ArticleHealth affairs scholar2024
Quantifying public and private investment in European biopharmaceutical research and development.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Academic biomedical research is national defence.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2026Article
- National-, institutional-, and individual-level determinants of pharmacology and pharmacy research excellence: an analysis of stanford-elsevier lists of the top 2% scholars (2017-2023).Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Quantifying public and private investment in biopharmaceutical R&D: a study of seven middle- and high-income countries.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- Collaboration for new therapies: maximizing health and innovation.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robust biopharmaceutical research and development (R&D) ecosystems require investment from both the public and private sectors. In Europe, there is an interest in growing biopharmaceutical R&D given its contribution to public health and the economy, which requires an understanding of current public and private investment. In addition, recent European draft legislation has focused on the public sector's contributions to biopharmaceutical R&D to inform pharmaceutical prices. However, there is little empirical evidence on the specifics of public and private funding for medicine R&D in Europe. This paper performs aggregative data collection to quantify 2019 investment in biopharmaceutical R&D by the public and private sectors in 6 countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Norway, Poland, and the United Kingdom. We find that, across these countries, the private sector accounts for just under two-thirds of investment. We contrast results to those obtained using high-level R&D indicators from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and contextualize differences. We then provide 2013-2019 estimates for Belgium, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (countries with data to support such analysis), and show that total spending grew over those years, although proportions attributable to each sector remained stable. These findings should provide further evidence for debates on policies to effectively grow the biopharmaceutical R&D sector.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.