Alexander Schuhmacher at ARDD2026: Rethinking Pharma R&D Performance

Alexander Schuhmacher at ARDD2026: Rethinking Pharma R&D Performance

🎙 Alexander Schuhmacher 👥 9K 📅 October 19, 2026 ⏱ 17 min 👁 129 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-10-20
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

R&D productivityefficiencyeffectivenessasset-centricportfolio-centric

Summary

Alexander Schuhmacher presents at ARDD2026 a synthesis of his research on pharmaceutical R&D productivity. He defines R&D productivity as a complex management system involving inputs, outputs, outcomes, and their relationships. He reviews historical context, noting the term ‘productivity crisis’ coined in 2006 and seminal papers in 2010. Based on studies of 18 leading pharma companies, he reports an average likelihood of first approval of 14.3% and that one-third of approved drugs fail to recoup R&D costs over their lifecycle. He finds that 65% of launched drugs come from external sources, leading to the concept of ‘biotech leverage pharma’. A key finding is that internally discovered drugs are commercially more valuable than externally acquired ones. He distinguishes two R&D strategies: asset-centric (efficiency-focused) and portfolio-centric (effectiveness-focused), considered strategic tradeoffs. He recommends balancing efficiency and effectiveness, investing in internal discovery capabilities, and reducing commercially unsuccessful launches. The talk concludes with a Q&A session.

150 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The presentation provides valuable insights from original research conducted by the Competence Center for Pharma Innovation. The argumentation is structured and evidence-based, using data from large panel analyses over many years. The distinction between R&D efficiency and effectiveness is a useful framework. The finding that one-third of approved drugs are R&D unprofitable is striking and well-supported. The speaker clearly explains the methodological approach and the reasoning behind the conclusions. However, some claims could benefit from more detailed explanation and direct references to specific studies.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The speaker is a credible academic, and the research appears rigorous with a clear methodology. However, in the transcript, he does not cite specific sources by name or provide direct references; the description contains only organizational links. The title matches the content well. No comments are provided, so audience reception cannot be assessed. The scientific rigor is high, but the lack of inline citations in the talk limits immediate source verification.

170 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content: a presentation on rethinking R&D performance with new evidence and perspectives.

Quality & Reliability

8/10

The presenter is an academic from the Competence Center for Pharma Innovation at the University of St. Gallen, with several peer-reviewed studies referenced. The talk summarizes published research findings, though specific citations are not given in the transcript. The reasoning is transparent and based on data from large panel analyses.

Key Moments

Cited Sources

Concurring Sources

Dissenting Sources

  • Criticism of R&D productivity metrics — Some researchers argue that simplistic input-output metrics underestimate the long-term value of drug portfolios, which might challenge the focus on immediate profitability.

Contribution & Novelties

The talk synthesizes recent research from the Competence Center for Pharma Innovation, offering a novel integrative perspective on pharma R&D performance. It highlights the underappreciated issue of R&D unprofitability among approved drugs and the strategic tradeoff between efficiency and effectiveness. The distinction between asset-centric and portfolio-centric strategies provides a useful framework for understanding company heterogeneous performance.

Pour aller plus loin :

99 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in quantity, quality, and reliability, indicating a data-rich and credible presentation. The technical level is moderately high, suggesting content accessible to a specialized audience but not overly technical.

Reliability 8/10