# The origins of Novo Nordisk and Novartis products: piloting a framework to identify the public contributions

## TL;DR

This study examines how much public funding supported drug development at Novartis and Novo Nordisk, finding that Novartis relied more on acquisitions than Novo Nordisk.

## Contribution

A new framework was piloted to trace public contributions to pharmaceutical product development.

## Key findings

- Novartis acquired 16 out of 25 products, often in oncology, while Novo Nordisk relied more on internal R&D.
- Eleven Novartis products received public support, compared to one from Novo Nordisk.
- The framework successfully identified public contributions in the analyzed product portfolios.

## Abstract

The objective of this case study is to pilot a framework of public contributions examining the origins of products from two major European pharmaceutical companies, Novartis and Novo Nordisk, that received approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between January 2014 and May 2024. Our primary focus was to investigate the extent of public contributions, including government grants, public-private partnerships, and other forms of public funding, that supported the development of these products. Additionally, we explored whether these companies primarily relied on in-house research and development (R&D) capabilities or acquired these products at various stages of their development.

We conducted a thorough analysis of the products approved during the specified period, identifying the origins of each product. The analysis included detailed examination of public databases, financial disclosures, and scientific publications to trace the flow of public funding. We built on a list of sources from our previous studies to increase the level of detail.

Novartis demonstrated a tendency to acquire promising products and technologies from smaller biotech firms and other pharmaceutical companies, particularly in therapeutic areas where it sought to strengthen its market position like oncology (16 out of 25 products acquired, licensed or co-developed). Conversely, Novo Nordisk predominantly advanced its products through internal R&D efforts, although it also engaged in selective acquisitions to complement its core capabilities (two out of six products acquired, licensed or co-developed). For Novartis eleven products received public support, for Novo Nordisk one product did.

Our findings reveal that both Novartis and Novo Nordisk use strategic acquisitions with Novartis relying more heavily on it than Novo Nordisk. Our framework for analyzing public contributions was sufficient for the product portfolios of the firms analyzed and helped us identifying public contributions.