Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Internationalization of industrial research: The pharmaceutical industry; 1965–1979

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study is a count of the publications of a sample of the major pharmaceutical multinational companies. These firms have been divided into three geopolitical groups: Europe, the United States and Japan. Results obtained show that research activities in this industry have been subjected to some changes between 1965 and 1979. Among these changes is the growing importance of fundamental research, the erosion of the leadership of U.S.-based firms and the growing importance of overseas research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes and references

  1. J. N. BEHRAMN, Some Patterns in the Rise of the Multinational Enterprise, Graduate School of Business; Research Paper #18, U. of North Carolina, Chapell Hill, 1969.

  2. R&D in the Multinational Company; A Survey, The Conference Board, Managing the International Business #8, New-York, 1970.

  3. D. B. CREAMER, Overseas Research and Development by U.S. Multinationals, 1966–75, The Conference Board Bulletin, New-York, 1976.

  4. V. TERPSTRA, “International Product Policy: The Role of Foreign R&D”,The Columbia Journal of World Business, 12(4) (1977) 24.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. GERMIDIS, Le transfert technologique par les firmes multinationales, Centre de développement de l'OCDE, OECD, Paris, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  6. W. M. WARDELL, M. HASSAR, S. N. ANAVEKAR, L. LASAGNA, The rate of development of new drugs in the United States,Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 24 (1978) 133.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. E. SCHNEE, Internatinal shift in innovation: The case of pharmaceuticals,Columbia Journal of World Business, 13 (1978) 112.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E. MANSFIELD, D. TEECE, A. ROMEO, Overseas research and development by U.S.-based firms,Economica, 46 (1979) 187.

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. LALL, The international allocation of research activity by U.S. multinationals,Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41 (1979) 313.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. N. BEHRMAN, W. A. FISHER,Overseas R&D Activities of Transnational Companies, Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain Publishers, Cambridge (Mass.), 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  11. E. MANSFIELD, A. ROMEO, Technology transfer to overseas subsidiaries by U.S.-based firms,The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95(4) 1980) 737.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. D. ROMAN, J. F. PUETT Jr.,International Business and Technological Innovation, North-Holland, New-York, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  13. L. KRIEGER MYTELKA, Le capitalisme fondé sur la connaissance et le changemenet dans les stratégies des entreprises industrielles,Etudes internationales, 14(3) (1983) 433.

    Google Scholar 

  14. R. C. RONSTADT, R&D abroad by U.S. multinationals, in: R. STOBAUGH, L. T. WELLS Jr. (Eds),Technology Crossing Borders, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1984, pp. 241–64.

    Google Scholar 

  15. H. ETEMAD, L. SEGUIN-DULUDE, R&D and Patenting Characteristics of Canadian World Product Mandated Subsidiaries: Some Theorical Discussions and Empirical Evidences, Les Cahiers du CETAI; Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, Montreal, 1984.

  16. H. ETEMAD, L. SEGUIN-DULUDE, R&D and Patenting Patterns in 25 Large MNEs, Les Cahiers du CETAI; Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, Montreal, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  17. L. H. WORTZEL, Technology Transfer in the Pharmaceutical Industry, United Nations Institute for Training and Research; Report #14, New-York, 1971.

  18. J. M. KATZ, Oligopolio, firmas nacionales y empresas multinacionales; la industria farmaceutica argentina, Siglo XXI Argentina, Buenos Aires, 1974.

  19. A. ÇILINGIROĞLU,Transfer of Technology for Pharmaceutical Chemicals, OECD, Paris, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. NIEHANS, “Benefits of multinational firms for a small parent economy: The case of Switzerland, in: T. AGMON, N. P. KINDLEBERGER (Eds),Multinationals from Small Countries, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.), 1977, pp. 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  21. U.N. Commission on Transnational Corporations, Transnational Corporations and the Pharmaceutical Industry, Report by the Secretariat (#E.79.II.A.3); Center on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC); United Nations, New-York, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. N. BEHRMAN, W. A. FISHER,Science and Technology for Development, Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain Publishers, Cambridge (Mass.), 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  23. M. J. GORDON, D. J. FOWLER,The Drug Industry: A Case Study of the Effects of Foreign Control on Canadian Economy, Canadian Institute for Economic Policy, Ottawa, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  24. K. S. PALDA, B. PAZDERKA, International comparisons of R and D efforts: The case of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry,Research Policy, 11 (1982) 247.

    Google Scholar 

  25. G. GEREFFI,The Pharmaceutical Industry and Dependency in the Third World, Princeton U. Press, Princeton, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pharmaceutical Panel, Committee on Technology and International Economics and Trade Issues (Office of the Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineers) Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council,The Competitive Status of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry, National Academy Press, Washington D. C., 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  27. G. SEIDL, Cost of drug research, in: F. GROSS (Ed.),Decision Making in Drug Research, Raven Press, New-York, 1983, pp. 189–94.

    Google Scholar 

  28. R. JENKINS,Transnational Corporations and Industrial Transformation in Latin America, MacMillan Press, London, 1984 (Chapter IV).

    Google Scholar 

  29. G. GEREFFI, The global pharmaceutical industry and its impact in Latin America, in: R. S. NEWFARMER (Ed.),Profits, Progress and Poverty, U. of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (Ind.), 1985, pp. 261–97.

  30. H. I. FUSFELD, R. N. LANGLOIS,Understanding R&D Productivity, Pergamon, New-York, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  31. C. FORTIER, University — industry interaction, in:Annual Review 1981, Canada Science Council, Ottawa, 1981, pp. 21–44.

  32. E. MANSFIELD, L. SWITZER, The effects of R&D tax credits and allowances in Canada,Research Policy, 14 (1985) 97.

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. E. D. KOENIG, Bibliometric determinants of expert judgement of research performance,Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 361.

    Google Scholar 

  34. M. E. D. KOENIG, Bibliometric indicator versus expert opinion in assesing research performance,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(2) (1983a) 136.

    Google Scholar 

  35. M. E. D. KOENIG, A bibliometric analysis of pharmaceutical research,Research Policy, 12 (1983b) 15.

    Google Scholar 

  36. For instance, see:

  37. Pharmaceutical Research in I. C. I., 1936–57, Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., Alderley Park (England), 1957.

  38. J. B. FISK, Basic research in industrial laboratories, in: D. WOLFLE (Ed.),Symposium on Basic Research, AAAS, Washington D. C. 1959, pp. 159–67.

  39. J. C. FISHER, Basic research in industry,Science, 129 (1959) 1653.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Publication of Basic Research Findings in Industry, 1957–9, National Science Foundation, Washington D. C., 1961.

  41. A Corporation and a Molecule:The Story of Research at Syntex, Syntex Laboratories Inc., Palo Alto (Ca.), 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  42. S. BOX, S. COTGROVE, Scientific identity, occupational selection, and role strain,British Journal of Sociology, 17 (1966) 20.

    Google Scholar 

  43. It should be mentioned that there is at least one study where patents count was used as an indicator of pharmaceutical R&D efforts: W. D. REEKIE, Location and Relative Efficiency of Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry,Business Ratios, 1 (1969) 5. This method would have been almost useless for the present study since there is a “greater centralization of patenting activities than of R&D activities”; this leads one to think that the small R&D centers would not have been identified using a patents count. On this topic, see: ETEMAD and SEGUIN-DULUDE (1985),Op. Cit. R&D and Patenting Characteristics of Canadian World Product Mandated Subsidiaries: Some Theorical Discussions and Empirical Evidences, Les Cahiers du CETAI; Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, Montreal, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  44. The 1977 list is given in: GEREFFI (1983),Op. Cit.. These fifty MNCs control nearly two thirds of the international production of drugs:The Pharmaceutical Industry; Trade Related Issues, OECD, Paris, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  45. MNCs having a high proportion of foreign sales are more likely to conduct R&D abroad. On this topic, see: TERPSTRA,Op. Cit. “., BEHRMAN and FISHER (1980a),Op. Cit., Science and Technology for Development, Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain Publishers, Cambridge (Mass.), 1980. RONSTADT,Op. Cit. R&D abroad by U.S. multinationals, in: R. STOBAUGH, L. T. WELLS Jr. (Eds),Technology Crossing Borders, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1984, pp. 241–64.

    Google Scholar 

  46. F. NARIN,Evaluative Bibliometrics, Computer Horizons, Cherry Hill (NJ), 1976. Journals' subfields were obtained from:Index to Scientific Reviews, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, 1984 (and other years).

    Google Scholar 

  47. E. GARFIELD, Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation,Science, 178 (1972) 471.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Technology Gaps; Pharmaceutical Products, OECD, Paris, 1969.

  49. B. TESO,The Pharmaceutical Industry, OECD, Paris, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  50. J. J. BURNS, Modern drug research, in: J. D. COOPER (Ed.),The Economics of Drug Innovation, Center for the Study of Private Enterprise; The American University, Washington D.C., 1970, pp. 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Eli Lilly, new life in the drug industry,Business Week, (October 29 1979) 134.

  52. G. BARTHOLINI, Organization of industrial drug research, in: F. GROSS (Ed.),Op. Cit.

  53. N. WELLS (Ed.),The Second Pharmacological Revolution, Office of Health Economics, London, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  54. W. A. CHECK, New drug and drug delivery systems in the year 2000, in: C. BEZOLD, J. A. HALPERIN, H. L. BINKLEY, R. R. ASHBAUGH (Eds),Pharmacy in the 21 st Century, Institute for Alternative Futures/Project Hope, Bethesda (MD), 1985, pp. 135–60.

    Google Scholar 

  55. This classification is adapted from that proposed by KOENIG, 1983a,Op. Cit.,.

    Google Scholar 

  56. J. N. BEHRMAN,Tropical Diseases: Responses of Pharmaceutical Companies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington D. C., 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  57. E. GARFIELD, Mapping science in the Third World,Science and Public Policy, 10(3) (1983) 112.

    Google Scholar 

  58. C. DJERASSI, A high priority? Research centers in developing nations,Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 26(1) (1968) 22.

    Google Scholar 

  59. J. D. FRAME, F. NARIN, M. P. CARPENTER, The distribution of world science,Social Studies of Science, 7(4) (1977) 501.

    Google Scholar 

  60. M. J. MURRAY, The pharmaceutical industry: A study in corporate power,International Journal of Health Services, 4(4) (1974) 625.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Koenig has shown that, for the pharmaceutical MNCs, the publications in biology have the lowest citation rates; KOENIG (1983a),Op. Cit..

    Google Scholar 

  62. D. J. SOISSON, U.S. drug companies stepup R&D overseas,Chemical and Engineering News, (May 29, 1972) 5.

    Google Scholar 

  63. For example, it has been shown that the mean R&D cost in Canada was 82% of its equivalent in the U.S. in 1965 and 96% in 1975. On this topic, see: MANSFIELD, TEECE, ROMEO,Op. Cit..

    Google Scholar 

  64. For instance, see: Canada attracts drug research labs,Chemical and Engineering News, (March 30, 1964) 24.

  65. Y. GUAY, A bibliometric study of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry, 1965–84, Unpublished work.

  66. See: The Pharmaceutical Industry: Trade Related Issues,Op. Cit.

  67. SCHNEEOp. Cit., has shown that the proportion of foreign R&D budgets of pharmaceutical U.S. based MNCs has risen from 5.0% in 1961 to an average of 14.9% in the 1973–6 period (the figure was 7.5% in 1965). However, since the cost of research seems to have increased more rapidly in Europe, Japan and Canada than in the U.S. (MANSFIELD, TEECE, ROMEO,Op. Cit.), and because firms conducted more fundamental research abroad (an expensive kind of research), the results obtained bySchnee are not so different different from those obtained in the present study. It should be mentioned thatSchnee also gave data related to the foreign R&D personnel. The figures (adapted from SCHNEE,Op. Cit.) are 11.3% of the total staff in 1965, 10.2% in 1971 and 13.3% in 1975; these data are more consistent with the findings of this study.

    Google Scholar 

  68. R. VERNON,Sovereignty at Bay, Basic Books, New-York, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  69. R. VERNON, The product cycle hypothesis in a new international environment,Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41 (1979) 255.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut d'histoire et de sociopolitique des sciences, Université de Montréal, H3C 3J7, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Y. Guay

Authors
  1. Y. Guay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guay, Y. Internationalization of industrial research: The pharmaceutical industry; 1965–1979. Scientometrics 13, 189–213 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019958

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019958

Keywords

Search

Navigation