Calixto and Siqueira Jr. (2008) have indicated several difficulties in relation to the development of R&D by the Brazilian pharmaceutical industry: high costs and risks associated with the development of new traditional drugs, high financial costs (interest rates) and a low supply of risk capital, the long maturation time of R&D projects, a lack of formal R&D divisions in the industry, a reduction in the number of domestic companies due to mergers with or acquisitions by multinational/transnational corporations, a lack

of experience in technological innovation, the absence of researchers in companies, and a lack of programmes that include the participation of the national government and its agencies. By understanding the role of the Brazilian Ministry of Health in Neglected Diseases R&D, the Department learn more of Science and Technology (DECIT) has supported several projects in this area, through the Secretariat of Science, Technology and Strategic Inputs (SCTIE). Thus, our fibrin sealant has obtained the necessary R&D funding. This scenario was only possible due to the advanced-stage development and translational capacity

of the fibrin selleck screening library sealant and because the Brazilian government is committed to investing in technology and the development of new drugs targeting public health. At the website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, a total of 119,470 clinical studies were registered between 01/01/1990 Bumetanide and 31/12/2011. Over the same period, Brazil was responsible for only 2720 records on this platform. Regarding

the ability to conduct clinical trials in Brazil, it is observed that only 19.9% of trials were recorded as phase 0, phase I, phase II or phase I + II, while 62.1% of the trials were recorded as phase II + III, phase III or phase IV (ClinicalTrials.gov, 2012). This finding demonstrates that most of the clinical trials conducted in Brazil, representing a small proportion of the studies performed worldwide, involve protocols that reflect the priorities of foreign laboratories. The participation of Brazilian researchers in these studies has been limited to executing protocols developed in other countries. Furthermore, both the analysis and ownership of the data are entirely within the scope of the contracting companies. In this context, there is a great disincentive for the academic community to participate in clinical research. Without financial incentive, physicians often feel undervalued or indifferent to the benefits of performing clinical research for their patients (Kahn et al., 2011). According to Morgan et al. (2011), researchers describe translational research as “high risk” and are seldom viewed by their peers as contributing “authentic” knowledge that would bestow symbolic capital in their field.