Search

Research and development activities have become more and more internationalized with emerging economies playing an increasingly important role. This phenomenon is particularly debated in the pharmaceutical industry where (Western) pharmaceutical companies have started to offshore clinical research to so-called nontraditional clinical research countries. This study empirically investigates the changing geography of clinical research between the years 2002 and 2012. Building on the concept of national innovative capacity (Furman et al., 2002, Res. Policy, 31, 899-933), we shed light on different drivers of countries' attractiveness as a location for clinical research including arguments related to the supply (cost)-side, the demand-side, and the knowledge base. Our results challenge existing views on the extent of the phenomenon as well as the involvement of particular countries. Across nontraditional countries, the level of clinical research activities is driven by knowledge rather than cost arguments. Moreover, the rising strength of the knowledge base of nontraditional countries enables them to increasingly direct research in favor of local needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the existing literature has focused predominantly on how firms can benefit from collaborations with academic institutions such as universities and research institutions, this study explores whether the proportion of (formal) collaborations with different types of firm partners in strategic R&D alliances is associated with publications originating in academic institutions. The empirical analysis is based on a unique dataset of publications in pharmaceutical cancer research. The results suggest that the share of collaborations with industry partners has an inverted u-shaped relationship with the reputation of the journal in which an article originating in an academic institution is published. The share of alliances with pharmaceutical firms shows a similar inverted u-shaped pattern, suggesting that research originating in academic institutions can only benefit from alliances with pharmaceutical firms through resource inflows up to a threshold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing amount of clinical research conducted outside the “traditional” countries raises questions about the benefits of hosting offshored clinical research. The extent to which trials contribute to the scientific knowledge base and, in particular, whether there are differences between different types of trials remain open questions. By examining a change in clinical trial regulations in India, a country often viewed as a first-choice offshoring location, we study how the relaxation of clinical trial regulations affects the number and the type of clinical trials as well as the domestic scientific knowledge base. Based on trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov and data on associated publication activities, our empirical analysis suggests that, despite an initial increase in the number of clinical trials, relaxing clinical trial regulations has a limited impact on the domestic scientific knowledge base. More specifically, the number of Indian researchers involved in the production of trial-related scientific knowledge remains modest. Furthermore, the potential to learn from the additional trials appears to be limited: the influx of phase 3 trials—mainly sponsored by Western-pharmaceutical firms—is accompanied by a lower likelihood that the trial results will be used in Indian researchers’ subsequent research activities when compared to phase 3 trials with preceding phase 2 trials, as was required before the regulatory change. Overall, our results contradict expectations that relaxing the regulatory requirements for conducting late-stage clinical trials is an appropriate means of supporting the development of the domestic scientific knowledge base. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper builds upon the literature which provides conflicting theoretical insights and empirical results concerning the importance of companies’ collaborative relations, their position within a network of collaborative relations and the effects on their innovative performance. Taking the importance of collaborations and networks in the pharmaceutical industry into account, the paper untangles the influence of the firm’s co-publication relations with different types of partners and its network position on the company’s product innovation in a specific disease area—cancer. We find rather robust evidence that in particular, companies’ indirect connections within the co-publication network, including connections to academic institutions and biotechnology companies, support product innovation. In contrast to evidence in the strategic alliance literature, direct co-publication links to biotechnology companies do not support product innovation in terms of new cancer medications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]