Impact of Policy on Biomedical Innovation (www.kiu.ac.ug)

Biomedical innovation, a key pillar of modern healthcare and economic development, thrives within a
complex ecosystem shaped by national and international policy frameworks. This paper examines the
dynamic interplay between public policy and biomedical innovation, analyzing how regulations, funding
mechanisms, and intellectual property rights influence research, development, and equitable access to
biomedical advances. It traces the historical evolution of biomedical policy, particularly in the United
States, and presents key policy instruments that have fueled groundbreaking discoveries while navigating
ethical, economic, and social dilemmas. Case studies highlight the impact of patents, data exclusivity, and
biosimilar regulations on pharmaceutical innovation. The paper also considers global perspectives,
addressing disparities in innovation capacity and policy harmonization. Finally, it discusses
implementation challenges, emerging trends, and the need for adaptive policy frameworks that ensure
innovation translates into accessible, safe, and sustainable health solutions. The findings emphasize that
coherent, forward-looking policy is essential to balance innovation with public health, economic equity,
and ethical considerations.

1. EEJOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
48






Impact of Policy on Biomedical Innovation

Kansiime Agnes
Department of Clinical Medicine and Dentistry Kampala International University Uganda
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Biomedical innovation, a key pillar of modern healthcare and economic development, thrives within a
complex ecosystem shaped by national and international policy frameworks. This paper examines the
dynamic interplay between public policy and biomedical innovation, analyzing how regulations, funding
mechanisms, and intellectual property rights influence research, development, and equitable access to
biomedical advances. It traces the historical evolution of biomedical policy, particularly in the United
States, and presents key policy instruments that have fueled groundbreaking discoveries while navigating
ethical, economic, and social dilemmas. Case studies highlight the impact of patents, data exclusivity, and
biosimilar regulations on pharmaceutical innovation. The paper also considers global perspectives,
addressing disparities in innovation capacity and policy harmonization. Finally, it discusses
implementation challenges, emerging trends, and the need for adaptive policy frameworks that ensure
innovation translates into accessible, safe, and sustainable health solutions. The findings emphasize that
coherent, forward-looking policy is essential to balance innovation with public health, economic equity,
and ethical considerations.
Keywords: Biomedical Innovation, Health Policy, Intellectual Property Rights, Research Funding,
Regulatory Frameworks, Biotechnology, Global Health, Data Exclusivity.
INTRODUCTION
Biomedical innovation serves as a crucial driver of global economic development and overall growth.
Nevertheless, the pursuit of encouraging innovation may also inevitably increase the potential for a
variety of health and safety risks. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has not only highlighted but also
crystallized and amplified risks that were already present within the complexities of COVID-19
movements and health-related discourse. The sector of biomedical innovation is a vital aspect of economic
development, playing a key role in determining a country’s future prosperity and capabilities. However, a
nation’s regulatory choices regarding highly uncertain and potentially harmful innovations can
significantly enable (or conversely disable) future economic development and progress. When we examine
national policies in detail, the United States provides a wealth of data collected over several years, along
with both theoretical frameworks and practical insights, to aid in developing a coherent and effective
approach to biomedical innovation. The origins of biomedical innovation policy can be traced back to the
twentieth century, and public policy continues to play an influential role in shaping its future trajectory
[1, 2].
Historical Overview of Biomedical Innovation
Biomedical innovation has greatly impacted society's management of human health, with policymakers
viewing the sector as a crucial model of innovation. This field has driven significant funding and historical
breakthroughs in healthcare, particularly influenced by U.S. policy support. The first wave of biomedical
innovation during the 19th century saw advances in sanitation, microbiology, surgery, and pharmacology,
primarily from European institutions, which later reached the U.S. with delays due to slow funding
development. Although American health reform committees existed before 1900, they were ineffective
EURASIAN EXPERIMENT JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING
(EEJE) ISSN: 2992-409X
@EEJE PUBLICATIONS Volume 5 Issue 1 2025

2. EEJOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
49

until the Spanish Influenza pandemic spurred action. The U.S. then undertook significant efforts to
control infectious diseases, marking a pivotal shift by becoming the first nation to link health policy with
research. The first Congressional funding for vaccine research occurred in 1916 due to a tuberculosis
outbreak, signaling a turning point. Key innovations by the 1950s included organ transplantation,
sterilization techniques, antibiotics, and cardiopulmonary bypass. These advancements contributed to
what Heinrich von Stackelberg called the birth of science-based innovation systems, influencing not just
medicine but also fields like energy and aerospace. Attention shifted towards treatment for various
diseases, particularly cancer and arthritis [3, 4].
Key Policies Influencing Biomedical Innovation
Innovation in biomedical research is not just beneficial but absolutely essential for the overarching
purpose of improving human health and enhancing overall well-being. Biomedical research, an
indispensable and vital field, is primarily conducted within the confines of universities and various
academic institutions dedicated to scientific inquiry. These centers of learning and discovery play an
incredibly crucial role in advancing our comprehensive understanding of health and the complexities of
disease. The numerous incentives, funding opportunities, and resources available to universities to
encourage and facilitate ambitious research endeavors are governed by a multifaceted series of policy
initiatives. These initiatives hold the potential to significantly impact the level of research activity and the
degree of innovation that occurs within these influential academic environments, shaping the future of
medical advancements and public health outcomes [5, 6].
Regulatory Frameworks
Regulatory frameworks play a crucial role in the advancement of products and techniques in high-risk
domains like biomedical innovation, reflecting societal choices regarding technological boundaries. For
example, an approval pathway for biosimilars reshapes the competitive dynamics in the biological
medicines sector, as biosimilar development relies on innovators' data and may involve their patent
rights. This regulatory pathway impacts innovation incentives and market competition. Monitoring the
repercussions on innovation rates and consumer welfare is of significant interest. By October 206, the
FDA had licensed four biosimilars, with 66 more products in various developmental stages linked to
around 20 innovative biologics. Unlike drug regulations, the biological framework is dynamic, with rules
evolving by product class alongside scientific advancements. China's legal framework showcases the
balance between fostering innovation and managing risks, with limited explicit provisions promoting
innovation despite constitutional encouragement. When safety incidents arise, penalties can be severe,
highlighting the conflict between supporting technological growth and addressing biosafety concerns.
The EU's regulatory approach seeks to balance technological exploration with the protection of
fundamental rights and long-term societal conditions, which could inform policy adjustments in China. A
"right to science" framework integrates interests of scientists and the public, providing criteria for
assessing national systems' coherence and implementation [7, 8].
Funding Mechanisms
Biomedical innovation needs supportive institutions and mechanisms to translate promising ideas into
new products. The transition from research to practical application is complex, intertwining science,
markets, and open processes. When any step in this flow is blocked especially when institutions fail to
cultivate viable opportunities the potential of new ideas is severely limited. Scientific breakthroughs often
open new avenues for research, but turning these into marketable products demands investment and
focused effort. At this juncture, predicting which path will succeed is challenging, and evidence may not
exist until implementation occurs. The research community is tasked with generating results that
validate potential developments. While scientific work offers criteria for feasibility, novelty, and market
relevance, successful technology development requires additional backing to build a compelling case for
investment. Applications provide the critical evidence needed to justify the worthiness of a technology.
Once an idea shows promise, success hinges on adequate resources and human capital. Commercial
partnerships help finance and scale technologies, facilitating reinvestment into further exploration. In
uncertain development phases, venture capital and private equity often back willing entrepreneurs.
However, ongoing government support is crucial for early-stage work that private institutions find hard
to fund due to the unpredictable nature of such projects [9, 10].
Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights are central to the patent regulation system in the United States and
significantly affect the creation and diffusion of knowledge in many major scientific and technological
fields, including biotechnology. Under the intellectual property system, inventors are granted a
temporary monopoly on the use of their discovery, initially for 17 years and, since 1995, for 20 years. This

3. EEJOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
50

period of exclusive use is intended to encourage creative endeavors and promote rapid dissemination of
knowledge and technological expertise. Forces exist that encourage both the privatization of ideas and
the public release of knowledge through patenting. The incentives presented in patent regulation for
neither innovation nor diffusion of knowledge are completely consistent. Other factors determining the
decision to patent include the size of an entity and the degree of publicness of the invention. The results
of these competing forces in biotechnology are that the majority of scientific discoveries are patented by
small, U.S.-based firms. The U.S. patenting of scientific discoveries deemed basic to biotechnology such as
genetically engineered DNA, regulators, embryonic stem cells, cloning, Dolly-like sheep, and new strains
of yeast and viruses raises questions about economic incentives versus the free exchange of ideas and
research. Patenting financial services and products could facilitate control and create account access
monopolies, enable purveyors of services like credit cards and insurance to price discriminate, and induce
negative behaviors such as denying credit to certain minorities or removing or excluding certain regions
from coverage. Such scenarios raise concerns about the impact of these practices on regions heavily
affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic [11, 12].
Case Studies of Policy Impact
The Pharmaceuticals Industry and the Avenue of Research through the US Regulatory System Patents
and policies that act as incentives to innovation particularly data exclusivity provisions are subject to
criticism and debate, especially with respect to the research-based pharmaceutical industry. Data
exclusivity is a form of intellectual property protection whereby drug makers who have undergone the
FDA’s extensive clinical testing and market approval processes can prevent other firms from relying on
that proprietary test data for a defined period, even after the firm’s patents have expired. Patents on
pharmaceuticals generally provide protection for only 17 years from the date of issuance, although the
protection is often less because it may have taken years to obtain FDA approval. The protection may be
extended for up to 5 years beyond the typical 20 year term of a patent, through a separate regulatory
mechanism. Patents encourage pharmaceutical research by preventing the firm that discovered the drug
compound from facing competition from any other firm for a period of time. Data exclusivity is not
dependent on patent law and can be provided for pharmaceuticals even in countries where patents are not
granted. Also, patent protection does not shield FDA-approved medicinal products that contain
completely new chemical substances. In principle, a patented product is protected from direct generic
competition; however, a generic product can be introduced if it is found to be chemically different but
therapeutically equivalent to the patented product. There is evidence that the practicing community is
very sensitive to cost considerations and, within limits of price, switches readily [13, 14].
International Perspectives on Policy and Innovation
Regional and international standards have constrained domestic intellectual property and trade
legislation. Without international harmonization, trade authorities may act unilaterally, often
counterproductively. Recent agreements emphasize transnational cooperation in intellectual property and
trade, aiming to create a level playing field among countries. However, achieving complete uniformity in
intellectual property laws faces obstacles due to diverse legal frameworks, which can confuse rights
holders. The global consensus favors high protection standards, leading to varied options that meet
minimum requirements while allowing domestic choices. When the international community adopts
principles, it expects countries to legislate accordingly. Applying these principles is complex due to the
specific nature of cases and intersecting legal frameworks on patents, trade secrets, and biological
materials throughout the innovation life cycle, while also addressing international concerns regarding
health, environment, and biodiversity. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS) establishes important provisions on patentability, but creating an international standard
for patents remains challenging. Patents cannot solely be granted for discovering natural substances,
although the isolation of these substances is patentable. This leads to a significant drive to precisely
characterize such substances; around one billion deposits exist in culture collections, yet many remain
uncharacterized. The patentability of human genes raises ethical concerns, invoking debates about the
ownership and implications of patents that resemble "sanctioned slavery." However, no patent can be
issued on a living person. Rapid technological advancements continuously challenge the relevance of
existing legislation; legislators often respond with specific changes to maintain the effectiveness and
balance of the patent system amid swift developments in life sciences [15, 16].
Challenges in Policy Implementation
The translation of biomedical research into clinical application typically takes 15 to 25 years. Models
supporting research include alliances between academia and industry, multidisciplinary approaches, and
specialized centers, yet these have not significantly accelerated clinical implementation. To address

4. EEJOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
51

challenges arising from international law, scientific developments, and social issues, policymakers face the
complex task of adapting patent principles to specific biomedical cases. A central question concerns
whether isolating a substance from nature is patentable, as mere discovery is not; patents on human genes
also raise ethical concerns related to morality and human dignity. Ensuring that intellectual property
rights accord with fundamental human values becomes especially difficult as technical criteria for patent
eligibility evolve faster than legislative reform. As of 2011, the benefits of pharmacogenetics have yet to
be fully translated into clinical practice despite the identification of potential molecular biomarkers and a
limited number of validated diagnostics eligible for combination with drugs. When supporting
pharmaceutical innovation, the initial intended applications of new inventions often require adaptation to
fit existing socio-economic environments constrained by technical, cultural, economic, ethical, and
regulatory factors. In these environments, health organizations, national boundaries, institutions,
regulations, communities of practitioners, and patient organizations influence the adoption of innovations
[17, 18].
Emerging Trends in Biomedical Policy
Biomedical policy significantly affects individuals' access to the benefits of scientific discoveries.
Understanding the challenges faced by researchers and developers is crucial for evaluating how policy
facilitates or hinders progress. Innovations in polymer chemistry and material sciences have led to new
heart valves, achieving five-year clinical success and CE Mark approval. As biomedical research advances,
there's hope for breakthroughs in treating diseases like Alzheimer’s, rheumatoid arthritis, and cancers.
Technologies for gene interrogation including DNA, RNA analysis, and gene editing tools like CRISPR
have substantially improved our understanding of genes, their functions, and mutation impacts. With
biomedicine poised for rapid advancements, the development of sophisticated medical technologies has
opened new opportunities. These effective tools allow investments in scientific advancements to enhance
biological and health studies and diversify medical diagnosis and treatment options. However, advancing
medical innovations isn't solely the domain of academic researchers. Commercial drug development
demands integration of skills and significant financial investments over time. Timely patient access to
discoveries challenges free market claims, particularly when it hinders progress. The rise of
biotechnology firms in the 1980s bolstered drug development and allowed academia to partake in
fundamental research, though progress was inconsistent. The setbacks experienced by major
pharmaceutical companies limited options for translating discoveries into therapies. Therefore, industry
and academic leaders are actively seeking ways to expedite progress through innovative support
structures. A shift is evident in the focus on combating diseases, as the burden shared by single nations
lessens due to advancements in various sectors, while new diseases emerge, highlighting the global
community's collective interests in addressing health challenges. In the 21st century's second decade, the
future of biomedical innovation relies on uniting diverse participants to enhance global health and
wellbeing [19, 20].
Future Directions for Policy and Innovation
The acknowledgment of intellectual property rights is regarded as absolutely essential to the
contemporary incentives that drive commercial innovation. This is particularly true within the rapidly
evolving and immensely complex biological realm, which offers a myriad of intricate challenges and
opportunities. Such recognition opens up a multitude of intriguing avenues to explore and develop novel
frameworks that can effectively foster innovation in this dynamic sector. The coverage of these avenues,
alongside a thorough examination of the policies necessary for sustainable innovation, remains
surprisingly limited at this time. However, the emerging trends and developments we witness currently
anticipate several promising directions in which meaningful and significant change must indeed unfold.
Such changes are critical to better support innovative pursuits and to enhance the overall landscape of
innovation within the market. As we look forward, the exploration of these intellectual property rights in
relation to emerging technologies is more important than ever, ensuring that creativity and inventiveness
continue to thrive amidst ongoing transformation [21, 22].
Ethical Considerations in Biomedical Policy
Extensive experimentation with genetic materials has engendered a broad scholarly concern for literacy
about clinical and public health facets of emerging “gene-based technologies.” The ethical proclivities of
clinicians and scientists in the Shanghai area were analysed to explore the development of a culturally
relevant scale for biomedical innovation. A survey of 117 experts in clinical and basic biomedical research
revealed that Chinese experts produced a nine-factor structure of ethical concern relating to biomedical
advances: safety; respect for persons, animals, and the environment; equitable distribution of benefits;
confidentiality; social justice; primacy of human subjects; social pressure to adopt technologies; and

5. EEJOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
52

openness. This array of factors is consistent with the considerations guiding Western bioethics, but the
absence of “informed consent” and the presence of “social pressure to adopt technologies” mark a
departure from Western canonical frameworks. Cultural emphasis on family consent versus individual
consent was underscored, consistent with the EU Regulation 536/2014 recognizing involvement of
family members or legal representatives when the subject cannot provide informed consent. China's
ethical position reflects widespread adoption of Western bioethical considerations but under a distinctive
socio-political context [23, 24].
CONCLUSION
The impact of policy on biomedical innovation is profound, multifaceted, and pivotal to the trajectory of
global health progress. From the earliest government interventions during health crises to today’s
intricate web of intellectual property laws, funding structures, and regulatory systems, policy decisions
have continuously shaped the pace and direction of scientific advancement. While these policies have
catalyzed remarkable breakthroughs, they also pose challenges regarding equitable access, ethical
governance, and sustainable application. International cooperation, harmonized standards, and adaptive
legislative frameworks are critical for addressing the complex realities of 21st-century biomedical
research. Moving forward, policies must strike a deliberate balance between protecting innovation
incentives and ensuring that the fruits of scientific discovery benefit all segments of society, especially in
under-resourced regions. Ultimately, biomedical innovation can only fulfill its promise when guided by
thoughtful, inclusive, and forward-thinking policy design.
REFERENCES
1. Han Y, Fan LL, Xue Y. A sustainable balance between innovation and risk: How the “right to
science” affects China’s medical biotechnology regulatory policy. Computational and Structural
Biotechnology Journal. 2024 Dec 1;24:306-13.
2. Mireles MS. An examination of patents, licensing, research tools, and the tragedy of the
anticommons in biotechnology innovation. U. Mich. JL Reform. 2004;38:141.
3. Rao GH. Biomedical research and healthcare: Opportunities, expectations, and limitations.
International Journal of Biomedicine. 2018 Dec 1;8(4):273-9.
4. Kesselheim AS, Xu S, Avorn J. Clinicians’ contributions to the development of coronary artery
stents: a qualitative study of transformative device innovation. PLoS One. 2014 Feb
12;9(2):e88664.
5. Rezaie R, McGahan AM, Frew SE, Daar AS, Singer PA. Emergence of biopharmaceutical
innovators in China, India, Brazil, and South Africa as global competitors and collaborators.
Health Research Policy and Systems. 2012 Jun 6;10(1):18.
6. Li JF, Garnsey E. Policy-driven ecosystems for new vaccine development. Technovation. 2014
Dec 1;34(12):762-72.
7. Tettey F, Parupelli SK, Desai S. A review of biomedical devices: classification, regulatory
guidelines, human factors, software as a medical device, and cybersecurity. Biomedical Materials
& Devices. 2024 Mar;2(1):316-41.
8. Grimm H, Biller-Andorno N, Buch T, Dahlhoff M, Davies G, Cederroth CR, Maissen O, Lukas
W, Passini E, Törnqvist E, Olsson IA. Advancing the 3Rs: innovation, implementation, ethics
and society. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2023 Jun 15;10:1185706. frontiersin.org
9. Wild C, Sehic O, Schmidt L, Fabian D. Public contributions to R&D of medical innovations: A
framework for analysis. Health Policy. 2025 Feb 1;152:105235.
10. Lo AW, Thakor RT. Financing biomedical innovation. Annual Review of Financial Economics.
2022 Nov 1;14(1):231-70.
11. Hodgson A, Maxon ME, Alper J. The US bioeconomy: charting a course for a resilient and
competitive future. Industrial Biotechnology. 2022 Jun 1;18(3):115-36.
12. Daraojimba C, Abioye KM, Bakare AD, Mhlongo NZ, Onunka O, Daraojimba DO. Technology
and innovation to growth of entrepreneurship and financial boost: a decade in review (2013-
2023). International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research. 2023;5(10):769-92.
academia.edu
13. Chakrabarti G. Need of data exclusivity: Impact on access to medicine. Journal of Intellectual
Property Rights (JIPR). 2023 May 4;19(5):325-36.
14. Mphil IA, Dehury RK, Behera MR. Access to Essential Medicines in India: The role of
innovations, patents, and intellectual property rights. Asia Pacific Journal of Health
Management. 2024 Dec 22;19(3).

6. EEJOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
53

15. Jiang H, Yu M. Understanding RCEP and CPTPP: from the perspective China’s dual circulation
economic strategy. China Economic Journal. 2021 May 4;14(2):144-61.
16. Taghizade S, Chattu VK, Jaafaripooyan E, Kevany S. COVID-19 pandemic as an excellent
opportunity for Global Health Diplomacy. Frontiers in Public Health. 2021 Jul 12;9:655021.
frontiersin.org
17. Zheng C, Li M, Ding J. Challenges and opportunities of nanomedicines in clinical translation.
Bio Integration. 2021 Jul 1;2(2):57.
18. Austin CP. Opportunities and challenges in translational science. Clinical and Translational
Science. 2021 Sep;14(5):1629-47.
19. Bibbins-Domingo K, Shields B, Ayanian JZ, Bonow RO, Bressler NM, Christakis D, Disis ML,
Josephson SA, Kibbe MR, Öngür D, Piccirillo JF. Public access to scientific research findings and
principles of biomedical research—a new policy for the JAMA Network. JAMA neurology. 2023
Feb 1;80(2):132-3. jamanetwork.com
20. Balas EA, De Leo G, Shaw KB. Strategic policy options to improve quality and productivity of
biomedical research. Politics and the Life Sciences. 2025 Apr;44(1):108-19.
21. Mezzanotti F, Simcoe T. Innovation and appropriability: Revisiting the role of intellectual
property. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2023 Jul 10.
22. Janis MD. A Tale of the Apocryphal Axe: Repair, Reconstruction, and the Implied License in
Intellectual Property Law. Md. L. Rev.. 1999;58:423.
23. Casu G, de Padua Serafim A, Zaia V, Gremigni P. Measurement in Health Psychology. Frontiers
in psychology. 2022 May 24;13:937700. frontiersin.org
24. Gomez R, Karimi L, Hein K, Papapetrou S, Stavropoulos V. Symptom Checklist-90-Revised:
Factor structure and relevance as a measure for the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology
model. International Journal of Mental Health. 2024 May 4:1-24. tandfonline.com


CITE AS: Kansiime Agnes. (2025). Impact of Policy on Biomedical
Innovation. EURASIAN EXPERIMEN T JOURNAL OF
ENGINEERING, 5(1):48-53.