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.


Integrating scientific considerations into R&D project valuation

Traditional valuation approaches rarely take into account scientific considerations specific to a R&D project. A question-based approach using real options offers a solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Decision tree of the younamamab case based on the QBCD analysis using the QOC tool.


  1. Bogdan, B. & Villiger, R. Valuation in Life Sciences, A Practical Guide (Springer-Verlag, 2007)

  2. Stewart, J. J., Allison, P. N. & Johnson, R. S. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 813–817 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kola, I. & Landis, J. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711–715 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Johal, S. S., Oliver, P. & Williams, H. C. J. Med. Mark. 8, 101–112 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pietzsch, J. B., Shluzas, L. A., Paté-Cornell, M. E., Yock, P. G. & Linehan, J. H. J. Med. Dev. 3, 021004-1–021004-15 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  6. ICH Expert Working Group. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: General Considerations for Clinical Trials E8, Step 4 version (International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, 1997).

  7. Huchzermeier, A. & Loch, C. H. Manag. Sci. 47, 85–101 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Harrison, M. H. & Lerer, L. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 223 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stewart, J. J. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 223–224 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Villiger, R. & Bogdan, B. Drug Discov. Today 9, 552–553 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nichols, N. Harv. Bus. Rev. 72, 89–99 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hartmann, M. & Ali Hassan, A. Res. Policy 35, 343–354 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Evers, R. et al. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 96, 291–295 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dolgos, H. et al. Drug Discov. Today 21, 517–526 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kenter, M. J. H. & Cohen, A. F. Lancet 368, 1387–1391 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. de Visser, S. A Question Based Approach to Drug Development. PhD Thesis, Leiden Univ. (Leiden, the Netherlands, 2003).

  17. Cohen, A. F., Burggraaf, J., van Gerven, J. M. A., Moerland, M. & Groeneveld, G. J. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 55, 55–74 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang, S. & Babovic, A. Decis. Support Syst. 51, 119–129 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saco J. de Visser.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 and Supplementary Table 1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Visser, S.J., Cohen, A.F. & Kenter, M.J.H. Integrating scientific considerations into R&D project valuation. Nat Biotechnol 38, 14–18 (2020).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


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