Public Ranks Nurses, Pharmacists & Docs as Trustworthy Professionals

Nurses are perceived as the most ethical and trustworthy professionals in the US,  with medical doctors not fairing too badly, according to a recent Gallup Poll.  Unsurprisingly, politicians have much work ahead to regain public trust.  An ever greater uphill battle involves nursing home operators, who were ranked below newspaper reporters and barely above lawyers. 

Unfortunately the poll did not include pharmaceutical or biotechnology professionals, although druggist/pharmacists ranked well falling just below grade-school teachers and above military officers. It appears the doctor-patient relationship is not as damaged and/or plagued by feelings of distrust as many claim, a helpful piece of information given that clinical trials usually involve doctors and nurses. 

It would have been interesting to see bioethicists included in the below rankings.  I would like to know how ethical our ethicists appear; perhaps a future project for Bioethics International.  The results for the 22 professions tested are listed below.

 

Biotechnology Networking Gets a Facelift in San Diego

Yes, it’s a cliché, we are all very looks conscious in Southern California…well, not the scientists as much. What we do care about, however, is communicating with our local peers, allowing the science, people, and the biotechnology industry to flourish. Recently, two San Diego-based marketing professionals, Mary Canady and Todd Backus, formed a group called the San Diego Biotechnology Network (SDBN), which utilizes both online and face to face networking to connect biotech professionals. Mary (author of this post) has a been a member of the San Diego biotech community since 1997, and is the founder of Comprendia, a marketing consulting firm specializing in the needs of small to mid-size biotech companies. Todd drives strategy and execution of marketing and public relations campaigns for Blue Horse & Trumpet marketing/communications, and he is also a Board Member for the High Tech Marketing Alliance. Together, Mary and Todd have developed the SDBN, combining the power of online networking, allowing people to easily connect, with casual events which allow people to interact and build stronger relationships. Part of the strategy is also to foster networking at each event by holding casual get-togethers with a high percentage of scientists in attendance. In addition, a new or exciting company will be featured at each event, allowing the community to learn more about the technology and team behind it, as well as to help the company gain exposure and meet prospective employees.

The first SDBN event was a happy hour held November 11th, and attracted more than 100 attendees from the local biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, as well as several of the research institutions and universities. SDBN was fortunate that Sapphire Energy, a very exciting biofuels company, was the featured company, and more than 15 of their employees attended the event, facilitating interesting discussions, as many are eager to hear about the company and the technology. The event was covered by Xconomy, which provides a voice to the “exponential economy” of fast growing technology regions. The feedback from the event was very positive, with several people saying that they had “made more useful connections at the event than they ever had before.”

Before the event, a group was set up on the professional networking site LinkedIn, and attendees were encouraged to join, allowing them to easily connect both before and after the event, as LinkedIn groups facilitate networking among group members. This new type of “Networking 3.0″ is more powerful than either online or face to face networking alone, and the SDBN organizers believe that it will eventually stimulate growth in the region. Other industries have more fully embraced social media, realizing the importance of personal networks in defining not only individual career paths but the growth of the industry.

However, there are a growing number of social networks that have been started for scientists. SDBN-type networks could either be formed in other biotech hubs through regional groups formed within these networks or through existing “face to face” groups moving towards more fully embracing online networking tools. We think that the SDBN will augment the thriving and dynamic San Diego biotechnology industry, which currently includes drug discovery, life sciences, green technology, diagnostics, and medical devices (see the SDBN directory for a listing). If these types of networks “catch on,” the result could be an “Extreme Makeover” of the Biotechnology industry as a whole, allowing us to build and utilize our networks to make important connections, share information more completely, and to ultimately make more advances in science at a time when they are so desperately needed.

Check it out – Podcasts from BIO Investor Forum

We’ve posted a variety of podcast interviews to the www.bio.org home page -
Barry Greene, Alnylam
Greg Simon, Faster Cures
Norman Scherzer, The Life Raft Group
Timothy Coetzee, Fast Forward
John Craighead, BIO (discussing event overall)
Tricia Brooks, BIO (discussing venture philanthropy and advocacy group presentations)

Return to a thriving marketplace – BIF Closing Plenary

The Closing Plenary at the BIO Investor Forum focused on what it’s going to take to return to a thriving marketplace.

The financial crisis has led to additional investment in the biotech space, which has yet to be retracted. The outperformance of biotech will continue to attract investors.

Small biotech companies have been hurt the most and no value is being given to pipeline – many companies trade below cash.

Panelists believe consolidation is real this time. Staying away from structured finance like convertible debt is advised. Investors like simple financing models that they can forecast accurately. Look for a few truly great companies to emerge from the market turmoil.

Changes in the overall healthcare system under the next administration are a major topic investors are watching.

Much of what has backlogged the FDA over the last decade has been “me-too” drugs. Biotech companies need to innovate and find new MOA to add value to patients and investors and to please the FDA, making a better overall drug industry. Future drug approvals may first be in a single indication, with follow-on indications being added based on additional clinical data.

The classic debate remains over the optimum time for partnering, early vs. late, or even not at all.

Both sides were argued, but all agreed that capital access is critical to the industry and it may take “many shots on goal” to find winners.

The CF Pipeline

Cystic Fibrosis is an orphan disease with approximately 30,000 individuals suffering from CF in the United States, and another 60,000 in the rest of the world. It is believed that CF affects an average of 1 in every 4000 individuals, with the rate varying based on ethnicity.

Two new options in the pipeline offer patients a more upstream therapeutic approach.
• Inspire Pharmaceuticals – Denufosol tetrasodium
• PTC Therapeutics – PTC124

Session Highlights:
• Still undetermined where new treatments will fit into the current line of therapy. Clinicians would like to treat patients with drugs that get at the major causes of disease, after newborns have been screened (bottom-up approach). However, both treatments have not been tested in children 5 and under, making it very difficult to use a “bottom-up approach.
• More efficient and effective inhalation drug delivery will go a long way to decreasing the burden on patients.
• Effectively finding treatments which aid patients through exacerbation events will help to improve patient lung function. These infections typical require patients to receive treatment in the hospital for 7-12 days with lung function not returning to pre-infection levels. Longer clinical trials are planned for both Denofosol and PTC124 to address this issue.

Merger Notes From the BIO Investor Forum

Notes from David Thomas who is out in San Francisco at the BIO Investor Forum,

• Reverse mergers: It is difficult for a shell in this market climate to take on quality biotechs due to disagreements on valuation of the VCs vs. public company boards. Other issues with doing reverse mergers are disagreements with fitting the board with old shell vs new biotech board members. Public shells are looking for data driven catalysts that will move company valuation within two years.
• Big Pharma: The climate today is better than ever before in terms of Big Pharma’s willingness and interest in acquiring early stage biotechs. Cash available and strategic position at Big Pharma suggests further opportunities. New players, in particular Japanese pharma companies, are entering the M&A space.
• The tough public market climate, with no major biotech IPOs since October 2007, is shifting exit strategies toward acquisition. Furthermore, the data suggests that the return to VC investors on IPO exits is not always better than a return via acquisition. Investors are setting the deal price today, not the VCs.
• Capital restraints: As companies and investors conserve cash and pull back on risk, the losers will be the drugs that never get a shot on goal. Lack of funding will result in narrowing the breadth of indications for compounds making it less likely for serendipitous findings. Many companies will cease to exist due to the inability to consolidate or raise new capital.
• Suggestions for biotechs looking to be acquired: Stay focused on your internal expertise and not on external in-licensing or M&A. Selling off of assets to raise cash and return to your core focus is another option.

Productive Partnerships in Biomedical Translational Medicine

From one of my colleagues, Joseph Colangelo at the BIO Investor Forum,

“The university, financing and industry communities have gathered to discuss some of the core issues involved in developing and commercializing early stage technologies. Improving the relationship between the stakeholders in translational research can go a long way to helping each side understand the pressures and challenges facing all parties.

The financing community as well as patient advocacy groups are continuing to build relationships with universities and their professors to better understand the pathway from innovation to patients.

Universities are becoming more creative than ever in the commercialization process. Investment has been made in a variety of different areas including, infrastructure for technology incubators, pre-seed capital for product development, and emphasis on entrepreneurship have all led to the advancement of new technologies along the developmental pipeline.”

Thanks Joseph! See you when you get back to DC.

Epilepsy Facts From the BIO Investor Forum

• Epilepsy is a neurological disorder characterized by hyper-synchronous electrical discharge in the brain. The disease affects approximately 1% of the U.S. population (3 million) with a slightly higher 1-2% worldwide incidence due to less consistent prenatal care. The incidence is also expected to increase in the U.S. due to the aging population.
• The current epilepsy drug market is more than $14B world wide. However, 90% of the sales result from non-epilepsy CNS indications including chronic pain. One notable exception is Kepra with over $1B in epilepsy indication sales due to a superior safety profile.
• It is estimated that approximately 36% of epilepsy patients are pharmaco-resistant and medically refractive to currently available therapies. New epilepsy drugs with novel mechanisms of actions are needed to treat this large and growing patient population. In addition, over 50% of patients discontinue or are not compliant with current therapies due to epilepsy drug side effects.
• In addition, only approximately 150 sales reps are required to detail products to neurologists who specialize in epilepsy disorders, making seizure disorders a potential high margin attractive market for biopharmaceutical companies.

Capital Access 201 – BIO Investor Forum Kicks Off

Moments ago, panelists at the opening plenary painted a startlingly realistic picture of the industry, but emphasized that this is the time for companies to be more aggressive and strategic in how they target and approach potential investors and partners. Moderator Ben Perkins, PhD, initiated a lively discussion focused on how the realities of the economy will shape the future industry and how emerging biotechnology companies can best position themselves within the new landscape.

“Companies need to tell a crisp story, know their audience, and do their homework in order to get our attention,” said Andrew Busser, Principal of Symphony Capital. “Companies that are leaders in the field, have multiple products in the clinic, and whose products are critical to the company’s future will be particularly appealing to us.”

Tom King, President and CEO of Alexza Pharmaceuticals, emphasized that companies should assess the assets that they have – particularly cash on hand and R&D. There is a struggle with new technologies because they are new and the tendency to avoid risk is to ‘play to the past rather than to the future.’ He added that his company creates value everyday, but it doesn’t necessarily translate to share price.

Panelists

• Andrew Busser, Principal, Syphony Capital
• Luke Evnin, PhD, General Partner, MPM Capital
• Thomas B. King, President and CEO, Alexza Pharmaceuticals
• Oleg Nodelman, Portfolio Manager/Analyst, Biotechnology Value Fund, LP
• Ben Perkins, PhD, Managing Director, Life Sciences Group, Pacific Growth Equities LLC

Success, Maybe, I think …

Communicating science can be tough. There are some pretty complex concepts, ideas, problems, and success stories to get across to the public, media, and politicians. I’m not talking about what a journalist or broadcaster has to do to get the message  across. I’m talking about people like me. PR folks (go ahead and call us flacks – I won’t be offended )  who have to cover a lot of ground without raising undue expectations, squashing hopes, raise that dreaded brand awareness, and yet still be interesting and informative. There has been lots of effort and words spilled in the fight to find the magic solution and we’ve all had some great successes and embarassing failures but there is another battle to be fought.

I’m at a meeting today with Communication Managers and Directors from Canada’s 7 Genome Centres and one of the items on the agenda was the inevitable ‘best practices’.  I shared our experiences with Facebook, Twitter, and blogs and I’m still not sure if they ‘got it’. Aarggh … failure to communicate with Communicators.

Which probably was a perfect example of what we all seemed to agree today was a common and consistent problem with some science communication efforts. As non-profits ( and I’m sure many academic and gov’t institutions are in the same boat ) we don’t have sales of equipment, products or drugs to track. Patents for the most part don’t rest with us so aren’t a true measure. Published papers? Maybe but not exactly a communication function and generally not reaching a general audience and the number of readers could be depressingly low.  Some of our work is pure science or basic research  and with project timelines measured in years updates can be few and far between. Not a lot of media releases to notch our belts with. Revenues about what you’d expect from a not-for-profit so let’s not go there.

All of the Genome Centres and many other organizations funded by the public have a strong outreach and education mandate however. You can count the number of people you touch with those efforts. Bums in seats, presentations given, people through the door of a public forum, science kits distributed. They’re all countable and suddenly by default we find a way to measure our success.  But it isn’t really a valid measurement is it ?

So time to start a new quest for measurement while continuing the science communications sojurn and I really want to know what others think. With some our partners including Alberta Ingenuity we’re even looking at forming a Science Communicators group of some sort that is focused on the quest for science PR and we’re open to ideas. Drop me a line and let me know what you think and help us out.

Or tell me you don’t quite get it …