Commentary: Reconsidering Pharmaceutical Research and Development Investments

Abstract

Following Lee and colleagues' (2023) article explaining how Canadians are being shortchanged by drug companies when it comes to investments in research and development (R&D), this rejoinder adds context and appends two other very problematic elements in the debate between wishful narratives over the industry's contribution in R&D and actual numbers. First, even the current stricter definition of R&D investment might simply be too large considering that elements such as seeding trials - a well-known marketing device - can be accounted for as R&D expenditures. Second, this rejoinder identifies how Statistics Canada acted in concert with Innovative Medicines Canada to reinforce the industry's preferred narratives around R&D expenditures. This situation puts into question the trustworthiness of Canada's statistical agency.