Regulatory uncertainty and the associated business risk for emerging technologies
Source abstract
Abstract
An oversight system specifically concerned with nanomaterials should be flexible enough to take into account the unique aspects of individual novel materials and the settings in which they might be used, while recognizing that heretofore unrecognized safety issues may require future modifications. This article considers a question not explicitly considered by the project team: what is the risk that uncertainty over how regulatory oversight will be applied to nanomaterials will delay or block the development of this emerging technology, thereby depriving human health of potential and substantial benefits? An ambiguous regulatory environment could delay the availability of valuable new technology and therapeutics for human health by reducing access to investment capital. Venture capitalists list regulatory uncertainty as a major reason not to invest at all in certain areas. Uncertainty is far more difficult to evaluate than risk, which lends itself to quantitative models and can be factored into projections of return on possible investments. Loss of time has a large impact on investment return. An examination of regulatory case histories suggests that an increase in regulatory resting requirement, where the path is well-defined, is far less costly than a delay of a year or more in achieving product approval and market launch.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Private Equity and Venture Capital · Biotechnology and Related Fields · Innovation Policy and R&D
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (16)
Show source-provided references
1. Adams CP, Brantner VV (2006) Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really $802 million? Health Aff 25:420–42810.1377/hlthaff.25.2.420 ↗
2. Alesandri TM, Ford DN, Lander DM, Leggio KB, Taylor M (2004) Managing risk and uncertainty in complex capital projects. Q Rev Econ Finance 44:761–767
3. Baeyens K, Vanacker T, Manigart S (2006) Venture capitalists’ selection process: the case of biotechnology proposals. Int J Technol Manag 34:28–4610.1504/IJTM.2006.009446 ↗
4. Bayer JC, Norton GW, Falck-Zepeda JB (2010) Cost of compliance with biotechnology regulation in the Philippines: implications for developing countries. AgBioForum 13:53–62
5. Chen S-S, Chung T-Y, Ho KW (2007) Intra-industry effects of delayed new product introductions. Rev Pac Basin Financ Mark Policies 10:415–44310.1142/S0219091507001136 ↗
6. Cohen LP (1992) Biotech Stocks are Caught in Centocor Downdraft. Wall Street J, April 16, C1
7. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2007a) Nanotechnology task force report. http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/Nanotechnology/NanotechnologyTaskForceReport2007/default.htm . Accessed 31 August 2010
8. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2007b) Draft Guidance for Industry, Clinical Laboratories, and FDA Staff: In Vitro Diagnostic Multivariate Index Assays. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oivd/guidance/1610.pdf . Accessed 30 August 2010
9. Heesen MG (2010) Letter to Margaret Hamburg, FDA Commissioner, from National Venture Capital Association President Mark Heesen regarding novel therapies and technologies. http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=549&Itemid=93 . Accessed 30 August 2010
10. Hendricks KB, Singhal VR (1997) Delays in new product introductions and the market value of the firm: the consequences of being late to the market. Manag Sci 43:422–43610.1287/mnsc.43.4.422 ↗
11. Hoerr RA, Gupta A, Matuszewski M (2009) Developing practices for safe handling of nanoparticles and nanomaterials in a development-stage enterprise: a practical guide for research and development organizations. In: Webster TJ (ed) Safety of nanoparticles: from manufacturing to medical applications. Springer, New York
12. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2008) National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2008 Data Update. Detailed Statistical Tables, NSF 10-314, March 2010. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10314/pdf/nsf10314.pdf . Accessed 30 August 2010
13. Oberdörster G (2010) Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: concepts of nanotoxicology. J Int Med 267:89–10510.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02187.x ↗
14. Price W (2007) Introduction to venture capital. http://www.slideshare.net/pricew/introduction-to-venture-capital . Accessed 31 August 2010
15. Ramachandran G, Wolf SM, Paradise J, Kuzma J, Hall R, Kokkoli E, Fatehi L (2011) Recommendations for oversight of nanobiotechnology: dynamic oversight for complex and convergent technology. J Nanopart Res. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0233-210.1007/s11051-011-0233-2 ↗
16. Sjöö K (2008) The influence of uncertainty on venture capital investments in renewable energy technology: an exploratory study. Master thesis, University of Oslo, Norway. http://www.duo.uio.no/publ/tik/2008/85712/Uppsatsen.pdf . Accessed 31 August 2010