User login
Credit: Rhoda Baer
An analysis of countries in North America, Europe, and Asia-Oceania showed that the US had the slowest annual growth in medical research funding from 2004 to 2011.
Nevertheless, the US was the leading sponsor of global medical research in 2011, accounting for 44% of the $265 billion spent in all the regions studied.
Hamilton Moses III, MD, of the Alerion Institute and Alerion Advisors LLC, in North Garden, Virginia, and his colleagues reported these discoveries in JAMA.
The researchers examined developments over the past 2 decades in the pattern of who conducts and who supports medical research, as well as resulting patents, publications, and new drug and device approvals.
The group compiled publicly available data from 1994 to 2012, showing trends in US and international research funding, productivity, and disease burden by source and industry type. Patents and publications (1981-2011) were evaluated using citation rates and impact factors.
International research funding
The researchers included data from the major countries of North America (US and Canada), Europe (including the 10 largest European countries in the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), and Asia-Oceania (Australia, China, India, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea).
Of these regions, the US had the lowest rate of annual growth in funding from 2004 to 2011 (1%). The rate was 4.1% in Europe, 4.5% in Canada, 6.8% in Japan, 9.3% in Australia, 16.9% in China, and 20.8% in the other Asian countries.
Still, in 2011, the US invested $117.2 billion (44%) of the $265 billion spent in all the regions studied. Europe spent $88.6 billion (33%), Japan spent $37.8 billion (14%), China spent $4.9 billion (1.2%), other Asian countries spent $9.7 billion (4%), Australia spent $3.8 billion (1.4%), and Canada spent $3.1 billion (1.2%).
Research outcomes
Dr Moses and his colleagues also compared other aspects of medical research among the regions, such as patent applications, research articles, and drug approvals.
They found that China filed 30% of global life science patent applications in 2011, while the US filed 24%. Japan filed the fewest applications of all the
regions analyzed.
The US and the European Union were neck-and-neck with regard to the share of biomedical research articles published in all regions in 2009—33.4% and 32.8%, respectively. China’s share was only 5%, but the country had the greatestgrowth in contribution from 2000 through 2009, at 18.7%.
And the European Medicines Agency (EMA) outstripped the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when it came to drug approvals. In 2013, the EMA approved 57 new molecular entities and biologics, compared to the FDA’s 27. From 2003 to2013, the FDA averaged 26 approvals per year, and the EMA averaged 42. 
Credit: Rhoda Baer
An analysis of countries in North America, Europe, and Asia-Oceania showed that the US had the slowest annual growth in medical research funding from 2004 to 2011.
Nevertheless, the US was the leading sponsor of global medical research in 2011, accounting for 44% of the $265 billion spent in all the regions studied.
Hamilton Moses III, MD, of the Alerion Institute and Alerion Advisors LLC, in North Garden, Virginia, and his colleagues reported these discoveries in JAMA.
The researchers examined developments over the past 2 decades in the pattern of who conducts and who supports medical research, as well as resulting patents, publications, and new drug and device approvals.
The group compiled publicly available data from 1994 to 2012, showing trends in US and international research funding, productivity, and disease burden by source and industry type. Patents and publications (1981-2011) were evaluated using citation rates and impact factors.
International research funding
The researchers included data from the major countries of North America (US and Canada), Europe (including the 10 largest European countries in the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), and Asia-Oceania (Australia, China, India, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea).
Of these regions, the US had the lowest rate of annual growth in funding from 2004 to 2011 (1%). The rate was 4.1% in Europe, 4.5% in Canada, 6.8% in Japan, 9.3% in Australia, 16.9% in China, and 20.8% in the other Asian countries.
Still, in 2011, the US invested $117.2 billion (44%) of the $265 billion spent in all the regions studied. Europe spent $88.6 billion (33%), Japan spent $37.8 billion (14%), China spent $4.9 billion (1.2%), other Asian countries spent $9.7 billion (4%), Australia spent $3.8 billion (1.4%), and Canada spent $3.1 billion (1.2%).
Research outcomes
Dr Moses and his colleagues also compared other aspects of medical research among the regions, such as patent applications, research articles, and drug approvals.
They found that China filed 30% of global life science patent applications in 2011, while the US filed 24%. Japan filed the fewest applications of all the
regions analyzed.
The US and the European Union were neck-and-neck with regard to the share of biomedical research articles published in all regions in 2009—33.4% and 32.8%, respectively. China’s share was only 5%, but the country had the greatestgrowth in contribution from 2000 through 2009, at 18.7%.
And the European Medicines Agency (EMA) outstripped the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when it came to drug approvals. In 2013, the EMA approved 57 new molecular entities and biologics, compared to the FDA’s 27. From 2003 to2013, the FDA averaged 26 approvals per year, and the EMA averaged 42.
Credit: Rhoda Baer
An analysis of countries in North America, Europe, and Asia-Oceania showed that the US had the slowest annual growth in medical research funding from 2004 to 2011.
Nevertheless, the US was the leading sponsor of global medical research in 2011, accounting for 44% of the $265 billion spent in all the regions studied.
Hamilton Moses III, MD, of the Alerion Institute and Alerion Advisors LLC, in North Garden, Virginia, and his colleagues reported these discoveries in JAMA.
The researchers examined developments over the past 2 decades in the pattern of who conducts and who supports medical research, as well as resulting patents, publications, and new drug and device approvals.
The group compiled publicly available data from 1994 to 2012, showing trends in US and international research funding, productivity, and disease burden by source and industry type. Patents and publications (1981-2011) were evaluated using citation rates and impact factors.
International research funding
The researchers included data from the major countries of North America (US and Canada), Europe (including the 10 largest European countries in the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), and Asia-Oceania (Australia, China, India, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea).
Of these regions, the US had the lowest rate of annual growth in funding from 2004 to 2011 (1%). The rate was 4.1% in Europe, 4.5% in Canada, 6.8% in Japan, 9.3% in Australia, 16.9% in China, and 20.8% in the other Asian countries.
Still, in 2011, the US invested $117.2 billion (44%) of the $265 billion spent in all the regions studied. Europe spent $88.6 billion (33%), Japan spent $37.8 billion (14%), China spent $4.9 billion (1.2%), other Asian countries spent $9.7 billion (4%), Australia spent $3.8 billion (1.4%), and Canada spent $3.1 billion (1.2%).
Research outcomes
Dr Moses and his colleagues also compared other aspects of medical research among the regions, such as patent applications, research articles, and drug approvals.
They found that China filed 30% of global life science patent applications in 2011, while the US filed 24%. Japan filed the fewest applications of all the
regions analyzed.
The US and the European Union were neck-and-neck with regard to the share of biomedical research articles published in all regions in 2009—33.4% and 32.8%, respectively. China’s share was only 5%, but the country had the greatestgrowth in contribution from 2000 through 2009, at 18.7%.
And the European Medicines Agency (EMA) outstripped the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when it came to drug approvals. In 2013, the EMA approved 57 new molecular entities and biologics, compared to the FDA’s 27. From 2003 to2013, the FDA averaged 26 approvals per year, and the EMA averaged 42.