IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/23989.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Therapeutic Translation of Genomic Science: Opportunities and limitations of GWAS

Author

Listed:
  • Manuel I. Hermosilla
  • Jorge A. Lemus

Abstract

Many scientists predicted a swift revolution in human therapeutics after the completion of the Human Genome Project (“HGP”). This revolution, however, has been slow to materialize in spite of the scientific advances. We investigate the role of biological complexity in slowing down this revolution. Our test relies on a disease-specific measure of biological complexity, constructed by drawing on insights from Network Medicine (Barabási et al., 2011). According to our measure, more complex diseases are associated with a larger number of genetic mutations—higher centrality in the Human Disease Network (Goh et al., 2007). With this measure in hand, we estimate the rate of translation of new science into early-stage drug innovation by focusing on a leading type of genetic epidemiological knowledge (Genome-Wide Association Studies), and employing standard methods for the measurement of R&D productivity. For less complex diseases, we find a strong and positive association between cumulative knowledge and the amount of innovation. This association weakens as complexity increases, becoming statistically insignificant at the extreme. Our results suggest that biological complexity is, in part, responsible for the slower-than-expected unfolding of the therapeutical revolution set in motion by the HGP.

Suggested Citation

  • Manuel I. Hermosilla & Jorge A. Lemus, 2017. "Therapeutic Translation of Genomic Science: Opportunities and limitations of GWAS," NBER Working Papers 23989, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:23989
    Note: EH PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23989.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erika Check Hayden, 2010. "Human genome at ten: Life is complicated," Nature, Nature, vol. 464(7289), pages 664-667, April.
    2. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S Graff Zivin & Danielle Li & Bhaven N Sampat, 2019. "Public R&D Investments and Private-sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 117-152.
    3. Jaffe, Adam B, 1989. "Real Effects of Academic Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957-970, December.
    4. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    5. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:157-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2003. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Sveikauskas, Leo, 1981. "Technological Inputs and Multifactor Productivity Growth," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 63(2), pages 275-282, May.
    8. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre, 2010. "Measuring the Returns to R&D," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1033-1082, Elsevier.
    9. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1994. "Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 63-84, December.
    10. Adams, James D, 1990. "Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 673-702, August.
    11. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
    12. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 1998. "Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 157-182, June.
    13. Blundell, Richard & Griffith, Rachel & Windmeijer, Frank, 2002. "Individual effects and dynamics in count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 113-131, May.
    14. Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of the Economics of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    15. Eric S. Lander, 2011. "Initial impact of the sequencing of the human genome," Nature, Nature, vol. 470(7333), pages 187-197, February.
    16. David Dranove & Craig Garthwaite & Manuel Hermosilla, 2014. "Pharmaceutical Profits and the Social Value of Innovation," NBER Working Papers 20212, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Mansfield, Edwin, 1995. "Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations:," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(1), pages 55-65, February.
    18. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    19. Toole, Andrew A., 2012. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-12.
    20. Zucker, Lynne G & Darby, Michael R & Brewer, Marilynn B, 1998. "Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 290-306, March.
    21. Ward, Michael R & Dranove, David, 1995. "The Vertical Chain of Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 33(1), pages 70-87, January.
    22. Cockburn, Iain M. & Henderson, Rebecca M., 2001. "Scale and scope in drug development: unpacking the advantages of size in pharmaceutical research," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 1033-1057, November.
    23. Fleming, Lee & Sorenson, Olav, 2001. "Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1019-1039, August.
    24. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1974. "Science, Invention and Economic Growth," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 84(333), pages 90-108, March.
    25. Gambardella,Alfonso, 1995. "Science and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521451185, September.
    26. Goldman Dana P. & Gupta Charu & Vasudeva Eshan & Trakas Kostas & Riley Ralph & Lakdawalla Darius & Agus David & Sood Neeraj & Jena Anupam B. & Philipson Tomas J., 2013. "The Value of Diagnostic Testing in Personalized Medicine," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 87-99, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Manuel Hermosilla, 2021. "Rushed Innovation: Evidence from Drug Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 257-278, January.
    2. Veenstra David L. & Mandelblatt Jeanne & Neumann Peter & Basu Anirban & Peterson Josh F. & Ramsey Scott D., 2020. "Health Economics Tools and Precision Medicine: Opportunities and Challenges," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 23(1), pages 1-14, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    2. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    3. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    4. René Belderbos & Nazareno Braito & Jian Wang, 2024. "Heterogeneous university research and firm R&D location decisions: research orientation, academic quality, and investment type," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1959-1989, October.
    5. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno & Arts, Sam, 2012. "Mind the gap: capturing value from basic research: boundary crossing inventors and partnerships," CEPR Discussion Papers 9215, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Lee Branstetter & Kwon Hyeog Ug, 2004. "The Restructuring Of Japanese Research And Development: The Increasing Impact Of Science On Japanese R&D," Discussion papers 04021, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    8. Bastian Rake, 2017. "Determinants of pharmaceutical innovation: the role of technological opportunities revisited," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 691-727, September.
    9. Jürgen Janger, 2015. "Business Science Links For a New Growth Path. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 107," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58413, March.
    10. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 2001. "Publicly Funded Science and the Productivity of the Pharmaceutical Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 1-34, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    12. Steven Buccola & David Ervin & Hui Yang, 2009. "Research Choice and Finance in University Bioscience," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(4), pages 1238-1255, April.
    13. Toole, Andrew A., 2012. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-12.
    14. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2007. "Science linkages and innovation performance: An analysis on CIS-3 firms in Belgium," IESE Research Papers D/671, IESE Business School.
    15. Alessandra Scandura, 2013. "The role of scientific and market knowledge in the inventive process: evidence from a survey of industrial inventors," ERSA conference papers ersa13p128, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Toole, Andrew A., 2011. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-063, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. repec:wip:wpaper:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Richard M. H. Suen, 2013. "Research Policy and U.S. Economic Growth," Working papers 2013-18, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    20. Pluvia Zuniga, 2011. "The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 04, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Dec 2011.
    21. Christophe Pennetier & Karan Girotra & Jürgen Mihm, 2019. "R&D Spending: Dynamic or Persistent?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 636-657, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:23989. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.