Viewpoint
Viewpoint
Translational research: putting the right price on innovation The animal health sector makes a substantial contribution to innovation in the field of human health, but this is undervalued, says Lloyd Reeve-Johnson. He argues that this contribution needs to be recognised and quantified if the benefits of One Health, and the potential of the veterinary profession, are to be realised.
Investment and advances in human medical innovation have outpaced those in veterinary medicine for decades. The animal healthcare market is valued at 0.3 per cent of the human healthcare market. Medical and paramedical professionals increasingly occupy roles once the domain of industry veterinarians. Yet animal health issues remain integral to some of the world’s largest markets. The economic benefits to other sectors are substantially undervalued. Participants in animal aspects of comparative medicine need to adopt a macro-economic approach to quantify their societal impact and ensure this is recognised as effectively as contributions by medical professionals. This includes knowledge management and valuing the downstream impact of information and technological development.
‘Stakeholders in animal health need to be challenged to collate and provide data supporting quantifiable benefits to society beyond the health of animals’ In 2010, global GDP approached US$ 70 trillion, with human healthcare expenditure of US$ 5.95 trillion (pharmaceuticals accounted for US$ 850 billion). In comparison, the animal health market was valued at US$ 20 billion (less than double the sales of a single human drug, the statin Lipitor). However, the animal health industry has an influence disproportionate
Lloyd Reeve-Johnson, Institute of Health and Bioscience Innovation, Queensland University of Technology. Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia. e-mail: [email protected]
food production, poverty, disease spread, disaster relief and sustainability, affordable healthcare provision and psychosocial issues. Even in OECD countries, the animal health industry receives little public funding and consumers bear the cost of services and products. This sometimes
to its market capitalisation and is substantially undervalued in terms of value added to other industries. It is firmly placed at the meeting point of two dominant markets – human health and nutrition. As well as providing a source of food, animals provide: the test-bed for mammalian genetic research to increase food productivity; testing of human medical and surgical innovations; preclinical pharmacology and toxicology; and sentinels in disease surveillance. In addition, pharmaceutical companies gain value from animal health products by, for example, recouping development costs already spent on products which fail regulatory scrutiny for human use and where patents have expired. Most of the world’s population still lives in close proximity to animals and the control of zoonotic disease remains vital to public health. The propensity to travel internationally extends the risk of pandemic infection to all communities. The human population surpassed 7 billion in 2010 and is set to reach 9 billion by 2050. Translational approaches are relevant to many macroeconomic challenges of the future, including:
‘Veterinary specialties are well positioned to increase collaboration with human medical and food production sectors. However, they need to do so with some urgency to make sure that the perception of the role of the veterinarian remains wider than securing the health of animals alone’ leads to the misconception that veterinary interventions are expensive compared to those in humans. In contrast, governments typically cover 80 per cent of individual healthcare costs and spend over 15 per cent of government revenue on the healthcare of citizens. Stakeholders in animal health need to be challenged to collate and provide data supporting quantifiable benefits to society beyond the health of animals. Global human health benchmarks are collated annually to enable resources to be targeted effectively. Governments, NGOs, charities and United Nations’ organisations need such data to make funding decisions, and the contribution of the animal health sector needs to be recognised. The cost-benefit, cost-minimisation and qualitatively based cost-effectiveness studies used to determine public funding models for medical technologies significantly impact on the types of activities pursued in medical research. Not all the benefits are tangible and subjective measures such as Quality
312 | Veterinary Record | March 21, 2015
312-316 Viewpoint Gazette Letters.indd 312
18/03/2015 16:54
Viewpoint Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) are used to capture value perceptions by society. Medical and surgical interventions pioneered in animals contribute greatly to the quality of life and longevity of humans. Similarly, the quality of human lives is enhanced through the direct psychological benefits of pets to people in old age, during rehabilitation, or in cases of hearing or sight loss. Yet these areas fail to attract proportionate funding. Unambiguous data are needed to make the case for public funding that reflects human health outcomes to sustain significant translational research initiatives. It is equally important to define the future role of the veterinarian and goals of veterinary education to determine whether future generations will be well placed to apply transferable skills across the spectrum of comparative medical science. Veterinarians have the potential to impact on many fields including disciplines as diverse as genetics, therapeutics, toxicology and epidemiology. However, there are
an increasing number of medical science graduates who fill these roles with perspectives that do not encompass the diversity currently integral to veterinary education curricula. Veterinary specialties are well positioned to increase collaboration with human medical and food production sectors. However, they need to do so with some urgency to make sure that the perception of the role of the veterinarian remains wider than securing the health of animals alone. Human healthcare is transforming, largely to seek more cost efficiency. Funding is increasingly linked to superior societal outcomes above local service or streamlining existing practices. Technology is necessary but not sufficient, and is only one aspect of our complex society that is labile and constantly adapting to the reality of competing for resources and optimising resource reallocation. The vast majority of funding will always be dedicated to human issues. Clear datasets and economic analyses
are the basis of securing future funding. It is vital that those with a veterinary background involved in translational research recognise the true value of their time, knowledge, insight and career development to societal goals beyond the animal health market, including preclinical phases of human healthcare and the innovation that underpins incremental food production, and that they provide economic data to support this. Failure to do this will limit opportunities in the veterinary profession for training and interactions with other professions. It will limit research possibilities, stifle funding and, above all, suffocate personal satisfaction if veterinarians are unable to fully use their intellect and training or interact as equal partners in the future development of translational medicine. The alternative is being left behind as medical colleagues and others fill these roles.
doi: 10.1136/vr.g3917
March 21, 21015 | Veterinary Record | 313
312-316 Viewpoint Gazette Letters.indd 313
18/03/2015 16:54
Copyright of Veterinary Record: Journal of the British Veterinary Association is the property of BMJ Publishing Group and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Viewpoint
Translational research: putting the right price on innovation The animal health sector makes a substantial contribution to innovation in the field of human health, but this is undervalued, says Lloyd Reeve-Johnson. He argues that this contribution needs to be recognised and quantified if the benefits of One Health, and the potential of the veterinary profession, are to be realised.
Investment and advances in human medical innovation have outpaced those in veterinary medicine for decades. The animal healthcare market is valued at 0.3 per cent of the human healthcare market. Medical and paramedical professionals increasingly occupy roles once the domain of industry veterinarians. Yet animal health issues remain integral to some of the world’s largest markets. The economic benefits to other sectors are substantially undervalued. Participants in animal aspects of comparative medicine need to adopt a macro-economic approach to quantify their societal impact and ensure this is recognised as effectively as contributions by medical professionals. This includes knowledge management and valuing the downstream impact of information and technological development.
‘Stakeholders in animal health need to be challenged to collate and provide data supporting quantifiable benefits to society beyond the health of animals’ In 2010, global GDP approached US$ 70 trillion, with human healthcare expenditure of US$ 5.95 trillion (pharmaceuticals accounted for US$ 850 billion). In comparison, the animal health market was valued at US$ 20 billion (less than double the sales of a single human drug, the statin Lipitor). However, the animal health industry has an influence disproportionate
Lloyd Reeve-Johnson, Institute of Health and Bioscience Innovation, Queensland University of Technology. Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia. e-mail: [email protected]
food production, poverty, disease spread, disaster relief and sustainability, affordable healthcare provision and psychosocial issues. Even in OECD countries, the animal health industry receives little public funding and consumers bear the cost of services and products. This sometimes
to its market capitalisation and is substantially undervalued in terms of value added to other industries. It is firmly placed at the meeting point of two dominant markets – human health and nutrition. As well as providing a source of food, animals provide: the test-bed for mammalian genetic research to increase food productivity; testing of human medical and surgical innovations; preclinical pharmacology and toxicology; and sentinels in disease surveillance. In addition, pharmaceutical companies gain value from animal health products by, for example, recouping development costs already spent on products which fail regulatory scrutiny for human use and where patents have expired. Most of the world’s population still lives in close proximity to animals and the control of zoonotic disease remains vital to public health. The propensity to travel internationally extends the risk of pandemic infection to all communities. The human population surpassed 7 billion in 2010 and is set to reach 9 billion by 2050. Translational approaches are relevant to many macroeconomic challenges of the future, including:
‘Veterinary specialties are well positioned to increase collaboration with human medical and food production sectors. However, they need to do so with some urgency to make sure that the perception of the role of the veterinarian remains wider than securing the health of animals alone’ leads to the misconception that veterinary interventions are expensive compared to those in humans. In contrast, governments typically cover 80 per cent of individual healthcare costs and spend over 15 per cent of government revenue on the healthcare of citizens. Stakeholders in animal health need to be challenged to collate and provide data supporting quantifiable benefits to society beyond the health of animals. Global human health benchmarks are collated annually to enable resources to be targeted effectively. Governments, NGOs, charities and United Nations’ organisations need such data to make funding decisions, and the contribution of the animal health sector needs to be recognised. The cost-benefit, cost-minimisation and qualitatively based cost-effectiveness studies used to determine public funding models for medical technologies significantly impact on the types of activities pursued in medical research. Not all the benefits are tangible and subjective measures such as Quality
312 | Veterinary Record | March 21, 2015
312-316 Viewpoint Gazette Letters.indd 312
18/03/2015 16:54
Viewpoint Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) are used to capture value perceptions by society. Medical and surgical interventions pioneered in animals contribute greatly to the quality of life and longevity of humans. Similarly, the quality of human lives is enhanced through the direct psychological benefits of pets to people in old age, during rehabilitation, or in cases of hearing or sight loss. Yet these areas fail to attract proportionate funding. Unambiguous data are needed to make the case for public funding that reflects human health outcomes to sustain significant translational research initiatives. It is equally important to define the future role of the veterinarian and goals of veterinary education to determine whether future generations will be well placed to apply transferable skills across the spectrum of comparative medical science. Veterinarians have the potential to impact on many fields including disciplines as diverse as genetics, therapeutics, toxicology and epidemiology. However, there are
an increasing number of medical science graduates who fill these roles with perspectives that do not encompass the diversity currently integral to veterinary education curricula. Veterinary specialties are well positioned to increase collaboration with human medical and food production sectors. However, they need to do so with some urgency to make sure that the perception of the role of the veterinarian remains wider than securing the health of animals alone. Human healthcare is transforming, largely to seek more cost efficiency. Funding is increasingly linked to superior societal outcomes above local service or streamlining existing practices. Technology is necessary but not sufficient, and is only one aspect of our complex society that is labile and constantly adapting to the reality of competing for resources and optimising resource reallocation. The vast majority of funding will always be dedicated to human issues. Clear datasets and economic analyses
are the basis of securing future funding. It is vital that those with a veterinary background involved in translational research recognise the true value of their time, knowledge, insight and career development to societal goals beyond the animal health market, including preclinical phases of human healthcare and the innovation that underpins incremental food production, and that they provide economic data to support this. Failure to do this will limit opportunities in the veterinary profession for training and interactions with other professions. It will limit research possibilities, stifle funding and, above all, suffocate personal satisfaction if veterinarians are unable to fully use their intellect and training or interact as equal partners in the future development of translational medicine. The alternative is being left behind as medical colleagues and others fill these roles.
doi: 10.1136/vr.g3917
March 21, 21015 | Veterinary Record | 313
312-316 Viewpoint Gazette Letters.indd 313
18/03/2015 16:54
Copyright of Veterinary Record: Journal of the British Veterinary Association is the property of BMJ Publishing Group and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
