Patents or patients: who loses?

Exploring the role of R&D collaborations and non-patent IP policies in government technology transfer performance: Evidence from U.S. federal agencies (1999–2016)

Around the world, governments make substantial investments in public sector research and development (R&D) entities and activities to generate major scientific and technical advances that may catalyze long-term economic growth. Institutions ranging from the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the French National Centre for Scientific Research to the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centers conduct basic and applied R&D to create commercially valuable knowledge that supports the innovation goals of their respective government sponsors. Globally, the single largest public sector R&D sponsor is the U.S. federal government. In 2019 alone, the U.S. government allocated over $14.9 billion to federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), also known as national labs. However, little is known about how federal agencies’ utilization of FFRDCs, their modes of R&D collaboration, and their adoption of non-patent intellectual property (IP) policies (copyright protection and materials transfer agreements) affect agency-level performance in technology transfer. In particular, the lack of standardized metrics for quantitatively evaluating government entities’ effectiveness in managing innovation is a critical unresolved issue. We address this issue by conducting exploratory empirical analyses of federal agencies’ innovation management activities using both supply-side (filing ratio, transfer rate, and licensing success rate) and demand-side (licensing income and portfolio exclusivity) outcome metrics. We find economically significant effects of external R&D collaborations and non-patent IP policies on the technology transfer performance of 10 major federal executive branch agencies (fiscal years 1999–2016). We discuss the scholarly, managerial, and policy implications for ongoing and future evaluations of technology transfer at federal labs. We offer new insights and guidance on how critical differences in federal agencies’ interpretation and implementation of their R&D management practices in pursuit of their respective missions affect their technology transfer performance outcomes. We generalize key findings to address the broader innovation processes of public sector R&D entities worldwide.

An Elucidative Review to Analytically Sieve the Viability of Nanomedicine Market

The advent of the twenty-first century marked a paradigm shift in the healthcare sector with coming of automated, sensitive, targeted medicines and technologies having diagnostic, prophylactic and therapeutic effects. Nanomedicines also attained wide acclamation in their initial years, but the transformation from being the proof of concept to successfully marketed products seems very daunting. Although the reason for this may be attributed to slow but incremental character of many present-day technologies, the review asserts that there are other significant facets that may purvey a thorough explanation of this scenario. The article elaborately discusses the hurdles hindering clinical translation of nanomedicines including scale-up challenges, in vitro in vivo cascade of toxicology assays, along with unrefined manufacturing guidelines, inadequate regulatory approvals, competitive conventional market, etc., leading to hesitant investments by pharmaceutical giants. The paper also explores the economic viability of nanobiotechnology sector through an empirical investigation of the revenue data of various pharmaceutical industries manufacturing nano-based drugs, which indicates minor commercial importance of these medicines. We also laid down a comprehensive set of recommendations to smoothen the translational pathway of nanomedicines from an idea to reality, efface the consumer distrust and push boundaries for development and launching of safe, efficient and commercially successful products. Graphical abstract.

Nanobiotech in big pharma: a business perspective

Since the early 2000s, numerous publications have presented major scientific opportunities that can be achieved through integrating insights from the area of nanotech into biotech (nanobiotech). This paper aims to explore the economic significance that nanobiotech has gained in the established pharmaceutical industry (big pharma). The empirical investigation draws on patent data as well as product revenue data; and to put the results into perspective, the amounts are compared with the established/traditional biotech sector. The results indicate that the new technology still plays only a minor role – at least from a commercial perspective.