BioScience Biz

FDA puts brakes on Geron stem cell trial--again

Last week the New York Times reported that the FDA put a clinical hold on Geron’s pioneering human embryonic stem cell (ESC) trial—before the first patient could be enrolled. In what was to be the world’s first clinical test of ESCs, Geron planned to differentiate the cells into neurons that can be injected into the spinal cords of paralyzed patients. However, the FDA requested more information after reviewing dose escalation data from pre-clinical animal studies.

This is the second time the FDA has delayed the Geron ESC clinical trial. Back in January, the FDA lifted an 8 months hold, allowing Geron to proceed with plans for the experimental injection of ESC-derived nerve cells into the spines of 8-10 paralyzed patients in attempt to repair the neural damage. The FDA was concerned over the safety of the protocol since the presence of any contaminating, undifferentiated ESCs could form tumors called teratomas.

In an announcement released Friday by Geron, the company explained that a recent animal study of the GRNOPC1 ESC therapy revealed the presence of “microscopic cysts in the regenerating injury site.” Fortunately the cysts were only found in the injection site and were non-proliferating. That is significant since it means that the cysts were benign, nevertheless, the FDA wants to look more closely at this development. 

"We have submitted these data to the FDA and are in discussions with the agency to answer its questions and proceed with the clinical trial," said the company in the release.

What’s new in stem cell research and therapy?

Stem cells are being tested in cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, eye disease, Parkinson’s and to grow cartilage in damaged joints. Stem cells are also being made from blood, attached to sutures and authorities in Hungary crack down on unethical “stem cell tourism”.  Read about these and other recent advances in stem cell science here…

Making the transition from academia into the world of bioentrepreneurship

It's the first day of class on a postgraduate program in engineering management, and the students, mainly engineers and life scientists, are looking anxious—mostly because the class has started with a metaphor: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Alice is an appropriate role model because her journey is similar to that experienced by scientists moving from the safe waters of the laboratory to the uncharted waters of the business world. Alice left a safe and familiar environment and set off down a rabbit hole on a journey full of ambiguities, complexities, and only later, realization. She survived her ordeal because she was willing to change perspectives when faced with new ideas or situations. In other words, she adapted—just what budding bioentrepreneurs must do.

How can an academic scientst make this transition into the world of entrepreneurship? Rochelle Young, a professor of management engineering at the University of Colorado give advice in her article, "Adventures in Wonderland," published recently in Bioentrepreneur.

SBIR Reauthorization—Déjà vu All Over Again

I could probably just repost my earlier updates on the progress of the SBIR reauthorization because nothing really changes much. It looks like we are going to get another continuing resolution while the House tries an end-run around Nydia Vazquez’s (D-NY) stonewalling as I described in my earlier post here.

The Small Business Technology Council issued the following notice yesterday:

The Senate passed a continuing resolution on Friday that would extend the SBIR program another two months. That would make the new expiration date for the SBIR program September 30th, 2009. This CR also needs to pass the House of Representatives to be enacted, and we expect it to pass the House on Tuesday.

Currently, the staff from the House Small Business and Science Committees are in negotiations in conference with the staff from the Senate Small Business Committee to produce a compromise SBIR reauthorization bill that will incorporate elements from both the House and the Senate Reauthorization Bills. We have heard and have reason to believe that both sides are negotiating in good faith, and that no party is acting unreasonably or otherwise sabotaging the process. Because there is an agreement between the staffers in the conference, we won't know what's in the compromise bill until it is finished and released to the public.

The SBTC will be hosting a conference call on Thursday to discuss these developments. Contact Alec Orban if you'd like the call-in number and code

Stay tuned or follow the tortuous path of this legislation at www.SBIRreauthorization.com.

The SBIR Clock is Ticking

Members of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee and the House Small Business, and Science and Technology Committees are meeting, yet again, to see if this time they can resolve the impasse of two very different SBIR reauthorization bills, (Senate S.1233 and House H.R.2965).

You will recall that Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, holds the very anti-small business view that VC-owned technology companies should be able to participate fully in SBIR/STTR competition. Amazingly, she has for the last two years, prohibited any testimony on behalf of small businesses in her committee and also on the floor of the House. In contrast, the Senate’s bill preserves most of the SBIR program for small company by capping participation of VC’s, a compromise that last year was agreeable to both the VC and small business lobbies. But the Velazquez would not budge from her position.

Will this year be different?

When the full House considered its SBIR reauthorization bill, Velazquez got the Rules Committee to prohibit consideration of a Edward Markey (D-MA)-led amendment that would have made the bill similar to the Senate version. She did this because it was widely expected that the Markey amendment was favored by most members of the House and would have passed.

Several House members, led by Markey, who disagree with the obstructionist Velazquez and do not like her bullying, are trying an end run around her by sending a letter to Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Chair of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, expressing their support for the Senate’s SBIR reauthorization bill. This letter represents an attempt to let the Senate conference committee members know that most Representatives disagree with Velazquez’s bill.

The more members of the House who sign the letter, the greater chance that the conference committee will approve S.1233 as the final version. You can help by emailing the Markey letter to your Representative and ask that s/he sign on this week. Time is of the essence since an acceptable compromise must be made by next Tuesday, July 28. While you are at it, ask your Rep to consider how they are going to explain to small businesses in their state why they voted against small businesses so that rich VC’s could have access to more Federal funds.

SBIR updates and links for contacting your Representatives and Senators can be found on www.SBIRreauthorization.com.

© 2009 Steven S. Clark, PhD, some rights reserved.  Articles contained herein, are meant to be distributed freely to interested parties. However, any use, including excerpts from any article, must credit Steven S. Clark and provide a link to the original article published in BioScience Biz.

Disclaimer: The authors used their best efforts in collecting and preparing the information published herein. However, neither Steven S. Clark, nor other authors, assume, and hereby disclaim, any and all liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident, or other causes.

Clinical research activity up significantly in 2008

According to a report in FierceBiotech, surprising news came out of the recently completed 45th Annual Meeting of the Drug Information Association (DIA).  Despite cutbacks in the international biopharma industry, clinical trial activity was up in 2008. Overall, 795 new clinical trials were launched in 2008, compared with 662 that were initiated in 2007. There were 5,700 active INDs in 2008, which represents a greater than 20 percent increase over the 4,744 INDs active by the end of 2007—a substantial increase.

Trial activity was also assessed by the number of new FDA form 1572s, which all clinical investigators on FDA-approved trials sign as a promise that he will abide by the federal guidelines set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations for the use of drugs in an investigational setting. The FDA registered 23,827 new 1572s from clinical investigators in 2008, up 5.8 percent from the previous year. However, the number of new 1572s from China-based clinical investigators fell 30 percent due to the long approval process, but Indian-based 1572s rose 14 percent. South Korean investigators submitted 74 percent more 1572s while submissions from Taiwan rose 21 percent. Clinical trial activity is also up in Eastern Europe where the FDA saw significant increases from Russian investigators (20 percent), as well as Romanian (44 percent), Polish (17 percent) and Bulgarian (57 percent) clinical researchers.

It will be interesting to see the data for 2009.

DIA is a professional association of more than 18,000 members worldwide who are involved in the discovery, development, regulation, surveillance, or marketing of pharmaceutical products. The DIA annual meeting is the biopharmaceutical industry's largest, longest running, international event.  

More stem cell trial problems for Osiris Therapeutics

Clinical trials can be vexing, just ask anyone associated with Osiris Therapeutics, a leading stem cell therapeutic company. The company recently announced that their mid-stage, Phase II trials to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with adult stem cells (called Prochymal) did a great job reducing inflammation, but failed to improve pulmonary function. The 62 patients enrolled in the trial will be followed for two years in order to assess possible long term effects of the therapy.  Nevertheless, these results reveal how complicated and unpredictable clinical trials can be. 

COPD is really a combination of two maladies, chronic bronchitis and emphysema, rolled into one diagnosis. The disease commonly is caused by smoking, which triggers an abnormal inflammatory response in the lung in some individuals. In the larger airways, this inflammation causes chronic bronchitis, while in the microscopic lung sacks called alveoli, the inflammatory response causes emphysema, which is the destruction of the lung tissues where oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged. The result of this double inflammatory whammy is to limit the flow of air to and from the lungs causing shortness of breath. COPD is poorly reversible and usually gets progressively worse over time. In 1990, COPD was the third leading cause of death worldwide.

"...anyone would have predicted a priori that reducing lung inflammation would translate to improved lung function."

Given the central role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of COPD, anyone would have predicted a priori that reducing lung inflammation would translate to improved lung function.  But, this is like believing that the baseball team with the most hits will automatically win the game. It is not uncommon for such surrogate measurements of efficacy to fail to predict the final outcome—the full game must still be played and the clinical trial done before the outcome can be certain. 

Osiris is also testing Prochymal for its ability to treat other inflammatory diseases, so the reduced inflammation seeing in the COPD trial might be a good omen for these other maladies, even if Prochymal is of little benefit to patients with COPD. Unfortunately, however, last month Osiris was forced to discontinue enrollment in a phase III trial to treat the chronic inflammatory bowel condition known as Crohn’s disease. The reason for this, according to the company, is that patients on the placebo arm of the trial were doing unexpectedly well and interim data analysis indicated that this response would make it impossible to show a benefit of the Prochymal therapy. After examining the data with the FDA, it was concluded that  that there was a potential “systematic design flaw” in the trial that “might be related to the fact that patients responding to the initial stem cell therapy were eligible to participate in a second, longer-term trial evaluating Prochymal as a maintenance therapy. Because the current standard for determining response of Crohn's patients to therapy is largely subjective, there may have been response bias to meet the eligibility requirements for continuation of therapy in the longer-term maintenance trial”.

Prochymal is a preparation of mesenchymal stem cells obtained from the bone marrow of healthy donors and specially formulated for intravenous infusion. In addition to Crohn’s disease, Prochymal also is being tested in two other Phase III studies to treat both acute and steroid-refractory graft-vs-host diseases (or GvHD). The FDA granted Prochymal Fast Track status for these and Crohn’s diseases and both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency granted Prochymal Orphan Drug status for GvHD. In addition to the COPD trail, Osiris is also conducting Phase II Prochymal trials for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction and type 1 diabetes.  The therapy also is being developed as a potential treatment for acute radiation syndrome.

"...the company has a lot riding on Prochymal and can ill afford any further
clinical trial snafus." 

Osiris also has another stem cell product in the pipeline, called Chrondrogen, which is being tested for its ability to regenerate cartilage. Last November, Genzyme paid Osiris $130 million upfront and promised up to $1.3 billion more in milestone and other payments to gain commercialization rights to Prochymal and Chondrogen outside the U.S. Osiris retains the rights to market these products in North America.  Clearly, the company has a lot riding on Prochymal and can ill afford any further clinical trial snafus. 
______________________________
© 2009 Steven S. Clark, PhD, some rights reserved.  Articles contained herein, are meant to be distributed freely to interested parties. However, any use, including excerpts from any article, must credit Steven S. Clark and provide a link to the original article published in BioScience Biz.

Disclaimer: The authors used their best efforts in collecting and preparing the information published herein. However, neither Steven S. Clark, nor other authors, assume, and hereby disclaim, any and all liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident, or other causes.

Slicing and Dicing SBIR Award Data

If you like numbers and acronyms, you will like this article. SSTI (State Science and Technology Institute), a national nonprofit network of practitioners and policymakers dedicated to improving the economy through science and technology, recently published SBIR Phase I proposal and award statistics by state for 2008. They also have similar data going back a few years. Being an Excel addict, I copied and pasted the data into a spreadsheet and was able to parse interesting tidbits from the larger meal of information. For instance, in 2008 the overall success rate for all Phase I SBIRs was just under 17%, somewhat better than research grant success rates at most NIH institutes, with which I am painfully familiar. The percentage of SBIR applications that were awarded ranged from a low of 9.4% at the DoT to a high of 24.1% at the NIH (more than twice the rate of RO1 investigator-initiated research grants in 2008).  Other agencies awarded grants at the following rates: DHS (9.6%), DoD (14.9%), NSF (15.4%), USDA (17.4%), NASA (18.4%), and DoE (18.7%). The raw data can be found on the SSTI web site.

Also interesting is the total number of SBIR grants awarded by the different agencies. In 2008 a grand total of 3555 Phase I awards were made by all participating federal agencies.  By far, the DoD made the most awards at 1825, more than half the total number of awards.  Trailing way behind were NIH (739 awards), DoE (280), NASA (276), NSF (224), USDA (77), DHS (28) and EPA (25).  Other agencies, such as NOAA, are not included here because they awarded so few SBIR grants they had minimal impact on these analyses.

State-by-state data

As I played with the spreadsheet and filtered the data in different ways, I learned a few other things. The top ten states with the most awards are the following in descending order and with the total number of awards in parentheses: California (688), Massachusetts (476), Virginia (224), New York (195), Colorado (182), Maryland (156), Texas (140), Pennsylvania (129), Ohio (120) and Florida (102). Wisconsin came in at a mediocre number 24 with a total of only 37 awards in 2008.

"...SBIR success pretty much follows Big 10 football and basketball success..."

If these data are taken as a measure of the success by which each state translates new technology into business, then Wisconsin (#24) is well behind Michigan (#12), Alabama (#13) and even New Mexico (#14). Illinois comes in at #18 and Minnesota at #22.  Compared to other Big 10 states, Wisconsin is just ahead of Indiana #25.  Iowa trails at #35. If you think about it, SBIR success pretty much follows Big 10 football and basketball success with Michigan and Ohio on top, while Wisconsin is in the second tier with Minnesota, Illinois and Indiana.  A cynical observer might conclude that sports success predicts technology business success. But, that seems to only work in the Big 10, since Massachusetts, with no sports powerhouses, is in the top two of SBIR grant winners from almost all agencies (more on that below).

At face value it may be surprising that states like New Mexico and Alabama are more successful than Wisconsin at winning SBIR grants (ok, so New Mexico also kills my sport’s success analogy).  And these states are consistently more successful than Wisconsin at winning SBIR grants.  From 2005-2008 Alabama won 103, 79, 72 and 73 grants—a declining trend. During the same period, New Mexico SBIR awards were more constant with an uptick in 2008, numbering 57, 60, 56 and 67. In contrast, Wisconsin enjoyed an upward trend from 2005-2007 with a downtick in 2008, with 36, 42, 49 and 37 SBIR awards, respectively. But, the reality that Alabama and New Mexico are more successful than Wisconsin in this regard needs to be tempered by the fact that different states focus on different technologies and may be more competitive in different areas. For instance, in Wisconsin, the number of SBIR awards from each federal agency in 2008, with the success rate in parentheses, is as follows: 1 award from NSF (6.7% success), 1 from USDA—surprising for an ag state,  (8.3%), 10 from DoD (14.7%), 2 from NASA (11.8%), 20 from NIH (29%), 2 from DOE (13.3%). Wisconsin is trending up in NIH supported SBIRs with 13, 19, 22, and 20 grants over the years 2005-2008.  Over the same period, DoD grants were fairly consistent in Wisconsin, numbering 8, 10, 13 and 10. Clearly, Wisconsin is spinning out more life science related tech business than technology business from other industries, with defense-related technology business springing up at about half the rate of biotech business.

Compare Wisconsin’s strong emphasis on life sciences to what is happening in Alabama and New Mexico. Alabama’s 2008 SBIR portfolio is as follows: 2 grants from USDA (40% success rate), 56 from DoD (16.7% success), 4 from NASA (10%), 7 from NIH (18.4%), 4 from DOE (30.8%).  Clearly Alabama focuses on defense and lags behind Wisconsin in biotechnology transfer.

In 2008 New Mexico also focused on defense as well as space and energy related technology transfer. This state won the following SBIR grants: 5 awards from NSF (19.2% success rate), 2 from USDA (40%), 1 from DOT (50%), 24 from DoD (14%), 13 from NASA (32.5%), 5 from NIH (14.7%), 14 from DoE (41.2%).  The state has consistently done well with energy grants since 2005, but the NASA grants awarded in 2008 represents a 2-3 fold jump from previous years.

One take home message from these analyses is that if you are an engineer or chemist, go to New Mexico, if you are a biologist, Wisconsin is a better place to find a job.

Room to improve in Wisconsin

Clearly, in 2008, biotech was the strength of WI SBIR success—with more NIH SBIR awards than awards from all other agencies combined. Wisconsin was 11th in the country in the number of NIH SBIR grants, behind the usual suspects. The top 10 in order were, CA, MA, MD, NY, TX, NC, PA, CO. MI and WA. But after CA (140 biotech SBIR grants) and MA (with 103), which together won 33% of all the NIH SBIR grants, there is a sharp drop in the number of SBIRs awarded by NIH. For, instance, coming in at number three, MD only won 43 SBIR grants from NIH. So, Wisconsin, while ranking near the top 80th percentile for NIH awards with 20 grants, is further behind the leaders than its ranking suggests. 

"...investment in quality research universities pays large dividends
in developing technology businesses..."

Interestingly, CA and MA are also in the top two for NSF, DoD, NASA, and DoE SBIR awards. It is no accident that many of the elite research universities in the US are found in these states and it is these academic elites that feed the new technology pipeline that leads to new business development. Together, these data point to the reality that investment in quality research universities pays large dividends in developing technology businesses—a lesson that Wisconsin cannot afford to forget, but sometimes tries to forget. This state has one elite research university and it pays huge dividends.  Without the UW-Madison, which spins off the lion’s share of biotech and health related (and other) technologies, we would be much farther down the line spinning out new technology businesses.  One question is how can the state get the UW-Milwaukee, Medical College of Wisconsin, Marshfield Clinic and other institutions to move up in R&D status to help make Wisconsin more competitive in generating life science technology businesses? Another question is what would it take to make Wisconsin more successful in translating engineering, energy, defense and agricultural technology into state businesses.

_________________________________________________________________________________

© 2009 Steven S. Clark, PhD, some rights reserved.  Articles contained herein, are meant to be distributed freely to interested parties. However, any use, including excerpts from any article, must credit Steven S. Clark and provide a link to the original article published in BioScience Biz.

Disclaimer: The authors used their best efforts in collecting and preparing the information published herein. However, neither Steven S. Clark, nor other authors, assume, and hereby disclaim, any and all liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident, or other causes.

The Biotech Industry: Promise vs Reality

The Promise

Biotechnology as a business burst on the scene in 1976 when Genentech was launched to commercialize the new discoveries of how to clone and express human genes in bacteria.  This was soon followed by biotech companies commercializing monoclonal antibody technology, combinatorial chemistry and more recently “omics” technology (genomics, proteomics, metabalomics), high throughput screening and other continually emerging and commercializable technologies. 

"The lofty promise of all of this was that through improved technology and enhance understanding of biological activities, the process of drug R&D would become more efficient, faster, less risky and cheaper."

The lofty promise of all of this was that through improved technology and enhance understanding of biological activities, the process of drug R&D would become more efficient, faster, less risky and cheaper. This promise helped foster the perception that, compared to the pharmaceutical giants, smaller biotech companies are more agile, innovative and productive at R&D and, therefore, fill an important gap that the larger, ossified drug companies can not. It has been suggested by more than one industry observer that big pharma should focus on production, marketing and improving current products, leaving the innovative and cutting edge research to the more flexible and adaptable small biotech companies.

The biotech industry has certainly bought into this hope—it is rife with optimism that it can transform the pharmaceutical industry. The expectation has been that the biotech industry would follow a trajectory similar to that of the more mature semiconductor sector where the advent of solid-state technology stimulated fundamental product improvements and reshaped the whole electronics industry.

It is hard to dispute the notion that since genetic engineering technology first appeared in the early 70’s, we have seen the greatest scientific revolution in history.  By all measures—publication rates, patent activity, growth of biological databases—biomedical information has exploded.  This success has greatly increased the number of potential therapeutic targets and new molecular entities (NME) that represent potential new drugs. All of this has bred wide optimism by scientists, investors, Wall Street, policymakers, and others, that this life science revolution would lead to a trove of new drugs and ultimately to enormous financial rewards.

A further, related promise of the biotech revolution is that enhanced understanding of biological processes will allow more intelligent selection of new drug candidates and drug targets, thereby making drug R&D more efficient, less risky and less costly.  

The Financial Reality

Indeed, there have been impressive biotech success stories, such as Amgen, Genentech, Genzyme and a handful of others, but, how has the sector as a whole lived up to this lofty promise?  Thirty years after the launch of the biotech industry, Gary Pisano, a professor at the Harvard Business School, decided to empirically test how well the biotech sector has lived up to its potential.  He collected and dissected financial and productivity data for 293 publicly held biotech companies and from 20 large pharmaceutical companies that existed between 1975 and 2004 and his results, published in the book, Science Business, are sobering.

"...over the years, income has been flat, hovering close to zero..."

Here is what he learned about investment returns on public equity: A hypothetical investor who purchased all 340 biotech IPOs between 1979 and 2000 and held those shares until January 2001, or until company acquisition, would have realized an average annual return of 15%.  Not bad, but not stellar for such a high risk sector.  If the same investor purchased a diversified biotech portfolio in 1981 and sold it at the end of 2003, he would enjoy an 8-fold return, or about a 10% compounded rate of return per year.  Compare this to the more risk-adverse investor who invested in Treasury Bonds; he would have realized a 12-fold total profit and the same investment in the Dow Jones would be worth 21-times more.  Clearly, the return on biotech investment is disappointing when compared to alternative and less risky investments. To be fair, this comparison pits the entire biotech industry against other investment vehicles.  An individual investor who was more selective in the biotech companies he invested in, could have done much better (or worse) depending on his portfolio.

More revealing, however, was Pisano’s analysis of revenue and earnings for the whole biotech sector between 1975-2004. To measure this, he created a yearly aggregate income statement for the entire biotech industry. In other words, he combined the income statements of the 293 companies into one industry-wide income statement. 
   
His analysis showed that over time, total sales for the sector increased exponentially, as one would expect.  However, over the years, income has been flat, hovering close to zero until about 2000, when total sector income actually began to decline.  By 2004, however, the industry showed its first positive income of about 7% of total sales.  But, this is misleading since the most profitable firm, Amgen, heavily skews the results.  Excluding Amgen from the analysis reveals that the remaining biotech sector sustained steady losses throughout its history and never has been profitable. Pisano points out that since this analysis does not include privately held companies, the situation for the biotech sector is even bleaker since almost all privately held biotech companies lose money.

Pisano also noted that positive economic performance is concentrated in only a very few biotech firms—the vast majority of biotech companies have never been profitable.  When considering only those companies with positive cash flows, just fifteen firms account for 93% of the positive income for the sector and two, Amgen and Genentech, accounted for 53% of the total income of these profitable companies.  Some firms have existed for close to 20 years without ever generating positive cash flows.

The Productivity Reality

In simple terms, the raison d'être of the biotech and pharma industries is to turn financial resources into drugs, which in turn should drive profitability.  But, it is no secret that over the last few years, the big pharma R&D productivity has slipped dramatically. Even though R&D spending has increased, the rate at which NMEs are introduced has steadily decreased. Many industry observers argue that biotechnology will be the cure for this malaise and that big pharma companies ought to outsource its novel R&D to the leaner, meaner biotechs. 

Pisano also investigated this promise that the biotech industry is the answer to the productivity crisis in the pharmaceutical industry.  As a measure of productivity, he compared the inflation-adjusted cost per NME between the top 20 pharma companies in the world and the panel of 293 publicly held biotech companies. This analysis was complex with many confounding factors that needed to be accounted for, but these details are beyond the scope of this review. The important thing is that Pisano’s analysis showed no evidence that biotech companies are any more or less productive or innovative than pharmaceutical companies. Productivity and innovation between these two industries has been a dead heat almost since the beginning of the biotech industry.  

"..the biotech R&D productivity and novelty boom that has been
expected has not happened."

In other words, evidence shows that, when it comes to R&D, biotech companies are not more productive or innovative than their larger brethren, which means that the biotech R&D productivity and novelty boom that has been expected has not happened. Pisano writes, “If big pharmaceutical companies are looking to biotech to help them fill their revenue gap, these data would not make one optimistic.”

Conclusions

The malaise of the pharmaceutical industry is no secret, but Pisano’s analysis suggests that, by both financial and operational measures, the biotech sector also has not been healthy during its entire 30 year life. Only very few companies have ever been profitable, and an even smaller number of biotech “elites” have achieved substantial profits. These include Amgen, Genentech, Genzyme, Biogen, Idec and others, which, interestingly, were also among the earliest entrants into the industry. Hence, one might argue that with time, additional companies will rise up to finally realize the biotech promise. But after 30 years, or about 2 product development life cycles according to Pisano, there is nothing to suggest that this will happen in the foreseeable future. In fact, projections that profitability is just around the corner have been made since the earliest days of the biotech industry and have been consistently wrong. The bottom line is that the biotech sector so far has failed to reach its enormous commercial and economic promise.

This begs the question—given this lackluster performance, how has the biotech sector been able to continually attract capital over such a sustained down period from market forces obsessed on quarterly performances? A more important question is whether the industry will continue to be able to attract such capital if it continues to operate in the red. An ominous history lesson might come from the dot-com bubble and burst.  Pisano points out that once it became clear that the vast majority of these internet firms lacked a viable business model, the capital markets quickly pulled the plug. Pisano attributes the remarkable resiliency of the biotech sector to an “irrational exuberance” by investors who hope to invest in the next Amgen, and this is not unlike the exuberance that led to the dot-com bubble. But the sobering reality is that in 2006, only 20% of all publicly held biotechs had any products on the market or earned any royalties from products commercialized by partners. 

Thus, the vast majority of biotechs are simply R&D entities that have nothing to sell, and are not much different than most of the dot-com companies that existed just before the bubble burst.  Sobering indeed.

Fighting back against the high-handed nay-sayers

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, authors David A. Shaywitz and Thomas P. Stossel take on high-minded academics who relentlessly attack university-pharma associations.  Labeling such critics as "PharmaScolds" they point out that relationships between university researchers and medical product companies are under relentless attack by critics who portray these associations as a morality play in which noble academics struggle to resist the dark, corrupting influence of industry. Then they follow with this question: why are leading disease-research foundations increasingly choosing to partner with industry rather than condemn it?

"The goal of medical research is not to publish papers,
but to develop new treatments..."

The answer is that by prioritizing the needs of patients, medical philanthropies remain keenly aware of something academic critics of industry may have forgotten as they've scaled the ivory tower ladder. The goal of medical research is not to publish papers, but to develop new treatments for people suffering from disease. And translating laboratory research into new therapies, in the words of Robert Beall, president of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, is something "academics are really not good at."

Read the full article here.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Shaywitz is a management consultant in New Jersey.

Dr. Stossel is a professor of medicine at Harvard and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.