全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

PLOS ONE  2013 

Translational Science by Public Biotechnology Companies in the IPO“Class of 2000”: The Impact of Technological Maturity

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082195

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

The biotechnology industry plays a central role in the translation of nascent biomedical science into both products that offer material health benefits and creating capital growth. This study examines the relationship between the maturity of technologies in a characteristic life cycle and value creation by biotechnology companies. We examined the core technology, product development pipelines, and capitalization for a cohort of biotechnology companies that completed an IPO in 2000. Each of these companies was well financed and had core technologies on the leading edge of biological science. We found that companies with the least mature technologies had significantly higher valuations at IPO, but failed to develop products based on these technologies over the ensuing decade, and created less capital growth than companies with more mature technologies at IPO. The observation that this cohort of recently public biotechnology companies was not effective in creating value from nascent science suggests the need for new, evidence-based business strategies for translational science.

References

[1]  Munos BH (2009) Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 8: 959–968.
[2]  Scannell JW, Blanckley A, Boldon H, Warrington B (2012) Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 11: 191–200.
[3]  Pisano GP (2006) Science Business: The promise, the reality, and the future of biotech. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
[4]  Booth BL (2009) Beyond the biotech IPO: a brave new world. Nature Biotechnology 27: 705–709.
[5]  Foster RN (1986) Innovation: The Attacker's Advantage. New York: Summit Books.
[6]  Christensen CM, Raynor ME (2003) The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
[7]  Johnson MW, Christensen CM, & Kagermann H (2008) Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review December: 58–68.
[8]  McNamee LM, Ledley FD (2012) Patterns of Technological Innovation in Biotechnology. Nat Biotechnol 30: 937–943.
[9]  Edwards M, Murray F, Yu R (2006) Gold in the ivory tower: equity rewards of outlicensing. Nature biotechnology 24: 509–516.
[10]  DiMasi JA, Feldman L, Seckler A, Wilson A (2010) Trends in risks associated with new drug development: success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 87: 272–277.
[11]  Lehman Brothers, McKinsey & Co. (2001) The Fruits of Genomics. New York
[12]  Booth B, Zemmel R (2004) Prospects for productivity. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3: 451–456.
[13]  Chesbrough H, Rosenbloom RS (2002) The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation's Technology Spin Off Companies. Industrial and Corporate Change 11: 529–555.
[14]  Morris M, Schindehutte M, Allen J (2005) The entrepreneur's business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research 58: 726–735.
[15]  Harper AR, Topol EJ (2012) Pharmacogenomics in clinical practice and drug development. Nature biotechnology 30: 1117–1124.
[16]  Sheridan C (2011) Gene therapy finds its niche. Nature Biotechnology 29: 121–128.
[17]  Guedj I, Scharfstein D (2004) Organizational scope and investment: Evidence from the drug development strategies of biopharmaceutical firms. NBER working paper.
[18]  Ledford H (2013) Biotech boom prompts fears of bust. Nature 500: 513.
[19]  Cockburn IM, Henderson RM (1998) Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics 46: 157–182.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus