Center for Life Sciences Innovation
ITIF’s Center for Life Sciences Innovation advocates for accelerating biopharmaceutical innovation by recognizing that the public and private sectors both have essential roles to play. The Center’s mission is to study and advance the many technology, economic, and policy factors underpinning successful life sciences innovation—from how new technologies like artificial intelligence, genomics, and gene editing are powering the next generation of biomedical innovation to the economics of life sciences innovation, including the role of IP and incentives therein; international competitiveness in life sciences innovation; and foremost the optimal set of public policies, at home and abroad, to spur greater levels of much-needed biopharmaceutical innovation.
How Skeptics Misconstrue the Link Between Drug Prices and Innovation
Preserving US Biopharma Leadership: Why Small, Research-Intensive Firms Matter in the US Innovation Ecosystem
The Hidden Toll of Drug Price Controls: Fewer New Treatments and Higher Medical Costs for the World
The Economics of Biopharmaceutical Innovation: Symposium Report
How Japan Squandered Its Biopharmaceutical Competitiveness: A Cautionary Tale
March 5, 2024|Register Now
Preserving U.S. Leadership in Biopharmaceutical Innovation
Please join ITIF for an expert panel discussion as it releases a new report examining why the United States lost its lead in other advanced technology industries, and how policymakers can avoid repeating the same mistakes in the biopharmaceutical sector.
April 4, 2023
Lessons From the Rise and Fall of Japan’s Life-Sciences Innovation Ecosystem
Tune in for an expert panel discussion examining where Japan faltered in this sector, what it must do to restore its life-sciences innovation leadership and competitiveness, why that would be in the best interests of both Japan and the United States—and what America must do to avoid following in Japan’s footsteps.
March 24, 2023
Preserving a Virtuous Cycle: The Economics of Biopharmaceutical Innovation
Watch the release event of a new report that examines the dynamics that underpin the economics of biopharmaceutical innovation and how to maintain a supportive environment that keeps the United States in the lead of life-sciences innovation.
March 29, 2022
How Using March-in Rights Would Threaten America’s Research Universities
ITIF hosted a panel discussion with leading experts on innovation policy, technology transfer, and business, who spoke to the practical implications of exercising federal “march-in” rights and why it would be a grave and ill-timed mistake for the U.S. health, competitiveness, and research landscape.
April 29, 2021
How Intellectual Property Has Played a Pivotal Role in the Global COVID-19 Response
ITIF hosted an expert panel discussion about the report and the vital role IP has played throughout the pandemic.
Associate Vice President for Federal Affairs, University of Pennsylvania
Managing Director, Bay City Capital
Partner, Irell & Manella, LLP
Cain Brothers & Company Professor of Healthcare Management in the Faculty of Business, Columbia University Graduate School of Business
Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School
Founding President and CEO, National Minority Quality Forum
More From the Center
February 6, 2024|Testimonies & Filings
Comments to the NIST Regarding the Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights
America’s innovation system is fragile, and its leadership in advanced technology industries is never guaranteed or assured. The United States has taken—only to sacrifice—its lead in a wide-range of advanced technology industries, often in part because of significant policy lapses. It’s no time for additional unforced errors.
January 31, 2024|Testimonies & Filings
Comments to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Regarding the WHO Pandemic Preparedness Agreement
The United States should not endorse an IPR waiver in the WHO Pandemic Preparedness Agreement. It would not increase the number of vaccines or therapeutics, or the global supply that might be needed to address a future global pandemic.
December 11, 2023|Blogs
Biden’s Assertion of Excessive Biopharma Industry Concentration Is a Flawed Rationale for a Flawed Policy
The administration is flat wrong that America’s biopharmaceutical industry is excessively concentrated. It’s also flat wrong that U.S. drug prices are rising out of control.
November 13, 2023|Testimonies & Filings
Comments to the European Commission Regarding the EU General Pharmaceuticals Legislation
Changes proposed in the EU General Pharmaceutical Legislation would double down on policies that hinder, not enable, EU life-sciences innovation potential, while forsaking other avenues that could more effectively enhance access without compromising innovation.
August 18, 2023|Testimonies & Filings
Comments to the National Institutes of Health on “Maximizing NIH’s Levers to Catalyze Technology Transfer”
The technology-transfer regime the United States has implemented over the past four decades, largely as enabled through the Bayh-Dole Act, has been tremendously effective in stimulating innovation, especially in the life sciences. While all such processes should be continuously streamlined or tweaked where improvement is possible, the current system does not need serious modification or reform.
July 10, 2023|Testimonies & Filings
Comments Before the US Senate Help Committee Regarding the “Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act”
Recognizing the long history of failed efforts to include reasonable pricing clauses in NIH licensing activities, policymakers should reject provisions in the PAHPA Act that would cap the U.S. cost of any products resulting from federal funding “at the lowest price among G7 countries” and do so “at a reasonable price.”
March 30, 2023|Testimonies & Filings
Testimony to the US International Trade Commission Regarding COVID-19 Diagnostics and Therapeutics: Supply, Demand, and TRIPS Agreement Flexibilities
A TRIPS IPR waiver for COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics is unnecessary, unwarranted, and even counterproductive—just as it was for COVID-19 vaccines.