4 ms·

the entire world is dependent on the biomedical R&D of US companies Inasmuch as it is possible for companies of this size to be from any one particularly count

the entire world is dependent on the biomedical R&D of US companies Inasmuch as it is possible for companies of this size to be from any one particularly country, large American pharmaceutical companies spent $27bn on R&D in 2009, while European ones spent €28.5bn (i.e. 40% more at today's exchange rate.) source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companie...

brg 15y ago
That list does not show where the money is being spent by each organization. Instead it only maps the expenditure to the lcoation of a corporations headquarters. Specifically, consider Bayer. This is listed as a German pharmaceutical company. Bayer reports to have 37,000 employees, however 16,000 of thema are in the USA. (http://www.bayerpharma.com/en/company/index.php http://www.bayerpharma.com/en/company/index.php, http://www.bayer.com/en/north-america.aspx http://www.bayer.com/en/north-america.aspx). Better statistics are provided elsewhere in wiki, for instance US R&D expenditure dwarfs that of any other country. It is also about 33% higher than that of the combined total of EU countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_a...
- waitwhat 15y ago
  That list does not show where the money is being spent by each organization. This is irrelevant to the claim I was debunking. True, the great grand-parent post appears to be conflating where the research was done with the nationality of the company funding the research, and I admit that I only responded to one half of the argument, but that was purely because it was the easiest to fact-check. That doesn't make the other half of the argument true. Specifically, consider Bayer. This is listed as a German pharmaceutical company. "American" pharmaceutical companies also have employees in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. Better statistics are provided elsewhere in wiki, for instance US R&D expenditure dwarfs that of any other country. Including, say, military and aerospace R&D with healthcare R&D to try and make a point about just healthcare is clearly ridiculous.

brg 15y ago

That list does not show where the money is being spent by each organization. Instead it only maps the expenditure to the lcoation of a corporations headquarters. Specifically, consider Bayer. This is listed as a German pharmaceutical company. Bayer reports to have 37,000 employees, however 16,000 of thema are in the USA. (http://www.bayerpharma.com/en/company/index.php http://www.bayerpharma.com/en/company/index.php, http://www.bayer.com/en/north-america.aspx http://www.bayer.com/en/north-america.aspx). Better statistics are provided elsewhere in wiki, for instance US R&D expenditure dwarfs that of any other country. It is also about 33% higher than that of the combined total of EU countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_a...

waitwhat 15y ago
That list does not show where the money is being spent by each organization. This is irrelevant to the claim I was debunking. True, the great grand-parent post appears to be conflating where the research was done with the nationality of the company funding the research, and I admit that I only responded to one half of the argument, but that was purely because it was the easiest to fact-check. That doesn't make the other half of the argument true. Specifically, consider Bayer. This is listed as a German pharmaceutical company. "American" pharmaceutical companies also have employees in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. Better statistics are provided elsewhere in wiki, for instance US R&D expenditure dwarfs that of any other country. Including, say, military and aerospace R&D with healthcare R&D to try and make a point about just healthcare is clearly ridiculous.