China is striving to become the global leader in biopharmaceuticals, but many of its policy steps are “innovation mercantilist” in nature. This not only is expected to threaten U.S. leadership, but also slow global life sciences innovation, with negative consequences for cures and treatments.
July 12, 2016
In Innovation Files, Stephen Ezell provides an overview of localization barriers to trade in the life sciences sector recently enacted by countries around the world.
July 11, 2016
Spurring biopharmaceutical innovation to understand and cure brain diseases and disorders could improve health outcomes for more than 50 million Americans while increasing GDP by up to $1.5 trillion or more.
July 11, 2016
Join ITIF for the release of a new report examining the potential economic gains the United States could reap from biopharma innovation that enables improved diagnosis, treatment, cures, and even prevention of mental and neurological health conditions.
June 28, 2016
Stephen Ezell spoke at a Center Forward Congressional briefing on “Why Life-Sciences Innovation is Politically Purple,” explaining that U.S. leadership in global life-sciences innovation has resulted from a strong bi-partisan commitment to support robust levels of public investment in basic life-sciences research.
April 29, 2016
The unintended exploitation of Bayh-Dole “march-in” rights would significantly harm biomedical innovation, writes Stephen Ezell in Innovation Files.
April 27, 2016
Nigel Cory writes in Innovation Files that Russia is moving away from world trade rules with its increasing use of data localization and mercantilist trade policies.
April 7, 2016
This report ranks 56 countries based on the extent to which their domestic policies support global biopharmaceutical innovation.
April 6, 2016
Rob Atkinson outlines five of the most common myths about America’s system for discovering and developing new drugs on the Huffington Post.
March 10, 2016
Stephen Ezell and Nigel Cory argue in The Hill that the United States should push Canada to change its pharma patent assessment process.
March 9, 2016
U.S. policymakers should reject the false choice between public-sector leadership and private-sector leadership for life sciences innovation. The U.S. leads the world because its system maximizes the strengths of both, writes Rob Atkinson in The Hill.