Financial anatomy of neuroscience research

被引:31
作者
Dorsey, E. Ray
Vitticore, Philip
de Roulet, Jason
Thompson, Joel P.
Carrasco, Melisa
Johnston, S. Claiborne
Holloway, Robert G.
Moses, Hamilton, III
机构
[1] Univ Rochester, Med Ctr, Dept Neurol, Rochester, NY 14620 USA
[2] Univ Rochester, Med Ctr, Sch Med, Rochester, NY 14620 USA
[3] Univ Rochester, Med Ctr, Sch Publ Hlth, Rochester, NY 14620 USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Neurol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] Aler Inst, N Garden, VA USA
关键词
D O I
10.1002/ana.21047
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To estimate the level of funding for neuroscience research from federal and industry sources and to examine the therapeutic advances in the neurosciences over the past decade. Methods: We examined financing for neuroscience research over the past decade from the following principal sponsors of biomedical research: the National Institutes of Health, the pharmaceutical industry, large biotechnology firms, and large medical device firms. We also examined US Food and Drug Administration approvals for new molecular entities and medical devices for indications within the neurosciences. Neuroscience was defined to include funding and approvals for neurological and psychiatric conditions. Results: Total (nominal) industry and government funding for neuroscience research increased from $4.8 billion in 1995 to $14.1 billion in 2005 and doubled after adjusting for inflation. In 2005, the pharmaceutical industry and the largest biotechnology and medical device firms accounted for 58% of total funding. The US Food and Drug Administration approved 40 new molecular entities for indications within the neurosciences from 1995 to 2005, with the annual number of approvals remaining relatively stagnant during this period. From 1995 to 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration also approved 1,679 medical devices in the neurosciences for use. Interpretation: Financing for neuroscience research has increased significantly over the past decade, but new approvals for drugs in the neurosciences have not kept pace with the rapid increase in funding. This lag may represent a natural delay in realizing the return in the investment in scientific research or a decline in the productivity of neuroscience research.
引用
收藏
页码:652 / 659
页数:8
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   Prospects for productivity [J].
Booth, B ;
Zemmel, R .
NATURE REVIEWS DRUG DISCOVERY, 2004, 3 (05) :451-457
[2]  
*FDN CTR, 2004, TOP 50 US FDN AW GRA
[3]   Basic and clinical research: What is the most appropriate weighting in a public investment portfolio? [J].
Johnston, S. Claiborne ;
Hauser, Stephen L. .
ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY, 2006, 60 (01) :9A-11A
[4]   Effect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs [J].
Johnston, SC ;
Rootenberg, JD ;
Katrak, S ;
Smith, WS ;
Elkins, JS .
LANCET, 2006, 367 (9519) :1319-1327
[5]   Translation: Case study in failure [J].
Johnston, SC .
ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY, 2006, 59 (03) :447-448
[6]   The integration of neurology, psychiatry, and neuroscience in the 21st century [J].
Martin, JB .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2002, 159 (05) :695-704
[7]   Financial anatomy of biomedical research [J].
Moses, H ;
Dorsey, ER ;
Matheson, DHM ;
Thier, SO .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2005, 294 (11) :1333-1342
[8]  
*NIH, NIH PRIC IND
[9]  
*PHARM RES MAN AM, 2000, PHARM IND PROF 2000
[10]  
*PHARM RES MAN AM, 1998, PHARM IND PROF 1998