK.

Methods

The results for this study are obtained by fitting an econometric vector error correction model (VECM) to time series for biomedical and health R&D expenditure in the UK for ten disease areas (including ‘other’) for the government, charity and private sectors. The VECM model describes the relationship between public (i.e. government and charities combined) sector expenditure, private sector expenditure and global pharmaceutical sales as a combination of a long-term equilibrium and short-term movements.

Results

There is a statistically significant complementary relationship between public biomedical and health research expenditure and private pharmaceutical R&D expenditure. A 1 % increase in public sector expenditure is associated in the best-fit model with a 0.81 % increase in private sector expenditure. Sensitivity analysis produces a similar and statistically significant result with a slightly smaller positive elasticity of 0.68. Overall, every additional £1 of public research expenditure is associated with an additional £0.83–£1.07 of private sector R&D spend in the UK; 44 % of that additional private sector expenditure occurs within 1 year, with the remainder accumulating over decades. This spillover effect implies a real annual rate of return (in terms of economic impact) to public biomedical and health research in the UK of 15–18 %. When combined with previous estimates of the health gain that results from public medical research in cancer and cardiovascular disease, the total rate of return would be around 24–28 %.

Conclusion

Overall, this suggests that government and charity funded research in the UK crowds in additional private sector R&D in the UK. The implied historical returns from UK government and charity funded investment in medical research in the UK compare favourably with the rates of return achieved on investments in the rest of the UK economy and are greatly in excess of the 3.5 % real annual rate of return required by the UK government to public investments generally.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The return for mental health was estimated to be approximately 7 %. However, this was based on a more limited analysis due to data limitation and uncertainties around the effects of interventions in mental health and was presented with less confidence than the estimates for CVD.
 
2
For the finalised time series we used and presented calendar years. The first calendar year of a financial year was used. That is, financial year 1991/1992 is presented as calendar year 1991.
 
3
It should be noted that in the studies on cardiovascular research [4] and cancer [8] we used the inclusive measure as we wanted to err on the side of caution in calculating a rate of return, potentially overestimating investments.
 
4
CWTS is an interdisciplinary institute at Leiden University providing data products and services to a variety of research institutes. The institute utilises a bibliometric data system (based on an enhanced version of Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science database) enabling high-value bibliometric analyses. See http://​www.​cwts.​nl/​Home for more detail.
 
5
Note that there is no general consensus on the total UK government biomedical research spend. However, our bottom-up estimate for government expenditure is in the same ballpark with an estimate by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (2012). Using 2009/2010 data, the UK Health Research Analysis 2009/2010 report estimates governmental spend (without charity) to be £1.304bn. Including spend on biomedical research by the Funding Councils in that year (£590m in 2009/2010) and, translating into 2012 constant prices, that figure becomes £2.032bn.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Breschi S, Lissoni F. Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems. Ind Corp Change. 2001;10(4):975–1005.CrossRef Breschi S, Lissoni F. Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems. Ind Corp Change. 2001;10(4):975–1005.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Cockburn I, Henderson R. Absorptive capacity, co-authoring behavior and the organization of research in drug discovery. J Ind Econ. 1998;66(2):157–82. Cockburn I, Henderson R. Absorptive capacity, co-authoring behavior and the organization of research in drug discovery. J Ind Econ. 1998;66(2):157–82.
3.
go back to reference Cockburn IM, Henderson RM. Publicly funded science and the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry. In: Jaffe AB, Lerner J, Stern S, editors. Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1. Boston, MA: MIT Press; 1980. p. 1–34. Cockburn IM, Henderson RM. Publicly funded science and the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry. In: Jaffe AB, Lerner J, Stern S, editors. Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1. Boston, MA: MIT Press; 1980. p. 1–34.
4.
go back to reference HERG OHE, Europe RAND. Medical research: what’s it worth? Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. Report for the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Academy of Medical Sciences. London: Wellcome Trust; 2008. HERG OHE, Europe RAND. Medical research: what’s it worth? Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. Report for the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Academy of Medical Sciences. London: Wellcome Trust; 2008.
5.
go back to reference Toole A. Does public scientific research complement private investment in research and development in the pharmaceutical industry? J Law Econ. 2007;50:81–104.CrossRef Toole A. Does public scientific research complement private investment in research and development in the pharmaceutical industry? J Law Econ. 2007;50:81–104.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ward MR, Dranove D. The vertical chain of research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. Econ Inq. 1995;33:70–8.CrossRef Ward MR, Dranove D. The vertical chain of research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. Econ Inq. 1995;33:70–8.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Chakravarthy R, Cotter K, DiMasi J, Milne C-P, Wendel N. Public and Private Sector Contributions to the Research & Development of the Most Transformational Drugs of the Last 25 Years. A Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development White Paper. Boston, MA: Tufts University School of Medicine; 2015. Chakravarthy R, Cotter K, DiMasi J, Milne C-P, Wendel N. Public and Private Sector Contributions to the Research & Development of the Most Transformational Drugs of the Last 25 Years. A Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development White Paper. Boston, MA: Tufts University School of Medicine; 2015.
8.
go back to reference Glover M, Buxton M, Guthrie S, Hanney S, Pollitt A, Grant J. Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes. BMC Med. 2014;12:99.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Glover M, Buxton M, Guthrie S, Hanney S, Pollitt A, Grant J. Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes. BMC Med. 2014;12:99.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Councils EMR. White Paper II: A Stronger Biomedical Research for a Better European Future. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation; 2011. Councils EMR. White Paper II: A Stronger Biomedical Research for a Better European Future. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation; 2011.
15.
go back to reference Jaffe AB. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. Am Econ Rev. 1986;76(5):984–1001. Jaffe AB. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. Am Econ Rev. 1986;76(5):984–1001.
18.
go back to reference Engle RF, Granger CWJ. Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica. 1987;55:251–76.CrossRef Engle RF, Granger CWJ. Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica. 1987;55:251–76.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Granger CWJ. Empirical Modelling in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.CrossRef Granger CWJ. Empirical Modelling in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Cabinet Office. Annual Review of Government Funded R&D. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1984. Cabinet Office. Annual Review of Government Funded R&D. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1984.
25.
go back to reference Acemoglu D, Linn J. Market size in innovation: theory and evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Q J Econ. 2004;119(3):1049–90.CrossRef Acemoglu D, Linn J. Market size in innovation: theory and evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Q J Econ. 2004;119(3):1049–90.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Cerda RA. Endogenous innovations in the pharmaceutical industry. J Evol Econ. 2007;17(4):473–515.CrossRef Cerda RA. Endogenous innovations in the pharmaceutical industry. J Evol Econ. 2007;17(4):473–515.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Rake B. Determinants of pharmaceutical innovation: the role of technological opportunities revisited. Jena Economic Research Papers. Jena, Germany: Friedrich-Schiller-University; 2012. Rake B. Determinants of pharmaceutical innovation: the role of technological opportunities revisited. Jena Economic Research Papers. Jena, Germany: Friedrich-Schiller-University; 2012.
28.
go back to reference Dubois P, de Mouzon O, Scott-Morton F, Seabright P. Market size and pharmaceutical innovation. Institut d’Economie Industrielle Working Paper. Institut d’Economie Industrielle. Toulouse: University of Toulouse; 2011. Dubois P, de Mouzon O, Scott-Morton F, Seabright P. Market size and pharmaceutical innovation. Institut d’Economie Industrielle Working Paper. Institut d’Economie Industrielle. Toulouse: University of Toulouse; 2011.
29.
go back to reference IMS Health. World review. Annual publication 1983–2013. Danbury CT, USA: IMS Health Incorporated. IMS Health. World review. Annual publication 1983–2013. Danbury CT, USA: IMS Health Incorporated.
31.
go back to reference Enders W. Applied Econometric Time Series. Hoboken: Wiley; 1995. Especially chapter 6. Cointegration and Error Correction Models. Enders W. Applied Econometric Time Series. Hoboken: Wiley; 1995. Especially chapter 6. Cointegration and Error Correction Models.
32.
go back to reference Garratt A, Lee K, Pesaran MH, Shin Y. Global and National Macroeconometric Modelling. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. Garratt A, Lee K, Pesaran MH, Shin Y. Global and National Macroeconometric Modelling. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
33.
go back to reference Dickey DA, Fuller WA. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc. 1979;74:427–31. Dickey DA, Fuller WA. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc. 1979;74:427–31.
35.
go back to reference Paulsen J. Order determination of multivariate autoregressive time series with unit roots. J Time Ser Anal. 1984;5:115–27.CrossRef Paulsen J. Order determination of multivariate autoregressive time series with unit roots. J Time Ser Anal. 1984;5:115–27.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Tsay RS. Order selection in nonstationary autoregressive models. Ann Stat. 1984;12:1425–33.CrossRef Tsay RS. Order selection in nonstationary autoregressive models. Ann Stat. 1984;12:1425–33.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Johansen S. Likelihood-Based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive Models. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.CrossRef Johansen S. Likelihood-Based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive Models. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Pantula SG. Testing for unit roots in time series data. Economet Theor. 1989;5:256–71.CrossRef Pantula SG. Testing for unit roots in time series data. Economet Theor. 1989;5:256–71.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Mossinghoff, G. Overview of the Hatch-Waxman Act and its impact on the drug development process. Food and Drug Law Journal. 1999;54:187–194.PubMed Mossinghoff, G. Overview of the Hatch-Waxman Act and its impact on the drug development process. Food and Drug Law Journal. 1999;54:187–194.PubMed
41.
go back to reference Pesaran MH, Shin Y. Generalised impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models. Econ Lett. 1998;58:17–29.CrossRef Pesaran MH, Shin Y. Generalised impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models. Econ Lett. 1998;58:17–29.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Koop G, Pesaran MH, Potter SM. Impulse response analysis in nonlinear multivariate models. J Econometrics. 1996;74:119–47.CrossRef Koop G, Pesaran MH, Potter SM. Impulse response analysis in nonlinear multivariate models. J Econometrics. 1996;74:119–47.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Quantifying the economic impact of government and charity funding of medical research on private research and development funding in the United Kingdom
Authors
Jon Sussex
Yan Feng
Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz
Michele Pistollato
Marco Hafner
Peter Burridge
Jonathan Grant
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0564-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Medicine 1/2016 Go to the issue