Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
micronano technology grants were also cited as having helped to attract investors
for spin-out companies, because “having a feasibility study funded in-house gave a
lot of confidence to potential investors”. The venture capitalist interviewed shared
the opinion that the [UK and European] government could do more, commenting:
“It is really expensive doing phase two clinical trials for pharmaceutical products.
Companies can't afford to run the trials from VC-funded equity investments [as
there is not enough money in the system]”. So how do companies fund more exten-
sive trials? Some informants suggested that companies should partner with the NHS
to develop cost-effective drugs or for universities to offer in-kind contributions in
return for a future revenue share (although in practice such partnering may be very
difficult to realise).
In particular, informants wanted the government to improve “the business cli-
mate for innovation, the fiscal regime for company investment in R&D, and
planning permission for new premises”. “By being prepared to support early
stages of BioPharma research the government could support longer term inno-
vation by providing a life-line to smaller companies and by strengthening the
science base”.
Companies viewed the R&D tax credits in the UK very favourably, as these “have
provided a positive stimulation to the funding market”, but would have preferred
direct government grants to fund clinical trials. One informant suggested that it
might “stifle innovation if governments cut back too far on their [health] spending —
as they need to rebalance [drug] prices to protect the society”.
Is R&D partnering working?
The final question on whether partnering has helped to increase innovation in R&D
led to an overwhelmingly positive response from both companies and universities
citing success. Overall, companies taking part in the study believed that partnering
helped them to increase innovation in R&D, and led them to change their R&D
structures to accommodate more open approaches to innovation to create better
partnering opportunities with universities. However it was difficult to quantify this
assertion, partly because there were few reliable methods for assessing successful
outcomes other than launch of new products, an endeavour which typically can take
up to 12 years due to the nature of R&D and innovation cycle in the BioPharma
sector.
Should We Continue to Invest in this Area?
Although there is now more government funding for BioPharma R&D than previ-
ously — with the hope that this funding will stimulate partnering — asymmetry
between business development capability in universities and companies has meant
Search WWH ::
Custom Search