, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 181–190 | Cite as

A Prospective View on European Pharmaceutical Research and Development

Policy Options to Reduce Fragmentation and Increase Competitiveness
  • Panos KanavosEmail author
Leading Article


This article analyses 3 areas of policy that could reduce the fragmentation and improve the competitiveness of the European pharmaceutical sector. It argues that a potential solution to the issue of fragmentation of pharmaceutical research, development and innovation may be the development of policies at the European level, in those areas that European institutions have a competence. These areas may not necessarily rely exclusively on solving the issue of pricing and reimbursing pharmaceuticals as European Union (EU) Member States invoke the subsidiarity principle to claim policy exclusivity in this area. By contrast, policy areas where European institutions have a competence may include: i) a more intensified collaboration in science and technology policy (supporting the science base, identifying education needs for the future, collaborating in the development of new technologies and fostering university-industry collaboration); ii) support of research and development (R&D) by means of directly channelling funds into basic pharmaceutical research, avoiding duplication of the research effort, developing a set of research priorities, tackling the issue of technology transfer, promoting university-industry and cross-border collaborations or providing incentives that would induce private R&D activities in areas with large socioeconomic impact; and iii) an improvement in the environment for the financing of innovation in the EU, by means of selective use of tax policy at the national level (and where applicable, at the EU level), institutional reform in order to widen the pool of available funds for private investment, and the introduction of schemes that would encourage individuals and institutions to hold equity in innovative companies. The article identifies specific research, regulatory, medical and financing needs that require policy intervention, evaluates the possible dynamic implications of such interventions and highlights the benefits that may accrue from their implementation.


Member State Adis International Limited Venture Capital Industrial Policy European Institution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Commission of the European Communities. Directive 89/105 [transparency directive]. Off J Eur Communities 1989; 40: 8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Commission of the European Communities. On the outlines of an industrial policy for the pharmaceutical sector in the European Community: Directorate General III (Industry). Brussels: European Commission, 1994Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    UK Office of Science and Technology. Europe: funding from the Fourth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, 1994-98. London: UK Office of Science and Technology, 1994Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Commission of the European Communities. Directive 92/26, 1992. Off J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Commission of the European Communities. Directive 92/28, 1992. Off J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 13Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Commission of the European Communities. Directive 89/341, 1989. Off J Eur Communities 1989; 142: 11Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Commission of the European Communities. Directive 92/27, 1992. Off J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 8Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Commission of the European Communities. Directive 92/25, 1992. Off J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 1Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kanavos P. Tax harmonisation: the single market challenge. In: Stavridis S, Mossialos E, Morgan R, et al, editors. New challenges to the European Union: policies and policy-making. Aldershot: Dartmouth-Aldershot, 1997Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    LSE Health. European pharmaceutical research, development and innovation: assessment of the socio-economic impact of new drugs. Seville: European Commission, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 1997Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bangemann M. Completing the single pharmaceutical market. Eurohealth 1997; 3 (1): 22–3Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flynn P. The single pharmaceutical market and public Health. Eurohealth 1997; 3 (1): 25–6Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Furniss J. The Bangemann Round Table: a beginning not an end. Eurohealth 1997; 3 (1): 27–8Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Union Working Group One. The European pharmaceutical market [report]. Brussels: European Union Working Group One, 1997Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Union Working Group Two. The single market in pharmaceuticals: Chairman and Rapporteur’s summary. Brussels: European Union Working Group Two, 1997Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Senior Advisory Group on Biotechnology (SAGB). Biotechnology’s economic impact in Europe: a survey of its future role in competitiveness. Brussels: SAGB, 1994Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    United States Government. Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act (Public Law 96-480). Washington, DC: United States Government, 1980Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    United States Government. Federal Technology Transfer Act (Public Law 99-502). Washington, DC: United States Government, 1986Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miege R. Technology transfer policies in Europe, in Euro-CASE: technology transfer and diffusion. Paris: Euro-CASE, 1994Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Webster A. University-corporate ties and research agendas. Sociology 1994; 28 (1): 123–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Looze M-A, Estades J, Joly P-B, et al. The role of SMEs in technology creation and diffusion: implications for European competitiveness in biotechnology, INRA/SERD. Grenoble: Universite Pierre Mendes-France, 1996Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oakey R, Faulkner W, Cooper S, et al. New firms in the biotechnology industry: their contribution to innovation and growth. London: Pinter Publishers, 1990Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    LSE Health. American and Japanese (bio)pharmaceutical presence in Europe. Luxembourg: European Parliament, Directorate General for Research, Office for Official Publications, 1994Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kanavos P. Pharmaceutical consolidation and public policy. Eurohealth 1996; 2 (4): 30–2Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA). Promising therapeutic areas in pharmaceutical research & development: risk evaluation by Japanese and US scientists [in Japanese]. Tokyo: JPMA, 1992Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Centre for Medicines Research (CMR). CMR key figures. London: CMR, 1994Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker S. Trends in pharmaceutical R&D. A Presentation based on Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) data. LSE Health; 1996 Jul 8; LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walsh V, Niosi J, Mustar P. Small firm formation in biotechnology: a comparison of France, Britain and Canada. Technovation 1995; 15 (5): 303–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hodgson J. The end of French biotechnology R&D? Biotechnol Europroduct Focus 1994; 7: 4–8Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kanavos P. Determinants of market structure in the international biopharmaceutical industry. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Biotechnology Unit, 1998Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bundesministerium fuer Bildung, Wissenschaft Forschung und Technologie Gesundheitsforschung 2000: Programm der Bundesregierung. Bonn: German Federal Government, 1993Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bundesministerium fuer Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie. Programm Biotechnologie 2000. Karlsruhe: German Federal Government, 1995Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency. Biotechnology in the Netherlands: ready for the market. The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs, 1995Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    UK Office of Science and Technology. Technology Foresight Programme: progress through partnership. London: Link Programme, Department of Trade and Industry, 1995Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    INRA. Biotechnology and genetic engineering: what Europeans think about it in 1993, Eurobarometer 39.1. Report to the European Commission, DGXIV. Brussels: European Commisssion, 1993Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    US Office of Technology Assessment. Pharmaceutical R&D: costs, risks and rewards. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1993. Report no.: OTA-H-522Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaitin KI, Bryant NR, Lasagna L. The role of the research-based pharmaceutical industry in medical progress in the United States. J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 33: 412–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    US Office of Technology Assessment. Federally funded research: decisions for a decade. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States, 1991Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sykes R. Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry. BMJ 1994; 309: 422–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    European Commission. Task Force for Vaccines and Viral Diseases: first report, Directorate General XII — Research. Brussels: European Commission, 1995Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Commission of the European Communities. Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on orphan medicinal products [preliminary draft]. Brussels: European Commission, 1996Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fracchia GN, Haavisto KH. Orphan drugs: European Union priorities for research and regulatory actions. In: Fracchia GN, Haavisto KH, editors. European medicines research: perspectives in clinical trials. Cambridge: European Conference Publications, 1996Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    European Commisssion. Communication on a programme of community action for rare diseases within the framework for action in the field of public health. Brussels: European Commission, 1997Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    United States Government. Orphan Drug Act: 1983 (Public Law 97-414). Washington, DC: United States Government, 1983Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Japan BioIndustry Letters. The inauguration of a system for the Promotion of Orphan Drug Development. BioIndustry Lett 1994; 11 (1): 5–6Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    US Office of Technology Assessment. Biotechnology in a global economy. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1993Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Congress of the United States. Venture capital and innovation: a study prepared for the use of the Joint Economic Committee. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States, 1984Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Henderson YK. The emergence of the venture capital industry. N Engl Econ Rev 1989; 11: 64–79Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bank of England. Venture capital in the United Kingdom. Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 1990; 30 (1): 78–83Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    European Commission. Seed capital: DG XXIII, advance report 1996. Brussels: European Commission, 1996Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    London Stock Exchange. Listing rules. London: London Stock Exchange, 1996: 20.1-20.13Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    US Office of Technology Assessment. New developments in biotechnology: US investment in biotechnology — special report. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1988. Report no.: OTA-BA-360Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Merrifield DB. R&D limited partnerships are starting to bridge the invention-translation gap. Res Manage 1986; 3: 9–12Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    US Office of Technology Assessment. New developments in biotechnology: US investment in biotechnology. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1988Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hall B. The private and social returns to R&D: measurement and findings. In: Anderson J, Fears R, editors. Valuing and evaluating: assessment of the value of R&D in creating national and corporate prosperity. London: Cross & Associates, 1995Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Policy & Administration and LSE HealthLondon School of Economics & Political ScienceLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations