Carnival of Biotechnology

Welcome to the May 25th 2007 edition of Carnival of Biotechnology.

Finance and business development
The big news on the web is Google’s investment in 23andMe, described here by the California Biotech Law Blog.

International biotech
Business Week has an article on The Rush To Test Drugs In China. This is a story with a number of potential upsides. Drug companies are having trouble finding sufficient numbers of clinical trial participants in North America, ultimately delaying the approval of vital medicines. Many Chinese patients are in need of cutting edge medicine. By conducting clinical trials overseas (clinical trials intended for FDA approval must meet American standards of care and ethics, regardless of where they are performed), drug companies can speed approval while simultaneously helping patients overseas.

Communications
John Mack at Pharma Marketing has two interesting pieces. First, he offers some advice to GlaxoSmithKline on Avandia: Don’t do what Merck did! Next, he investigates Centocor’s “disease awareness” movie INNERSTATE.

Investing
Forbes presents an educational article on Chasing Down Biotech Zombie Stocks – biotech firms operating with minimal revenues and no real chance of sustainable growth.

That concludes this edition.
For more information, see the Carnival of Biotechnology Homepage, or submit a link for the next edition. Interested in hosting a future Carnival of Biotechnology? Let me know.

0 Comments/

0 Likes

/0 Tweets/in General Biotechnology

May 22, 2007

22 May 2007

The global spread of biotechnology

I’ve been tracking the global spread of biotechnology for quite a while now. I’m fascinated with why biotechnology has taken root so strongly in the United States while many other countries are struggling to develop critical mass. This is the topic of a paper I’ve recently co-submitted in response to a request from the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, where they are comparing German and American histories in biotechnology. More details will follow once the publication posts.

In the meantime, I’ve been cited by the AP in an article on the global expansion of biotech R&D. Just as manufacturing and back-office jobs have been offshored, the same is happening for biotech R&D. It’s interesting to watch, and should have profound implications for the cost structure of the industry.

0 Comments/

0 Likes

/0 Tweets/in General Biotechnology

May 14, 2007

14 May 2007

A new journal in town…

If, like me, you miss the late Acumen Journal, you’ll be glad to hear that a very similar journal has launched. The Journal of Life Sciences brands itself “Where science and society meet.”

A copy appeared in the mail a few weeks ago, and I’ve been meaning to post a blog about it. Now that the web site’s up, I highly recommend browsing around. One of the more interesting articles is Steve Burrill’s The Global Transformation. Just as manufacturing and back-office operations have gone global, so too have research and development in the life sciences. What does this mean for the diversity and relevance of products? Regulation and intellectual property protection? Job security?

Enjoy!

0 Comments/

0 Likes

/0 Tweets/in General Biotechnology

May 11, 2007

11 May 2007

Career Development at UNC Chapel Hill

I’ll be giving a talk on career development in biotechnology at UNC-Chapel Hill on Wednesday May 16th at 4pm in the Bioinformatics Building (ground floor auditorium), to be followed by a social/networking session at Top of the Hill (local brewery) at 5:30.

My talk will open with my meandering career path, (hopefully) provide some guidance for those at the start of their careers, and provide some perspective on the coming impacts of the globalization of biotechnology.

The talk is open to all. For more information, contact my host, Brant Hamel at the Carolina Student Biotechnology Network.

0 Comments/

0 Likes

/0 Tweets/in General Biotechnology, Talks and Publications

May 9, 2007

09 May 2007

Greenpeace a champion for genetic modification?

What does Greenpeace oppose more: Patents, or genetic modification?

This question has been answered in a recent patent case where the European Patent Office (EPO) rejected a Monsanto patent for a technique for genetic modification of plants.

The patent, which was due to expire in 2008, describes a method to use a ‘particle gun’ to fire DNA into plants at high velocity and was opposed by Greenpeace and Canadian environmental group ETC, in concert with a large number of agribusiness firms. Interestingly, Monsanto was also in opposition to the patent, until they acquired the patent holder, Agracetus.

I’m a bit confused by Greenpeace’s decision here. Given that they support neither patents nor genetic modification, why would they support either side in a conflict?