More resources for research are needed. This is the usual mantra. However, what about outcomes?. Since this is not so easy to measure it really lies in an uncertain land. A new report tries to put things clearer, at least for UK. It explains the mismatch about research funding and what is needed to improve health. This is exactly what I consider the right approach. It is useless to ask for more money unless we explain and focus on the priorities for achieveing better health.
A biomedical bubble has developed, which threatens to unbalance the UK’s research and
innovation system, by crowding out the space and funding for alternative priorities. This
is not a speculative bubble, as developed for tulips in the 1630s, or dotcoms in the early
2000s; there is far too much substance in the biomedical sciences for this. But it is a social, political and epistemic bubble (similar to the ‘Westminster bubble’, or the ‘filter bubble’), in which supporters of biomedical science create reinforcing networks, feedback loops and commitments beyond anything that can be rationalised through cost-benefit analysis.
The biomedical bubble represents a risky bet on the continued success of the pharmaceutical industry, despite mounting evidence that this sector faces a deepeningFood for thought.
crisis of R&D productivity, and is cutting its own investment. And it favours a particular approach to the commercialisation of science, based on protectable intellectual property and venture capital based spinouts – despite the evidence that this model rarely works. Our health and social care system is under growing strain, and as the NHS marks its 70th birthday this month, there is renewed debate about its long-term affordability. Too often, the biomedical bubble distracts attention and draws resources away from alternative ways of improving health outcomes. Only 5 per cent of health research funding is spent on researching ways of preventing poor health. And more than half is spent in three cities - London, Oxford and Cambridge - despite variations in life expectancies of up to eight years across the country. This paper argues for a more balanced distribution, aligned to what the evidence clearly shows are crucial social, economic, environmental and behavioural determinants of better health outcomes.
