iShares NASDAQ Biotechnology Index logo Patriot Wealth Management Inc. purchased a new stake in iShares NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (NASDAQ:IBB) during the fourth quarter, according to the company in its most recent Form 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Gaijin Panty
No Judgement Here
Financially Devastating or Fantastic? – Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (PBYI), BIOLASE, Inc. (BIOL)
The shares of Puma Biotechnology, Inc. have decreased by more than -34.55% this year alone. The shares recently went down by -28.82% or -$26.2 and now trades at $64.70. The shares of BIOLASE, Inc. (NASDAQ:BIOL), has slumped by -6.40% year to date as of 01/24/2018. The shares currently …
The Value of Academic-Industry Partnerships
More than a decade ago, the NIH Roadmap and the FDA Critical Path Report brought significant public attention and new programmatic efforts to advance sponsored and translational research. These programs act as bridges between the promise of bioscience discoveries and the advancement of new biomedical innovations to improve the lives of patients.
Of particular importance for accelerating translational research and overcoming the challenging environment for bioscience innovation is advancing collaborations between industry and academia, as a means to both improving R&D productivity and reducing the costs of translating discoveries into new medical products.
That call for greater industry-academia partnerships reflects the unique nature of bioscience innovation when compared to other industrial sectors. For instance, not only is there a greater commitment by the bioscience industry to conduct internal R&D, there is also existing close ties between industry, clinical care, and academic communities due to the necessary interface of “bench and bedside” required for biomedical innovation to move forward.
Two recent BIO reports affirms the stakeholder dynamics including a review of the economic impact of licensing of academic research to industry and a report on ways in the states that the biotech industry and academic research communities are crossing new frontiers of innovation.
A study released in June 2017 by BIO provided data on the importance of university/industry research and development partnerships to the U.S. economy. The study of university technology licensing from 1996 to 2007 shows a $187 billion dollar positive impact on the U.S. Gross National Product (GNP) and a $457 billion addition to gross industrial output, using very conservative models.
Before the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in1980, inventions arising from the billions of taxpayer dollars invested annually in university research remained largely on laboratory shelves and were rarely commercialized because of restrictive patenting and licensing practices. This situation changed with passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, which allows university inventors to patent their discoveries and license them to commercial partners with maximum flexibility and limited federal bureaucracy. As a result, the biotech revolution was born, turning inventions into products that are improving public health, cleaning our environment, and feeding the world.
Other key findings of the study include:
- University-licensed products commercialized by industry created at least 279,000 new jobs across the U.S. during the 12-year period;
- The annual change in U.S. GDP due to university-licensed products grew each year, illustrating that the impact of university patent licensing grows even more important each year.
- The study was funded by BIO and the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) and headed by Dr. David Roessner, Professor of Public Policy Emeritus at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Sponsored Research Engagement: Academic and Industry Principles
A second BIO national report entitled Biotechnology-Research Engagement Opportunities: Eight Guiding Principles affirms that when biotechnology companies and universities work in tandem to push the frontiers of biotechnology based knowledge, they become a powerful engine for innovation and economic growth.
According to authors Peter M. Pellerito and Austin M. Donohue, academic and industry partnerships that work well have created strategic view of the value of R&D and commercialization merge the discovery-driven culture of the university with the innovation-driven environment of the biotechnology company.
But to make the chemistry work, each side must overcome the cultural and communication divide that can impair biotech industry-university partnerships and undercut their potential.
Principles
Guiding Principle # 1: Successful university-industry collaborations reflect an understanding of the mission and culture of each partner:
Successful sponsored research transactions require all parties – industry and academia – to identify the core mission of their organizations early in the process and defining the scope and focus of the proposed alliance.
Guiding Principle #2: Alliance management resources are essential:
Industry and university participants engaging in strong alliance management strategies devote resources, energy and attention to maintaining relationships and working together in an ongoing effort to facilitate productive, transparent outcomes to ensure sponsored research success.
Guiding Principle #3: Universities and industry participants should understand the objectives and benefits to each party that will result from collaborations:
Goals, objectives, and timelines for completion are essential for productive end results in partnerships; each party must understand and support the objectives and proposed research benefits of the other party.
Guiding Principle #4: Commitments in sponsored research agreements should ensure legal integrity and consistency:
Commitments contained in sponsored research agreements concerning future research results shall be consistent with all applicable laws and regulations and with any contractual obligations the University or biotechnology company may owe to others.
Guiding Principle #5: Parties should have a clear focus on each other’s licensing strategies:
Both industry and academia must commit to engaging in open and honest discussions to develop creative and effective licensing strategies that promote global access to innovation. The mutual goal should be an authentic partnership where each party understands the collaboration goals and objective of the other party and is committed to each party achieving success.
Guiding Principle #6: Parties should focus on streamlining negotiation protocols:
Universities and biotechnology industry should focus on the benefits to each party that will result from collaborations by streamlining negotiations to ensure timely conduct of the research and the development of the research findings.
Guiding Principle #7: Negotiator training is essential:
In order to effectively navigate towards an overall success rate for the institution, all sponsored research officers, contract negotiators and licensing officers, and especially those early in their careers, must understand how each research collaboration with which they are engaged reflects forces in the larger world of biotechnology development.
Guiding Principle #8: Partnerships should work to lower the cost of transactional efforts:
Systematically reducing transactional costs should be a major combined effort of both the university and biotechnology industry sector. This includes broader efforts to engage interpersonally through these partnerships in order to lower communication barriers among participants.
From these two reports it is clear that as academic research institutions move in new and innovative multi-partner efforts, there is a new energy and focus in working to bring novel research into the public space and utilize the biotechnology industry continues to be a growing partner.
Marine Biotechnology Market Insights Shared In Detailed Report 2018 to 2025
Global Marine Biotechnology Market Research Report 2018 report is to analyze the Marine Biotechnology market, along with its statistics from 2018 to 2025. The study also aims to define, describe, and forecast the Marine Biotechnology market on the basis of application area, types, manufacturers, and …
Combating Antimicrobial Resistance
Here’s a statistic you might not have known: an estimated 700,000 people die each year due to the growing number of infections resistant to treatment. Known as antimicrobial resistance (AMR), this “silent killer” and looming public health threat has severe social and economic consequences that could have a lasting impact on families, individuals and communities across the globe.
Writing for Life Science Leader, Thomas Cueni, Director General of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) points out that while the United Nations and the World Health Organization recognize AMR as serious concern, it is not as visible as other epidemics, which explains why the general public is often unaware of the issue at hand.
“AMR does not have the recognizable “face” of disaster. It is not a train crash, an ecological disaster, or a disease epidemic such as Ebola or Zika scaring all of us. It is more of a silent killer,” Cueni notes.
“People only fully realize its consequences when they or a member of their family suffer from a bacterial infection which proves resistant to treatment. From a health community perspective, AMR has crept up on us over a period of time where we perhaps complacently believed we had effectively dealt with any number of established diseases and could now save our attention for a few new ones.”
And from a dollars and cents point-of-view, AMR could have a crippling effect on the global economy and in local communities who might not have the means to combat such an epidemic. As Cueni explains:
“The economic impact of AMR is huge – estimates are of $100 trillion lower GDP on a global level. Given these figures, it is actually quite astounding that the emerging consensus on the need for sustainable pull incentives to encourage long-term investment in AMR R&D has not moved from talk to action. Progress on this front is urgent. There is need for open-minded conversations amongst all of the key stakeholders, including international organizations, governments, the public health community, civic society, and the private sector.”
The global biopharmaceutical industry is committed to doing our part to tackle this serious issue. The AMR Industry Alliance – a cross-sector coalition of 101 companies from across the industry – was formed to fight and overcome antimicrobial resistance. Members including biotech, diagnostics, generics and research-based pharmaceutical companies and associations have committed to sharing information and jointly reporting on four key areas: R&D, appropriate use, access to treatment, and reducing the impact of manufacturing on the environment. And findings from their first progress report shows that they are doing just that:
- In 2016, 22 Alliance members invested at least $2 billion in R&D to counter AMR;
- Approximately 250 biotechnology companies across the globe are investing in innovative R&D approaches – both antibiotic and non-antibiotic – and are focused on developing powerful drugs and novel tactics to fight against AMR;
- More than two out of three Alliance companies surveyed with marketed AMR products, have strategies, policies or plans in place to improve access to their AMR-relevant products; and
- The Alliance is appealing to policy makers to draw from the evidence provided in this report and invites stakeholders to work more systematically with the life sciences industry, to find sustainable solutions to tackling antimicrobial resistance.
To read the full op-ed, click here.
To learn more about the AMR Industry Alliance, click here.
This Random R&B Singer Called Out Cardi B and Beyoncé, So Twitter Sent Him to Bed Early
J. Holiday goes at SZA, Beyonce and Cardi B for using their “pain” as inspiration for music.
4 Things Millennials Should Know (and Love!) About Food and Farming
One of the things that we at GMO Answers emphasize is finding common ground. In this time of polarization, with all the fractious discussions online and in the news, we sometimes forget that we actually have more in common with each other than some may think. Whether it’s politics, religion, money, or yes, even the weather, it can seem like there’s nothing we can agree upon.
But when you look what we care about, and what we value, deep down, we’re not so different after all. Take the case of GMOs. People on both sides of the issue really just want the same things: safe, affordable, healthy food that is good for farmers and for the environment. It’s really that simple.
In a new Medium post for GMO Answers, millennial Laura Rutherford explains just how much millennials, known for their love of food, and farmers, also known for their love of food, have in common.
We both want the same things – healthy, real food that is the highest quality possible for ourselves and our families. We both want to not only preserve, but improve our environment with safe and sustainable farming practices that will ensure a safe food supply for generations to come. Both farmers and millennials love the environment and understand the value of the land. It is in farmers’ best interest to be good stewards of the land because they often pass it down generation after generation, and often live on the land where they farm.
To read the rest of Laura’s blog post, please visit the GMO Answers Medium page. And visit the GMO Answers website if you have further questions about GMOs.
20 Years of Bath Renovations – Today’s Homeowner
This year Today’s Homeowner is celebrating its 20th season on the air, and we’re taking a look back at some of our most popular bath renovations from the past.
Science Over Fiction: GMOs for Public Good
Devex reporter Lisa Cornish recently kicked off a four part series examining all sides of the GMO debate. In her first installment, Cornish starts by focusing on the science behind GMOs, explaining that the scientific community is one of the biggest proponents of GMO use.
Aside from the corporations profiting from GMOs, scientists are one of the most vocal groups in favor of the use of GMOs. In June 2016, 129 Nobel Laureates signed a letter urging Greenpeace to re-examine and abandon their campaign against GMOs. In their letter, they argue that there has never been any evidence of health issues associated with GMOs and the impact on the environment is less harmful than traditional agriculture. They also noted that GMO has the potential to greatly reduce death and disease from issues such as Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries.
Today, scientific research continues to find no health risk from GMOs and scientists are being urged to engage on the debate.
However, even with the support from the scientific community, organizations focused on marketing and promoting non-GMO products have been able to infiltrate public perception, creating an uphill battle for GMO advocates in reversing public opinion. Dr. Hugo Alonso, a researcher in plant genetics and physiology, explains his frustrations over the negative perceptions of GMOs:
Despite there being strong arguments for GMO to support the needs of the developing world, the perceptions of the developed world dominate – and GMO-free branding on products means consumers are more likely to be educated on why they need to avoid GMOs. It is a difficult education cycle to compete against. Combined with supermarkets full of food, Alonso said it is difficult to explain to consumers in developing countries why creating more food should be an important issue to them.
Cornish, and the scientists she interviewed for her coverage, argue that to change public perception GMO advocates should focus their messaging on the public good. Once consumers start to understand the global benefit of GMOs, such how it can help us achieve global food security, perceptions will likely shift. As evidence, the documentary Food Evolution, which explores both sides of the GMO debate and illustrates the social and community benefits in places like Hawaii and Uganda, seems to be reversing public opinion already.
At a screening at the Australian National University in Canberra last September, the audience were asked about their perspective on GMOs before the film – displaying a red, orange or green card to say if they were against, undecided or for GMOs. Red and orange dominated.
After the screening they were asked the question again – and a significant number were changed to green.
Read the full article here.