Medical Research Map is a joint effort of Sitra, Finnish medical faculties and Pharma Industry Finland to create an overview on the Finnish medical research market and to discover new cooperation opportunities between universities and pharma companies. Ernst & Young Oy (“EY”) has on Sitra’s request interviewed 24 experts from pharma companies, universities and university hospitals, covering all Finnish medical faculties and around 75% of pharmaceutical business in Finland. In addition, an online questionnaire was conducted to find the most relevant research areas and methods from the perspectives of global pharma industry and Finnish medical faculties.

1. Report
Medical Research Map for Finland
03/2016

2. Medical Research Map
is a joint effort of Sitra, Finnish medical faculties and Pharma
Industry Finland to create an overview on the Finnish medical
research market and to discover new cooperation opportunities
between universities and pharma companies.
Ernst & Young Oy (“EY”) has on Sitra’s request interviewed 24
experts from pharma companies, universities and university
hospitals, covering all Finnish medical faculties and around 75%
of pharmaceutical business in Finland.
In addition, an online questionnaire was conducted to find the
most relevant research areas and methods from the perspectives
of global pharma industry and Finnish medical faculties.
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 • 2

3. Background
3

4. Today Finland Has Multiple Strategies
Relevant to Medical Research Ecosystem:
• National Genome Strategy (2015) - Ministry of
Social and Health Affairs, Sitra facilitated and
supported the process
• eHealth and eSocial strategy 2020 (2015) -
Ministry of Social and Health Affairs
• Health Sector Growth Strategy for Research and
Innovation Activities (2014) - the Ministry of
Employment and the Economy, the Ministry of
Social Affairs and Health, the Ministry of Education
and Culture, Tekes (the Finnish Funding Agency
for Technology and Innovation) and the Academy
of Finland
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 • 4

5. In addition, Sitra is facilitating
a new initiative to create a
national health and well-being
data operator to Finland. The
operator is planned to be
ready in 2017 offering one-
stop data service for the
medical research ecosystem.
Find more information on the
Isaacus project:
www.sitra.fi/en/well-
being/well-being-data
5Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

6. Key Objectives of the Medical Research Map
To point out the strengths, weaknesses and potential of the Finnish medical
research sector
To explore the key medical research areas and research methods from the
perspective of the global pharmaceutical industry and Finnish universities
To explore ways to strengthen the public-private cooperation
To discover most attractive opportunities for Finnish medical research
To suggest recommendations for what should be done to enhance the
productiveness in the Finnish medical research sector
6Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

7. Research results
7

8. Overview of the Finnish Medical
Research Sector
Strengths:
• Excellent quality of research: Skillful scientists, high
data quality and timely delivery
• Excellent public health care and extensive databases
that enable an unique access to the Finnish
population and genomes
• Finnish patients are committed to research and
doctors are open to new innovations
• Strong technology knowhow, innovative start-ups and
their potential implications to medical research
• Increased interest in the cooperation between
universities, hospitals and pharma companies
8Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

9. Overview of the Finnish Medical
Research Sector
Weaknesses
• Medical research landscape is fragmented - stronger units
and a common vision needed
• The slow progression of the ‘social welfare and health
care reform’ creates uncertainty to the field
• Lack of public funding & resources for research, incl.
facilities, researchers, research nurses
• Relatively high costs and bureaucracy, slow market access
of innovations
• Inadequate processes and lack of training for
commercialization of innovations
• Medical research, and especially clinical research, is losing
popularity among students
9Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

10. 10
Which are the
most attractive
opportunities for
Finnish medical
research?
Competitive advantage and strong tradition in the areas
of cancer, neurology and cardiovascular diseases
• Finland should continue to allocate resources to the top units of traditionally
strong areas of research
• Other attractive opportunities based on responses are metabolomics, medical
imagining, diabetes and cell and gene therapy
Biobanks combined with clinical data
• Finnish biobank law is modern and advanced
• Finland should take the opportunity in combining clinical data with the vast
genome data and the development of personalized medicine
Use of patient registers
• Finnish genetic heritage is one of the best in the world because of the population
structure
• Finland has good clinical data and high-quality registers
• Patient databases would enable the real world evidence for clinical research,
although the bureaucracy around the use and the combination of different
registers is quite heavy
Combining medical know-how with technological
expertise and digitalization
• Finland has readiness and know-how to apply technological innovations to
patient care e.g. in the areas of electronic monitoring
• Start-ups and joint institutes have been established to bring together
multidisciplinary expertise in life sciences and medical technology
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

11. Recommendations
According to the Medical Research Map
participants, Finland has clear strengths but
also some concrete development areas in the
medical research field. The following pages will
elaborate on this and suggest potential steps to
be taken, suggested by the pharmaceutical
companies and Finnish medical faculties.
11Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

12. Making use of digital know-how to create new business and innovations
• Interdisciplinary cooperation between researchers, engineers/ICT specialists and medical
professionals enable the development of new tools and products
Clinical research has been one of the key strengths of the Finnish health
care system and medical research. This position should be restored and
strengthened by following measures:
• New funding system and tools should be created to replace the EVO funding
• Potential, additional funding sources should be recognized and utilized more efficiently: public-
private partnerships, international funding institutions and instruments (e.g. EU funding,
foundations)
• The barriers for doing clinical research should be lowered as much as possible from the
perspective of funding, infrastructure and culture. There could be arrangements where nurses
and doctors could do e.g. 50/50 clinical work and research. The infrastructure also requires
certain number of permanent and competent research nurses
12Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •
What should be done next – recommendations for future (1/3)

13. 13Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •
What should be done next – recommendations for future (2/3)
Minimizing the level of bureaucracy and ensuring smooth approval
processes
• Finland should make sure that the approval processes and compensation policies are as
transparent as possible.
• For example, the definition of non-interventional research in Finland is strict compared to
other countries in Europe. The new EU regulation on Good Clinical Practice will harmonize the
definition of non-intervention research in the EU. The regulation has to be implemented by
end of 2018, but early implementation of the legislation would give a sign of innovation-
friendly environment
Enhancing national cooperation
• National top unit/units would enhance the marketing of Finnish know-how as a whole, not as
separate areas of skills. They would also enhance cooperation in research infrastructure and
financing as well as bring the groups of patients and scientists together. A big enough
program with several projects would attract international attention
• Finland would benefit from one single-point-of contact to bring supply and demand together
as well as to find the relevant contacts

14. 14Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •
What should be done next – recommendations for future (3/3)
Enhancing commercialization of innovations
• There should be more business activities in relation to the number of scientific publications
• For example in the UK the government links the funding to the potential impact of the research
to be done. Thus, the universities are very much geared up to identifying the research that will
have impact and will translate into tangible benefit to the society
Enable more effective knowledge sharing
• Establish exchange programs between universities and pharma companies and increase the
mobility of Finnish scientists in general
• Organize more national and international conferences and events to both share knowledge and
market Finnish research
Securing that research funding is adequate, prioritized and long-term enough
• Rather than 2-4 years, the funding should be +5 years to create long-term cooperation and
development
• Especially the clinical research is suffering from the lack of funding and resources

15. Key findings
According to the survey and
interviews, the competitive
advantage of Finnish medical
research is seen to be related
• to the research of cancer,
cardiovascular, metabolic and
neurological diseases
• to biobanks and patient
databases and especially to the
ability to combine clinical data
with the genome data
• to the prospect of applying
technological know-how to health
care
15Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

16. Key findings
The Finnish medical research environment is
fragmented and that is limiting the collaboration
between the core players in academia and industry.
With more transparency the collaboration could be
significantly increased and new business and research
opportunities generated.
The lack of concentration in research areas, strong
bureaucracy or slow response time by authorities,
internationally utmost strict interpretation of medical
regulations and the lack of ”strong research unit(s)”
are some of the most frequently mentioned
weaknesses
Clinical research, which is currently the most important
medical research method in Finland, is suffering from
adequate resources, funding and facilities.
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 • 16

17. Figures
17

18. 18
Cancer and neurology are the most significant research areas for global
pharma companies and Finnish universities in the future
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
Antidotes and adverse effect prevention
Ear, Nose and Throat
Ophthalmology
Universities
Medical Devices
Diagnostics
Vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera
Companies*
Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition
Cancer
Hematology
Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutrition Anesthesia
Pain, fever and rheumatic disorders
Dermatology
Endocrinology and metabolism
Allergy
Neurology
Psychiatry
Gynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroids
Urology
Gastrointestinal
Respiratory
Cardiovascular
Antimicrobials
How do you estimate the intensiveness / importance of the research area for your company / university in the future (2020)?
*Results are weighted with relation to the global R&D budget. The combined R&D budget of the involved pharma
companies amounts to EUR 46.99 billion.
Average from scale 1-5
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •
Other research areas of interest included Tropical diseases, Dentistry, Biosimilars, Sensors and nanotechnology,
Nursing Sciences , Microbiome and Medical imaging.

19. 19
Companies and universities estimate the importance of medical devices,
vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera to increase by 2020
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Cancer
Neurology
Hematology
Pain, fever and rheumatic disorders
Dermatology
Ophthalmology
Diagnostics
Cardiovascular
Respiratory
Endocrinology and metabolism
Allergy
Antimicrobials
Psychiatry
Vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera
Medical Devices
Gastrointestinal
Urology
Gynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroids
Antidotes and adverse effect prevention
Ear, Nose and Throat
Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition
Anesthesia
Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral…
Companies Universities
The change in the intensiveness/importance of the research area for companies and
universities currently (2015) and in the future (2020)
See also page 26 for the graph for the change from 2015 to 2020.
- Diagnostics and medical devices
are strongly linked and there are a
lot of activities related to the tech
cooperation in the academia side
at the moment.
- Traditional pharma companies
lower interest in medical devices
could be explained by the vast
number of med tech companies
that are focused specifically on
devices.
- There could be limited number of
sponsors for universities in some
research areas in the future
(Antimicrobials, Gastrointestinal,
Gynecology, Antidotes etc.)
The change in the grade unit (0-5)
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

20. 20
1. Cancer
Cancer: What do you think are the principal research
techniques and methods for your company / university?
8%
Genomics 10%
8%
Molecular biology 7%
8%
Cellular biology 7%
8%
Basic Research 7%
Transcriptomics 7%
6%
Metabolomics 10%
6%
Proteomics 10%
6%
Epigenomics 7%
6%
Translational Research
Other 0%
3%
Pharmacogenomics 7%
6%
7%
10%
Pre-Clinical research 10%
11%
Clinical Research 12%
14%
Universities
Pharma companies
56 % of the companies and
40 % of the universities
estimated the importance of
Cancer as 5
- The Helsinki University Central Hospital
Comprehensive Cancer Center is the
first Nordic institution accredited by the
Organisation of European Cancer
institutes (OECI).
- Finalizing and implementing the plan for
national cancer center could enhance
common treatment practices,
networking, systems and registers and
would further attract clinical research
and make clinical research more
efficient.
- It seems that university hospitals and
private clinics are currently competing,
but there could be room for cooperation
e.g. in the area of follow-up
examination.
2
95
4
1
2
25
4
3
How do you estimate the
intensiveness / importance
of the research area for your
company in the future
(2020)?
How do you estimate the
intensiveness / importance
of the research area for your
university in the future
(2020)?
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

21. 21
2. Neurology
Neurology: What do you think are the principal research
techniques and methods for your company / university?
0%
2%
Pharmacogenomics 5%
4%
Transcriptomics 11%
4%
Metabolomics 5%
7%
Proteomics 8%
7%
Epigenomics 8%
7%
Translational Research 8%
Other
Genomics 11%
7%
Molecular biology 8%
7%
Cellular biology 8%
7%
Basic Research 8%
9%
Pre-Clinical research 8%
15%
Clinical Research 13%
20%
7%
Universities
Pharma Companies
56 % of the companies
and 60 % of the
universities estimated the
importance of Neurology
as 5
4
1
0
2
0
9
0
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
0
0
1
0
4
5
0
1
2
3
- Strong know-how of neurological
diseases is combined with the top
expertise in medical imagining and
diagnostics in Finland.
- The three top areas of research are
Alzheimer disease, epilepsy and
cerebral infarction.
- Research in neurology is more
fragmented than in cancer, although
cooperation exists between different
research units in the areas of e.g.
Alzheimer, multiple sclerosis and
epilepsy.
How do you estimate the
intensiveness / importance
of the research area for your
company in the future
(2020)?
How do you estimate the
intensiveness / importance
of the research area for your
university in the future
(2020)?
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

22. 22
3. Hematology
Hematology: What do you think are the principal research
techniques and methods for your company / university?
0%
2%
Pharmacogenomics 7%
5%
Metabolomics 7%
5%
Proteomics 7%
5%
Epigenomics 7%
5%
Genomics 14%
5%
Transcriptomics 7%
Other
Molecular biology 7%
7%
Cellular biology 0%
7%
Translational Research 7%
9%
Basic Research 0%
9%
Pre-Clinical research 7%
14%
Clinical Research 29%
21%
7%
Universities
Pharma Companies
38 % of the companies
and one university
estimated the importance
of Hematology as 5.
4
1
2
1
2
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
1
3
0
1
0
1
3
2
4
5
- Pharma companies estimate that the
importance of hematology will increase
11 % in five years time.
How do you estimate the
intensiveness / importance
of the research area for your
company in the future
(2020)?
How do you estimate the
intensiveness / importance
of the research area for your
university in the future
(2020)?
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

23. 23
4. Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular: What do you think are the principal
research techniques and methods for your company /
university?
8%
7%
Molecular biology 8%
7%
Basic Research 10%
9%
Genomics 10%
11%
Pre-Clinical research 8%
16%
Clinical Research 13%
18%
Other 0%
Pharmacogenomics
Transcriptomics 5%
5%
Metabolomics 8%
5%
Proteomics 8%
5%
Epigenomics 8%
5%
Cellular biology 8%
5%
Translational Research 8%
7%
2%
Universities
Pharma Companies
60% of the universities and
25 % of pharma companies
consider Cardiovascular as
one of the most important
research areas.
1
5
3
2
1
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
1
0
1
3
3
0
1
2
4
5
- Academia has a long tradition in the
research of cardiovascular diseases
as they have for long been the most
common causes of death in the
Finnish population.
- Pharma companies estimate that the
importance of cardiovascular research
will increase almost 25 % in five years
time.
How do you estimate the
intensiveness / importance
of the research area for your
company in the future
(2020)?
How do you estimate the
intensiveness / importance
of the research area for your
university in the future
(2020)?
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

24. • Virtually all research methods/techniques seem to be used regardless of the research area (except Medical Devices,
Anesthesia, Vitamins/trace elements, Antidotes and Electrolytes/fluid balance) making the field of methods quite
complex.
• The most important research methods for pharma companies are clinical (21 %), pre-clinical (13 %), basic research
(9 %) and molecular biology (7 %).
• Academia consider clinical research (20 %), molecular biology (11 %), cellular biology (9 %), basic research (9 %)
and pre-clinical research (8,5 %) as the most important research methods.
24
Clinical research is the leading research method in Finland
What do you think are the principal research techniques and methods for your company / university?
7%
7%
Cellular biology 8%
7%
Molecular biology 9%
7%
Basic Research
8%
9%
Pre-Clinical research
8%
13%
Clinical Research
19%
21%
Epigenomics 5%
Translational Research
Other
0%
5%
Proteomics 8%
5%
Pharmacogenomics 7%
5%
Transcriptomics 6%
5%
Metabolomics 6%
5%
Genomics 10%
7%
4% Universities
Pharma Companies
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

25. 25
Appendices
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

26. Background
• The Finnish government has recently
published its government program that
aims at strengthening the cooperation
between higher education institutions and
business life
• Sitra has been suggested by the pharma
and university representatives to prepare
an overview report to support the initiative
and strengthen the implementation of the
health sector growth strategy
• EY supported Sitra in preparing the report
• The report will be utilized as a part of
implementation of the national growth
strategy for health sector
Objectives
• To explore the key medical research areas and research methods
from the perspective of the global pharmaceutical industry and Finnish
universities
• To explore ways to strengthen the public-private cooperation
• To discover most attractive opportunities for Finnish medical research
• To suggest recommendations for what should be done to enhance the
productiveness in the Finnish medical research sector
Method
• Online questionnaire in order to clarify the most attractive areas of
research for pharma companies and universities (no. of respondents:
16 pharma companies, 5 universities and 1 field of business expert)
• Qualitative interviews to find out the pros and cons of the Finnish
medical research (no. of interviewees: 12 pharma companies, 10
university representatives and 2 field of business experts)
• The combined R&D budget of the involved pharma companies
amounts to EUR 46.99 billion
Project steering group
• A steering group* consisting of Kalervo Väänänen (Rector, University of Turku, Chairman of UNIFI), Oliver Rittgen
(CEO, Bayer Nordic, Chairman of the Team Finland Health steering group) and Jussi Merikallio (CEO, Pharma Industry
Finland) as well as Sitra’s representatives Ville Koiste and Juha Vapaavuori have commented on and provided
expertise and valuable advice on the results in the final report.
26
*Steering group members have not seen the individual research data, but
only the results presented in the final report.
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

27. This report is a joint effort of Sitra, Finnish medical faculties and Pharma Industry Finland to create an overview on the Finnish
medical research market and to discover new cooperation opportunities between universities and pharma companies. Ernst & Young
Oy (“EY”) has on Sitra’s request interviewed 25 experts from pharma companies, universities and university hospitals, covering 100%
of medical faculties and around 75% of pharmaceutical business in Finland. In addition, an online questionnaire was conducted to
find the most relevant research areas and methods from the perspectives of global pharma industry and Finnish medical faculties.
Key findings
The Finnish medical research environment is fragmented limiting currently the collaboration between the core players in academia
and industry. Some examples of excellent cooperation between universities and/or universities and pharma companies exist and
interesting projects have been started e.g. in the biobank field, but with more transparency the collaboration could be significantly
increased and new business and research opportunities generated.
The lack of concentration in research areas, bureaucracy or slow response time by authorities, internationally utmost strict
interpretation of medical regulations and the lack of ”strong research unit(s)” are some of the most frequently mentioned weaknesses
for the Finnish medical research environment by the interviewees.
Clinical research, which is currently the most important medical research method in Finland, is suffering from adequate resources and
facilities. However, based on interviews corrective actions are easy to carry out and should be realized in a short term.
The academic research has concentrated on certain national diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular, metabolic and neurological
diseases which are also recognized by the pharmaceutical industry as the core research fields. At the same time fields such as
psychiatry, gastrointestinal and gynecology and obstetrics have been identified in which considerable activities are carried out in
Finnish Universities but in which global pharmaceutical industry has not expressed any significant interest. Both the core fields and
the so far unexplored areas need to be analyzed further in order to find better collaboration opportunities in shared research areas
and universities will need to consider defining a strategy for non-shared areas.
The competitive advantage of Finnish medical research is seen to be related, firstly, to the research of cancer and neurology,
secondly, to biobanks and patient databases and especially to the ability to combine clinical data with the genome data, and thirdly,
to the prospect of applying technological know-how to health care.
Executive summary and a way forward (1/2)
27Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

28. Recommendation
To accelerate international research initiatives and partnerships with the industry, Finnish universities need more national and
interdisciplinary collaboration. Competition takes place on an international level and therefore national collaboration is essential.
Related to this, Finland needs a large enough national research unit or units (e.g. National Genome Center was mentioned), more
effective knowledge sharing and marketing efforts to attract international investments and pharma industry collaboration. Response
time of data inquiries and ethical evaluations should be more efficient and medical regulations should be clearer.
A threat of diminishing public funding was mentioned several times during the interviews and especially clinical research was
mentioned to suffer from shortage of resources and facilities. Government backing in terms of (new) funding instruments and
resources could support the key research areas and strengthen their competitiveness. Strategic choices regarding key research areas
should be done on a national level to actualize the underlying potential (such as biobanks).
There are clear shortages in funding side, especially cutting the free research budgets (EVO) of university hospitals. Funding should
be increased in these sector to ensure the resources needed.
Vision for Finland
In the future, Finland will be a leading hub of medical research that utilizes country’s rich digital data sources (e.g. biobank, genome
and patient databases) and ICT know-how. To support the flourishing research ecosystem, Finland should be able to offer funding
and test bed facilities for research projects.
As we are moving towards the era of personalized medicine, Finland’s main assets - high quality public healthcare system, digital
talent, electronic health registers and biobanks - could attract more international investments and top researchers. With the support
of the government (e.g. national strategies related to health sector), more active collaboration between pharma industry and
universities as well as national initiatives such as the national data operator, Finland will be an attractive location for global
pharmaceutical companies for R&D activities. This will create new jobs, ensure top level healthcare system and more personalized
and effective treatments for Finnish citizens.
28
Executive summary and a way forward (2/2)
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

29. 29
In total, 17 companies, 5 universities and 2 field of business
experts participated in the research
Interviewed companies
AbbVie Oy
Amgen AB
Bayer Oy
Discovery Partnerships with Academia,
a unit of GlaxoSmithKline
Forendo Pharma Ltd
MSD
Novartis Finland Oy
Novo Nordisk Farma Oy
Orion Oyj
Oy H. Lundbeck Ab
Roche Oy
Company A
Interviewed academia
representatives
University of Helsinki, 2 interviews
University of Turku, 2 interviews
University of Tampere, 2 interviews
University of Eastern Finland, 2
interviews
University of Oulu, 2 interviews
2 expert interviews
Online questionnaire replies
AbbVie Oy
Bayer Oy
Biotie Therapies Oyj
Boehringer- Ingelheim Finland Ky
Discovery Partnerships with Academia, a unit
of GlaxoSmithKline
Forendo Pharma Oy
Janssen, Pharmaceutical Companies of
Johnson & Johnson
Novartis Finland
Novo Nordisk A/S
Orion Pharma R&D
Oy H. Lundbeck Ab
Roche Oy
Company A
Company B
Company C
Company D
University of Eastern Finland
University of HelsInki
University of Oulu
University of Tampere
University of Turku
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

30. • The study includes only a limited amount of pharma companies, although they represent
close to 75 % of the industry in Finland
• The participating universities represent the whole medical research landscape in Finland
• The weighting process for pharma companies:
30
The results are weighted according to the pharma companies
global R&D budget
Company A grade
(0-5)
Company A global R&D budget
Total of all global R&D budgets
x
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

31. 31
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
Antidotes and adverse effect prevention Ear, Nose and Throat
Ophthalmology
Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition
Cancer
Hematology
Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutrition Anesthesia
Pain, fever and rheumatic disorders
Dermatology
Endocrinology and metabolism
Allergy
Neurology
Psychiatry
Gynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroids
Urology
Gastrointestinal
Respiratory
Cardiovascular
Antimicrobials
Vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera
Companies*
Universities
Medical Devices
Diagnostics
*Results are weighted with relation to the global R&D budget.
Average from scale 1-5
Other research areas of interest included Tropical diseases, Dentistry, Biosimilars, Sensors and nanotechnology,
Nursing Sciences , Microbiome and Medical imaging.
How do you estimate the intensiveness / importance of the research area
for your company / university currently (2015)?
Arrows represent the change from 2015 to 2020
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

32. 32
Question 1a: How do you estimate the intensiveness / importance of the research
area for your company currently (2015) and in the future (2020)?
Weighted according to the R&D budget
2,7
1,9
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,5
0,6
0,6
1,6
1,6
1,7
1,8
1,8
1,9
2,0
2,3
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,8
3,0
3,4
3,8
3,9
4,2
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,7
0,6
0,6
1,6
1,6
2,3
1,9
1,8
2,2
2,7
3,1
2,7
3,0
3,3
3,8
4,2
4,1
4,3
Antimicrobials
Neurology
Cancer
Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutrition
Anesthesia
Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition
Ear, Nose and Throat
Antidotes and adverse effect prevention
Gynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroids
Urology
Gastrointestinal
Medical Devices
Vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera
Psychiatry
Allergy
Endocrinology and metabolism
Respiratory
Cardiovascular
Diagnostics
Ophtalmology
Dermatology
Pain, fever and rheumatic disorders
Hematology
Average from scale 1-5
Future
Current
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

33. 33
Question 1b: How do you estimate the intensiveness / importance of the
research area for your university (2015) currently and in the future
(2020)?
1,8
2,0
2,2
2,2
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,8
2,8
2,8
3,0
3,0
3,0
3,2
3,4
3,4
3,4
3,6
3,6
3,8
4,0
4,0
4,2
2,0
4,2
1,8
2,2
3,0
3,6
2,8
2,8
3,0
3,0
3,0
3,8
3,2
3,0
3,6
3,4
3,2
3,4
3,8
3,4
4,2
3,8
4,2
Antidotes and adverse effect prevention
Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutrition
Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition
Antimicrobials
Medical Devices
Ear, Nose and Throat
Anesthesia
Ophtalmology
Pain, fever and rheumatic disorders
Respiratory
Vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera
Hematology
Dermatology
Diagnostics
Allergy
Gynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroids
Gastrointestinal
Psychiatry
Urology
Neurology
Cancer
Endocrinology and metabolism
Cardiovascular
Average from scale 1-5
Future
Current
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

34. 34
Question 2: What do you think are the principal research techniques and
methods for your company*/university?
Antidotes and adverse effect prevention
Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition
Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutrition
Ear, Nose and Throat
Medical Devices
Anesthesia
Ophtalmology
Vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera
Allergy
Diagnostics
Gastrointestinal
Dermatology
Respiratory
Antimicrobials
Urology
Pain, fever and rheumatic disorders
73
11
47
Gynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroids
62
8
46
Hematology 57
7
45
Psychiatry
50
7
41
Endocrinology and metabolism
50
12
40
Cardiovascular
48
36
30
12
38
Neurology
Cancer 113
84
83
Other
Translational Research
Clinical Research
Pre-Clinical research
Basic Research
Pharmacogenomics
Transcriptomics
Proteomics
Metabolomics
Epigenomics
Genomics
Molecular biology
Cellular biology
*Results are not weighted (companies).
Number of replies
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

35. - The research results of our study are strongly in line with
the division of clinical study research areas in 2014
- The number of studies related to Antimicrobials and
Gastrointestinal are relatively high compared to the
estimation of the areas’ importance in our research (1,8
and 1,6)
- The number of studies related to Neurology and
Dermatology are relatively low compared to the higher
estimation of the areas’ importance in our research (4,1
and 3,3)
35
Comparison with other studies - Top three areas for clinical studies based
on other survey and initiated by the pharma industry were cancer,
hematology and antimicrobials in 2014
Research area
No of
studies
% of total
Cancer 99 35,6 %
Hematology 27 9,7 %
Antimicrobials 19 6,8 %
Pain, fever and rheumatic disorders 19 6,8 %
Respiratory 19 6,8 %
Endocrinology and metabolism 16 5,8 %
Neurology 16 5,8 %
Gastrointestinal 15 5,4 %
Cardiovascular 11 4,0 %
Ophthalmology 9 3,2 %
Dermatology 8 2,9 %
Psychiatry 6 2,2 %
Urology 4 1,4 %
Vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera 4 1,4 %
Gynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroids 3 1,1 %
Diagnostics 2 0,7 %
Ear, Nose and Throat 1 0,4 %
Allergy 0 0,0 %
Anesthesia 0 0,0 %
Antidotes and adverse effect prevention 0 0,0 %
Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral
nutrition 0 0,0 %
Medical Devices 0 0,0 %
Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition 0 0,0 %
Total 278
No of clinical studies initiated by the participating pharma industry
representatives (project online questionnaire respondents) in 2014
The data is based on the search from ClinicalTrials.gov including all phase I-IV studies (phase I including
only cancer) initiated between 01/01/2014-31/12/2014 by the 16 pharma sector respondents.
Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

36. • sitra.fi
• Facebook.com/SitraFund
• @SitraFund
Building a successful Finland for tomorrow
More information:
Ville Koiste, Sitra
ville.koiste@sitra.fi
Juha Vapaavuori, Sitra
juha.vapaavuori@sitra.fi