↓ Skip to main content

Quantifying the economic impact of government and charity funding of medical research on private research and development funding in the United Kingdom

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
108 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quantifying the economic impact of government and charity funding of medical research on private research and development funding in the United Kingdom
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0564-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jon Sussex, Yan Feng, Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, Michele Pistollato, Marco Hafner, Peter Burridge, Jonathan Grant

Abstract

Government- and charity-funded medical research and private sector research and development (R&D) are widely held to be complements. The only attempts to measure this complementarity so far have used data from the United States of America and are inevitably increasingly out of date. This study estimates the magnitude of the effect of government and charity biomedical and health research expenditure in the United Kingdom (UK), separately and in total, on subsequent private pharmaceutical sector R&D expenditure in the UK. The results for this study are obtained by fitting an econometric vector error correction model (VECM) to time series for biomedical and health R&D expenditure in the UK for ten disease areas (including 'other') for the government, charity and private sectors. The VECM model describes the relationship between public (i.e. government and charities combined) sector expenditure, private sector expenditure and global pharmaceutical sales as a combination of a long-term equilibrium and short-term movements. There is a statistically significant complementary relationship between public biomedical and health research expenditure and private pharmaceutical R&D expenditure. A 1 % increase in public sector expenditure is associated in the best-fit model with a 0.81 % increase in private sector expenditure. Sensitivity analysis produces a similar and statistically significant result with a slightly smaller positive elasticity of 0.68. Overall, every additional £1 of public research expenditure is associated with an additional £0.83-£1.07 of private sector R&D spend in the UK; 44 % of that additional private sector expenditure occurs within 1 year, with the remainder accumulating over decades. This spillover effect implies a real annual rate of return (in terms of economic impact) to public biomedical and health research in the UK of 15-18 %. When combined with previous estimates of the health gain that results from public medical research in cancer and cardiovascular disease, the total rate of return would be around 24-28 %. Overall, this suggests that government and charity funded research in the UK crowds in additional private sector R&D in the UK. The implied historical returns from UK government and charity funded investment in medical research in the UK compare favourably with the rates of return achieved on investments in the rest of the UK economy and are greatly in excess of the 3.5 % real annual rate of return required by the UK government to public investments generally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 108 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 110 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 7 6%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 30 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 21%
Social Sciences 17 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 35 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 118. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2023.
All research outputs
#362,114
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#294
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,231
of 313,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#5
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.