Funding of US biomedical research, 2003-2008.

CONTEXT: With the exception of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, funding support for biomedical research in the United States has slowed after a decade of doubling. However, the extent and scope of slowing are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To quantify funding of biomedical research in the United States from 2003 to 2008. DESIGN: Publicly available data were used to quantify funding from government (federal, state, and local), private, and industry sources. Regression models were used to compare financial trends between 1994-2003 and 2003-2007. The numbers of new drug and device approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration over the same period were also evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Funding and growth rates by source; numbers of US Food and Drug Administration approvals. RESULTS: Biomedical research funding increased from $75.5 billion in 2003 to $101.1 billion in 2007. In 2008, funding from the National Institutes of Health and industry totaled $88.8 billion. In 2007, funding from these sources, adjusted for inflation, was $90.2 billion. Adjusted for inflation, funding from 2003 to 2007 increased by 14%, for a compound annual growth rate of 3.4%. By comparison, funding from 1994 to 2003 increased at an annual rate of 7.8% (P < .001). In 2007, industry (58%) was the largest funder, followed by the federal government (33%). Modest increase in funding was not accompanied by an increase in approvals for drugs or devices. In 2007, the United States spent an estimated 4.5% of its total health expenditures on biomedical research and 0.1% on health services research. CONCLUSION: After a decade of doubling, the rate of increase in biomedical research funding slowed from 2003 to 2007, and after adjustment for inflation, the absolute level of funding from the National Institutes of Health and industry appears to have decreased by 2% in 2008.

Financing of U.S. biomedical research and new drug approvals across therapeutic areas.

BACKGROUND: We estimated U.S. biomedical research funding across therapeutic areas, determined the association with disease burden, and evaluated new drug approvals that resulted from this investment. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We calculated funding from 1995 to 2005 and totaled Food and Drug Administration approvals in eight therapeutic areas (cardiovascular, endocrine, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, HIV/AIDS, infectious disease excluding HIV, oncology, and respiratory) primarily using public data. We then calculated correlations between funding, published estimates of disease burden, and drug approvals. Financial support for biomedical research from 1995 to 2005 increased across all therapeutic areas between 43% and 369%. Industry was the principal funder of all areas except HIV/AIDS, infectious disease, and oncology, which were chiefly sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Total (rho = 0.70; P = .03) and industry funding (rho = 0.69; P = .04) were correlated with projected disease burden in high income countries while NIH support (rho = 0.80; P = .01) was correlated with projected disease burden globally. From 1995 to 2005 the number of new approvals was flat or declined across therapeutic areas, and over an 8-year lag period, neither total nor industry funding was correlated with future approvals. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Across therapeutic areas, biomedical research funding increased substantially, appears aligned with disease burden in high income countries, but is not linked to new drug approvals. The translational gap between funding and new therapies is affecting all of medicine, and remedies must include changes beyond additional financial investment.

Financial anatomy of neuroscience research.

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.