Industry Technology Assessment: Opportunities and Challenges for Partnership

  • Robin Fears
  • Susanne Stephan
Chapter
Part of the Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 22)

Abstract

This paper draws on experience in the UK pharmaceutical sector to describe a case study on industry approaches to Technology Assessment (TA). Before providing this detail, a general introductory section reviews the European background to TA, identifies some industry trends (with particular reference to experience in Germany) and provides a taxonomy to compare and contrast the public and private sector approaches to TA.

Keywords

Technology Assessment Health Technology Assessment Product Assessment Nuffield Council Royal Pharmaceutical Society 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becks H, Gelbke HP (2001) Die Ökoeffizienz-Analyse nach BASE. In: TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten, No 2, 10. Jahrgang - June 2001, p 34Google Scholar
  2. Bouchier A (2003) Industry ponders reimbursement crisis. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 347–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brochler S, Simonis G, Sunderman K (eds) (1999) Handbuch Technikfolgen-Abschätzung, Sigma, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Buxton M, Hanney SJ (1998) Evaluating the NHS research and development programme: will the programme give value for money? Royal Society of Medicine, 91 (suppl 35), 2–6Google Scholar
  5. Cabinet Office (2003) Biosciences: challenges and opportunities for Government, Strategic Futures on http://www.strategy.gov.uk
  6. Canning D (2003) New technology in health care. Science in Parliament, 60, 8–9Google Scholar
  7. Chapman S, Reeve E, Rajaratnam G, Neary R (2003) Setting up an outcomes guarantee for pharmaceuticals: new approach to risk sharing in primary care. British Medical Journal, 326, 707–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Commie JHJr, Dripps RD (1976) Scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. Science 192, 105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dargie C (2000) Policy Futures for UK Health. The Nuffield TrustGoogle Scholar
  10. Department of Health (2003) Our inheritance, our future. Realising the potential of genetics in the NHSGoogle Scholar
  11. Department of Trade and Industry (2002) The 2002 RD ScoreboardGoogle Scholar
  12. DG Enterprise (2003) Innovation Tomorrow, Innovation Paper 28, http://www.cordis.lu/innovation-policy/studies/gen_study7.htm. Editorial, Admitting the evidence, Innovation Policy Review 2003 4, 1–4
  13. ESRC (2001) Innovative Health Technologies Programme 2001 on http://www.york.ac.uk/res/iht
  14. Fears R, Poste G (1999) Building research resources in human population genetics: the potential of the British National Health Service. Science 284, 267–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fears R, Tambuyzer E (1999) Core ethical values for European bioindustries. Nature Biotechnology 17, 114–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fears R, Roberts D, Poste G (2000) Rational or rationed medicine? The promise of genetics for improved clinical practice. British Medical J. 320, 933–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. G10 Medicines Group, High Level Group on innovation and provision of medicines in the European Union. Recommendations for action, May 2002 on http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ ph/key_doc/key08_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
  18. Gelijns AC, Rosenberg N, Moskowitz Al (1998) Capturing the unexpected benefits of medical research. New Engl J. Med. 339, 693–698Google Scholar
  19. Grunwald A (2002) Technikfolgenabschätzung - eine Einführung. Sigma, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Hennen L (1999) Technology Assessment - does it always come “too late”? In: TAB-Brief, No 17Google Scholar
  21. Lasker Charitable Trust, Exceptional Returns - The Economic Value of America’s Investment in Medical Research, 2000 on http://www.fundingfirst.org
  22. Martin S (2003) The evaluation of strategic research partnerships. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 15, 159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Medical Technologies Group, Enhancing patient access to new medical technologies. Science in Parliament 2003 60, 20–21Google Scholar
  24. Miller DH (2003) Commentary: Evaluating disease modifying treatments in multiple sckerosis. British Medical J. 326, 525Google Scholar
  25. Minx E (2001) In: TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten, No 2, 10. Jahrgang, p 39Google Scholar
  26. Morris N (2001) The changing landscape of regulatory control of biological medicines. Technology Analysis Strategic Management 13, 246–263Google Scholar
  27. NIH, NIH GPRA Research Programmes Outcome FY 1999 Assessment Material on wwwl.od.nih.gov/gpra accessed on 3 December 2002Google Scholar
  28. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Consultation on pharmacogenetics: ethical issues, 2002 on http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/pharmacogenetics/public.asp
  29. OECD, The OECD Health Project relating to new and emerging health related technologies on www.oecd.org accessed 24 March 2003Google Scholar
  30. Pardes H, Manton KG, Lander ES, Tolley D, Ullian AD, Palmer H (1999) Effects of medical research on health care and the economy. Science 283, 36–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force, Final Report March 2001, Department of Health and Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry websitesGoogle Scholar
  32. Postnote 168 MS treatments and NICE, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology 2002Google Scholar
  33. Pullman D, Lotus A (2003) Clinical trials, genetic add-ons, and the question of benefit-sharing. Lancet 362, 242–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richards T (1999) The genomic challenge. British Medical J. 318, 341–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ropohl G (1999) Innovative Technikbewertung. In: Brochler S, Simonis G, Sundermann K (eds) Handbuch Technikfolgen-Abschätzung. Sigma, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. Roses A (2003) Pharmacogenetics: personalised safety and segmented efficacy on http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/forum.roses.htm and related articles cited therein
  37. Royal College of Physicians (2000) The prescribing of costly medicinesGoogle Scholar
  38. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Consultation on pharmacogenetics: ethical issues on http://www.rpsgb.org.uk/pdfs/pharmacogene.pdf accessed on 17 February 2003
  39. Salmankaita JP, Salo A (2002) Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies. Technology Assessment Strategic Management 14, 183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salo A, Kuusi O (2001) Developments in parliamentary technology assessment in Finland Science Public Policy 28, 453–464Google Scholar
  41. Stein JA (2002) Science, technology and European foreign policy: European integration, global interaction. Science Public Policy 29, 463–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steinmuller K, Tacke K, Tschiedel R (1999) Innovationsorientierte Technikfolgenabschatzung. In: Brochler S, Simonis G, Sundermann K (eds) Handbuch Technikfolgennabschätzung, Band 1. Sigma, Berlin 129–145Google Scholar
  43. Vaccani P, Bax R, Watson P (1997) Measuring outcomes from RD in healthcare. In: Anderson J, Fears R, Taylor B (eds) Managing technology for competitive advantage. Cartermill, London 379–399Google Scholar
  44. Wanless D (2001) Securing our future health: taking a long-term view on http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/Consultations_Legisl…/consult_wanless_index.cf
  45. Weber J, Schaffer U, Hoffmann D, Kehnnann T (1999) Technology Assessment — Eine Managementperspektive — Bestandsaufnahme, Analyse, Handlungsempfehlungen. Gabler, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  46. Zimmern R, Cook C (2000) Genetics and Health. The Nuffield TrustGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Fears
  • Susanne Stephan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations