Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

NIH inventions translate into drugs and biologics with high public health impact

Compared with other US public-sector research institutions, the US National Institutes of Health has contributed inventions that have had a disproportionately greater impact on the overall number of products produced, drugs granted orphan status and drugs granted priority review.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Year of approval for all new drug and biologic license applications and for those originating from NIH-IRP inventions.


  1. 1

    Cohen, W., Florida, R., Randasses, L. & Walsh, J. Industry and the academy: uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. in R. Noll (Ed.), Challenges to Research Universities, 171–200, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Jaffe, A. Real effects of academic research. Am. Econ. Rev. 79, 957–970 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Mansfield, E. Academic research and industrial innovation. Res. Policy 20, 1–12 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Roessner, D., Bond, J., Okubo, S. & Planting, M. The economic impact of licensed commercialized inventions originating in university research. Res. Policy 42, 23–34 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Pressman, L. et al. The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions: an empirical survey. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 31–39 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D.S. & Wright, M. 30 years after Bayh-Dole: reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Res. Policy 40, 1045–1057 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Macho-Stadler, I. & Perez-Castrillo, D. Incentives in university technology transfer. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 28, 362–367 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. University Technology Transfer Through Entrepreneurship: Faculty and Students in Spinoffs. (2012).

  9. 9

    Sampat, B.N. Academic patents and access to medicines in developing countries. Am. J. Public Health 99, 9–17 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Zycher, B., DiMasi, J.A. & Milne, C.-P. Private sector contributions to pharmaceutical science: thirty-five summary case histories. Am. J. Ther. 17, 101–120 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Kneller, R. The importance of new companies for drug discovery: origins of a decade of new drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 867–882 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Sampat, B.N. & Lichtenberg, F.R. What are the respective roles of the public and private sectors in pharmaceutical innovation? Health Aff. 30, 332–339 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Stevens, A.J., Jensen, J.J., Wyller, K., Chatterjee, S. & Rohrbaugh, M.L. The role of public sector research in the discovery of drugs and vaccines. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 535–541 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Pressman, L. Patent licensing under two policy frameworks: implications for patient access to diagnostic tests and licensing practice in the not for profit sector. BNA Life Sciences Law and Industry Report (23 March 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Kesselheim, A.S. An empirical review of major legislation affecting drug development: past experiences, effects and unintended consequences. Milbank Q. 89, 450–502 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Moses, H. III, Dorsey, E.R., Matheson, D.H. & Their, S.O. Financial anatomy of biomedical research. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 294, 1333–1342 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    National Institutes of Health. NIH Intramural Research at the Threshold of a New Era. (2009).

  18. 18

    National Institutes of Health Office of Technology Transfer. Fludara The New Benchmark: A Case Study. (2003).

  19. 19

    Dorsey, E.R. et al. Financial anatomy of biomedical research 2003–2008. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 303, 137–143 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Mullin, R. Abbott defends Norvir price hike. Chem. Eng. News 82, 6 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Morgan, S., Grootendorst, P., Lexchin, J., Cunningham, C., Greyson, D. The cost of drug development: a systematic review. Health Policy. 100, 4–17 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Milstein, J.B., Batson, A. & Wertheimer, A.I. Vaccines and Drugs: Characteristics of Their Use to Meet Public Health Goals.–1095698140167/MilstienVaccinesDrugsFinal.pdf (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    National Institutes of Health. Actual Obligations by Institute and Center, FY 2000 - FY 2012 (2010).

Download references


We thank H. Feindt (NIH Office of Technology Transfer) for helpful insights on commercial sales of products, J. Duberman (Informationalist, NIH Library) for his assistance in gaining access to publications and sources of data, the NIH Office of Budget for NIH extramural funding data and L. Pressman for her valuable insights.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark L Rohrbaugh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chatterjee, S., Rohrbaugh, M. NIH inventions translate into drugs and biologics with high public health impact. Nat Biotechnol 32, 52–58 (2014).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing