Of the 210 medicines approved for market by the FDA between 2010 and 2016, every one originated in research conducted in government laboratories or in university labs funded in large part by the National Institutes of Health.
This is only true if you really stretch the definition of "originated". Discovering the structure of a receptor is not inventing a new drug. Optimizing a new assay is not inventing a new drug.
The paper this article references failed to note ">90% of this funding represents basic research related to the biological targets for drug action rather than the drugs themselves“. For a more accurate representation of where new drugs come from, I'd reference Derek Lowe's summary of the nature article.[1]
attempts to quantify how many drugs can be directly attributed to public-sector research, such as the 2011 study that estimated the 1990-2007 share at about 9%
1 comment
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 10.3 ms ] threadThis is only true if you really stretch the definition of "originated". Discovering the structure of a receptor is not inventing a new drug. Optimizing a new assay is not inventing a new drug.
The paper this article references failed to note ">90% of this funding represents basic research related to the biological targets for drug action rather than the drugs themselves“. For a more accurate representation of where new drugs come from, I'd reference Derek Lowe's summary of the nature article.[1]
attempts to quantify how many drugs can be directly attributed to public-sector research, such as the 2011 study that estimated the 1990-2007 share at about 9%
[1]https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/05/28/wh...