Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:45:28.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - The biotechnology sector

therapeutics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2012

Lawton Robert Burns
Affiliation:
University of Philadelphia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The biotechnology sector was born about thirty-five years ago when – in tandem with a landmark court decision – technology zealots, entrepreneurs, and investors alike set out to utilize novel scientific discoveries around genetic engineering to create a business that would improve healthcare and agriculture in ways that before could only be imagined. At the time, biotechnology (strictly speaking) encompassed the use of genetic engineering techniques to create unique cells that could produce novel or naturally occurring proteins in large quantities that could be used for therapeutic or agricultural benefit. The hope was that using this technology to modify the genetic material of a living cell, pest-resistant plant cells, and human cell factories producing large quantities of proteins with therapeutic potential could be created. As one looks back over this time period, the entrepreneurs and scientists were undoubtedly right; biotechnology has had a tremendous impact on healthcare around the globe. Nevertheless, this young sector has endured many hurdles along the way. This chapter focuses primarily on the therapeutic segment of the biotechnology sector. It examines the major forces as they have evolved that continue to affect and drive the sector including innovation, the pharmaceutical sector, financing, globalization, and the regulatory and policy environment in which it must operate.

The perspective of time is important in analyzing the biotechnology sector. Since the product development cycle in drug development is about fifteen years from discovery through commercialization, the sector is still in its infancy, and even its earliest entrants have just passed through two cycles. Given this framework, sector observers who remain disappointed in its output and impact may not have been realistic about what the sector could deliver in such a short period of time. During the founding of the first companies, expectations of financial return and product output were irrationally high, and many claim the sector has not met those expectations. Several years ago a Wall Street Journal article highlighted biotechnology’s $40 billion cumulative losses and compared the sector to “the ultimate roulette game.” Today, many investors continue to agree as evidenced by the closed public markets to any new biotechnology offerings. On the other hand, taking a longer term and perhaps more realistic perspective on this young sector, thousands of companies globally have initiated projects, secured government support, and obtained private financing; some have produced effective and safe drugs.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hamilton, David P.Biotech’s Dismal Bottom Line: More Than $40 Billion in LossesWall Street Journal 2004 1Google Scholar
ErnstYoungErnst and Young Global Biotechnology Report 2010LondonErnst and Young Global Ltd 2010 21Google Scholar
1980
Gardner, Peter J.US Intellectual Property Law and the Biotech Challenge: Searching for an Elusive BalanceVermont Bar Journal and Law Digest 29 2003Google Scholar
Government Accounting OfficeTechnology Transfer – Administration of the Bayh–Dole Act by Research UniversitiesWashington, DCGovernment Accounting Office 1998Google Scholar
Loise, VickiStevens, Ashley J.The Bayh–Dole Act Turns 30Journal of Science and Translational Medicine 2 2010 28Google ScholarPubMed
ErnstYoungBeyond Borders: Ernst and Young Global Biotechnology Report 2009LondonErnst and Young Global Ltd 2009 25Google Scholar
Burrill and CompanyBiotech 2009: Life Sciences, Navigating the Sea ChangeSan Francisco, CABurrill and Company 2009 349Google Scholar
Micklus, AmandaRiordan, MaureenSurprenant, TheresaPharmaceutical/Biotechnology Deal Statistics Quarterly, Q4 2009In Vivo 28 2010 6Google Scholar
National Institutes of HealthNIH BudgetBethesda, MDNational Institutes of Health 2010Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)About PhRMAWashington, DCPhRMA 2010Google Scholar
Longman, RogerWindhover Webinar: Dealmaking TrendsNorwalk, CTElsevier Business Intelligence 2009Google Scholar
Beck, AlainWurch, ThierryBailly, ChristianCorvaia, NathalieStrategies and Challenges for the Next Generation of Therapeutic AntibodiesNature Reviews Immunology 10 2010 347CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biotechnology Industry OrganizationBiotechnology Industry FactsWashington, DCBiotechnology Industry Organization 2010Google Scholar
Robbins-Roth, CynthiaFrom Alchemy to IPOCambridge, MAPerseus Publishing 2000Google Scholar
Honey, KarenThe Comeback Kid: TYSABRI Now FDA Approved for Crohn’s DiseaseJournal of Clinical Investigation 118 2008 825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrill and CompanyBiotech 2003, Life Sciences: Revaluation and RestructuringSan Francisco, CABurrill and Company 2003 86Google Scholar
Stolberg, Sheryl GayScientists Defend Suspended Gene TherapyNew York Times 2000 A 20Google Scholar
Weiss, RickNelson, DeborahPenn Settles Gene Therapy Suit; University Pays Undisclosed Sum to Family of Teen Who DiedWashington Post 2000 A 4Google Scholar
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)Gene Therapy ReturnsScience 326 2009 1604Google Scholar
Cartier, NathalieHacein-Bey-Abina, SalimaBartholomae, CynthiaHematopoietic Stem Cell Gene Therapy with a Lentiviral Vector in X-Linked AdrenoleukodystrophyScience 326 2009 818CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maguire, Albert M.High, Katherine A.Auricchio, AlbertoAge-Dependent Effects of RPE65 Gene Therapy for Leber’s Congenital Amaurosis: A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation TrialLancet 374 2009 1597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bainbridge, James W. B.Smith, Alexander J.Barker, Susie S.Effect of Gene Therapy on Visual Function in Leber’s Congenital AmaurosisNew England Journal of Medicine 358 2008 2231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkrot, BillUS Approves Roche’s Rituxan Cancer Drug for CLLInternational Business Times 2010Google Scholar
Biotechnology Industry OrganizationHealing the WorldWashington, DCBiotechnology Industry Organization 2010Google Scholar
Saltzman, Edward C.On a Dime in Very Little Time: Biotech’s New Value Creation ChallengeTherapeutic Insight WebinarFlorham Park, NJDefinedHealth 2009 98Google Scholar
Pettersson, AnnaArnold, CatherineBeever, CharleyPharma R&D: Doing the Same Thing that Didn’t Work BeforeIn Vivo 27 2009 60Google Scholar
SaltzmanOn a Dime,” p. 87; Jennifer Boggs, “Fourth-Quarter Surge in Deals Lends (Cautious) Hope for 2010BioWorld Today 21 2010Google Scholar
Beck, AlainWurch, ThierryBailly, ChristianCorvaia, NathalieStrategies and Challenges for the Next Generation of Therapeutic AntibodiesNature Reviews Immunology 10 2010 347CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tufts Center for the Study of Drug DevelopmentOutlook 2009Boston, MATufts Center for the Study of Drug Development 2009 4Google Scholar
Sheridan, CormacPharma Consolidates its Grip on Post-Antibody LandscapeNature Biotechnology 25 2007 365CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheridan, CormacFresh from the Biologic PipelineNature Biotechnology 28 2010 310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, Aaron L.Dhimolea, EugenReichert, Janice M.Development Trends for Human Monoclonal Antibody TherapeuticsNature Reviews Drug Discovery 9 2010 767CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, PeterAntibodies Long Revenue Stream Spurs Pharma AcquisitionsNature Biotechnology 25 2007 1194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biotechnology Tools in Research and DevelopmentWashington, DCBiotechnology Industry Organization
Anderson, MatthewSchrijver, IrisNext Generation DNA Sequencing and the Future of Genomic MedicineGenes 1 2010 38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisano, GaryHBS: The Life Sciences Revolution: A Technical PrimerBoston, MAHarvard Business School 2002Google Scholar
King, Ralph T.Glaxo Plans to Acquire Affymax for $533 Million, a 67% Premium – Pharmaceutical Concern to Get Faster Methods for Discovering DrugsWall Street Journal 1995 B6Google Scholar
Caplen, Natasha J.RNAi as a Gene Therapy ApproachExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy 3 2003 575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burrill and CompanyBiotech 2004, Life Sciences: Back on Trackan Francisco, CABurrill and Company 2004 23Google Scholar
Clinton, PatrickMozeson, MarkPharm Exec 50Pharmaceutical Executive 2010 68Google Scholar
Wall, J. K.Lilly’s New TwistIndianapolis Business Journal 29 2009Google Scholar
VentureWire LifescienceVenture Capitalists Embrace Virtual Model for Biotech Start-UpsNew YorkDow Jones 2010Google Scholar
Adams, Christopher PaulBrantner, Van VuSpending on New Drug DevelopmentHealth Economics 19 2009 130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMasi, Joseph A.Hansen, Ronald W.Grabowski, Henry G.The Price of Innovation: New Estimates of Drug DevelopmentJournal of Health Economics 22 2003 151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, RogerDrug Development Cost Estimates Hard to SwallowCanadian Medical Association Journal 180 2009 279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, Lawton R.Housman, MichaelRobinson, CharlesMarket Entry and Exit by Biotech and Device Companies Funded by Venture CapitalHealth Affairs Web Exclusive 28 2009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burrill, G. StevenLee, Jr. Kenneth B.Biotech 93: Accelerating CommercializationSan Francisco, CAErnst and Young 1992 21Google Scholar
Atlas, Riva D.When Private Mixes with PublicNew York Times 2004 B1Google Scholar
Micklus, AmandaMorrison, ChristopherValuation Watch: Bargain Prices Not Enough to Flood PIPEsIn Vivo 14 2009 1Google Scholar
Morrison, ChristopherCall the Plumber: PIPE Logic is LeakyIn Vivo 27 2009 48Google Scholar
Morrison, TristaFinancing Comes Full Circle; R&DLP Resurgence in WorksBioWorld Today 21 2010 1Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health (NIH)NIH BudgetBethesda, MDDepartment of Health and Human Services
EditorialIn Times of CrisisNature Structural and Molecular Biology 17 2010 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, DonnaWashington Roundup: Stimulating Recovery Ahead? $5B in Fed Funds to Dole OutBioWorld Today 2009 3Google Scholar
Boggs, JenniferGetting Creative: Small Biotechs Seek Nontraditional VCs in 2010BioWorld Today 2010 1Google Scholar
Senior, MelanieBiotech Models: Bypassing VCs to Deal Direct with PharmaStart-Up 14 2009 2Google Scholar
Elsevier Business IntelligenceBiopharma in 2008: What a Difference an Economic Crisis MakesIn Vivo 27 2009 18Google Scholar
Booth, Bruce L.Beyond the Biotech IPO: A Brave New WorldNature Biotechnology 27 2009 705CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burrill, G. StevenBiotech 86: At the CrossroadSan Francisco, CAThe Arthur Young High Technology Group 1986 59Google Scholar
Burrill, G. StevenLee, Jr. Kenneth B.Biotech 91: A Changing EnvironmentSan Francisco, CAErnst and Young 1990 63Google Scholar
Burrill, G. StevenLee, Kenneth B.Biotech 94: Long-Term Value and Short-Term HurdlesSan Francisco, CAErnst and Young 1993 17Google Scholar
1994
Pfizer, Eyetech Sign Accord for TreatmentWall Street Journal 2002 1
Business Brief – Pfizer Inc.: Accord is Set with Neurocrine for Funding of Insomnia DrugWall Street Journal 2002 1
Neurocrine to Develop, Promote Insomnia TreatmentDrug Week 2003 45
Morrison, ChristopherWhat We Have Here is a Failure to InnovateIn Vivo 26 2008 32Google Scholar
Usdin, SteveForest Runs Into A TreeBioCentury 18 2010 A1Google Scholar
Paul, Steven M.Mytelka, Daniel S.Dunwiddie, Christopher T.How to Improve R&D Productivity: The Pharmaceutical Industry’s Grand ChallengeNature Reviews Drug Discovery 9 2010 203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, DuffPatent Woes Threatening Drug FirmsNew York Times 2011 A1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Licking, Ellen FosterAt Merck, Business Development as UsualIn Vivo 28 2010 68Google Scholar
Martinez, BarbaraGoldstein, JacobBig Pharma Faces Grim Prognosis – Industry Fails to Find New Drugs to Replace Wonders Like LipitorWall Street Journal 2007Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 2010Washington, DCPhRMA 2010 50Google Scholar
Czerepak, Elizabeth A.Ryser, StephanDrug Approvals and Failures: Implications for AlliancesNature Reviews Drug Discovery 7 2008 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munus, BernardLessons from 60 Years of Pharmaceutical InnovationNature Reviews Drug Discovery 8 2009 959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, MorganPharmaceuticals Exit Research and Create ValueNew YorkMorgan Stanley Research Report 2010Google Scholar
Timmerman, LukeSanofi CEO Bets Outside US, Gears Up for Flu Pandemic and Seeks to Learn from BiotechXconomySeattle, WA 2009Google Scholar
Van Arnum, PatriciaGSK CEO Witty Outlines Company’s New Strategic PrioritiesePT – the Electronic Newsletter of Pharmaceutical Technology 2008Google Scholar
2009
Garnier, Jean-PierreRebuilding the R&D Engine in Big PharmaHarvard Business Review 2008 1Google Scholar
McCully, MikeBiotech Alliances with BigCosCurrent Practices in BioPharma Alliances: Trends in the Marketplace and Key InsightsDeloitte Recap LLC 2009Google Scholar
2009
Morrison, ChristopherLicking, Ellen FosterDealmaking Overview: or, How You Should Stop Worrying and Learn to Love Risk-Sharing, Option-Sporting, Earn-Out Heavy DealsPharma Strategic Outlook 2010Google Scholar
Morrison, ChristopherLicking, Ellen FosterSenior, MelanieDiller, WendyBioPharma Trends: Nowhere to Go but UpIn Vivo 2010Google Scholar
McCully, Michael G.Current Trends in BioPharma DealmakingRecap by DeloitteDeloitte Recap LLC 2010 1Google Scholar
McCully, Michael G.Look Back at 2009; Trends in Licensing and PartnershipsRecap by DeloitteDeloitte Recap LLC 2010 1Google Scholar
Licking, Ellen FosterSilverman, EdRoche/Genentech: A Case Study for Future Hostile OffersIn Vivo 27 2009 14Google Scholar
Stonestreet, JohnTimeline: Roche Secures 96% of GenentechReuters 2009
Micklus, AmandaRiordan, MaureenSuprenant, TheresaPharmaceutical/Biotechnology Deal Statistics Quarterly, Q1 2009In Vivo 27 2009 2Google Scholar
StandardIndustry Surveys: BiotechnologyNew YorkStandard & Poor’s 2004 1Google Scholar
Office for Life SciencesDepartment for BusinessInnovation and Skills (BIS)Life Sciences 2010: Delivering the BlueprintLondonHM Government 2010 8Google Scholar
2007
Pearson, SueIs the UK Biotech Industry on the SkidsGenetic Engineering and Biotechnology News 28 2008 12Google Scholar
2007
Managing Multiple Sclerosis: One Way Through the Interferon MinefieldBritish Journal of Clinical Governance 7 2002 272B
Stub, ZevTEVA May Benefit from UK Drug InitiativeJerusalem Post 2002Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)Technology Appraisal Guidance – No. 32: Beta Interferon and Glatiramer Acetate for the Treatment of Multiple SclerosisLondonNational Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2002Google Scholar
Kamber, MatthiasComing Out of the Maze: Canada Grants The Harvard Mouse PatentGeorge Washington University International Law Review 35 2003 761Google Scholar
Sector Briefing: Biotechnology/Pharmaceutical Opportnities in CanadaLondonUK Trade and Investment 2010
Treurnicht, IlseOntario’s Emerging Tech Companies Get a BoostTorontoMaRS Discovery District 2009Google Scholar
SG Cowen Health Care GroupAsia’s Biotechnology DawnNew York 2001 14Google Scholar
Farrell, DianaGreenburg, EzraThe Economic Impact of an Aging JapanMcKinsey Quarterly 2005Google Scholar
Balaji, K.Japanese Biotech, A Plan for the Future: Why Japan Has Been Slow to Succeed and How that May ChangeJapan Inc 2003Google Scholar
Japan External Trade OrganizationAttractive Industry: BiotechnologyTokyoJapan External Trade Organization 2007 4Google Scholar
Kornberg, ArthurWhither Biotechnology in JapanHarvard Asia Pacific Review 6 2002 9Google Scholar
Sa, Chew LiMazlyn, MenaRiding Asia’s Biotech WaveAsian Business 38 2002 20Google Scholar
National BioResource Project InformationTokyoMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
Economic Development Board SingaporeSingapore Biotech Guide 2010/2011: Overview of Singapore’s Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IndustrySingapore Economic Development Board 2010 14Google Scholar
Economic Development Board SingaporeIndustry BackgroundSingapore Economic Development Board 2011Google Scholar
Agency for Science, Technology and ResearchAbout A*Starwww.a-star.edu.sg/AboutASTAR/Overview/tabid/140/Default.aspx
Beh, Swan GinSingapore – The Biopolis of AsiaAsia Pacific Biotech News 9 2005 952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ErnstYoungBeyond Borders 2010
Xuan, SarahAn Introduction to China’s Biotech IndustryMMLC Group 2009 www.hg.org/article.asp?id=7594Google Scholar
News and Analysis: Evolving R&D for Emerging MarketsNature Reviews Drug Discovery 9 2010 417CrossRef
Business Monitor International LtdChina Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare Report, Q2 2010LondonBusiness Monitor International Ltd 2010Google Scholar
Stipp, DavidChina’s Biotech is Starting to Bloom: Made in China Clones, Plants, and DrugsFortune 146 2002 126Google Scholar
Chen, AndrewBiotechnology in ChinaInsight 2010 www.amcham-shanghai.org/NR/rdonlyres/BE35CFFF-AB26-4EE7-92AA-0605DB0C443E/11785/jan10_market_profile.pdfGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, TerryChina’s Biotech Industry: An Asian Dragon is GrowingEurekAlert!TorontoProgram on Life Sciences, Ethics and Policy, McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health 2008 www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/pols-cbi010108.phpGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y. PhilipDeng, Michelle M.Enforcing Pharmaceutical and Biotech Patent Rights in ChinaNature Biotechnology 26 2008 1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AusBiotechAbout Biotechnology – Industry OverviewMalvern, AustraliaAusBiotech 2010 www.ausbiotech.org/content.asp?pageid=25Google Scholar
Department of Innovation, Science and ResearchThe Australian Biotechnology Industry – Fact SheetCanberra, ACT, AustraliaThe Australian Government 2010 http://innovation.gov.au/AboutUs/KeyPublications/PortfolioFactSheets/Documents/THE-AUSTRALIAN-BIOTECHNOLOGY-INDUSTRY.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, PeterGovernments Fiddle While Biotech BurnsNature Biotechnology 27 2009 584CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birkett, DonaldMitchell, AndrewMcManus, PeterA Cost Effectiveness Approach to Drug Subsidy and Pricing in AustraliaHealth Affairs 20 2001 104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1995
Pande, KshitijaBiotechnology Industry in IndiaChillibreezeMeghalaya, India 2010 www.chillibreeze.com/articles_various/Biotechnology-industry-in-India-510.aspGoogle Scholar
Invest Korea, High-Tech Industry Investment Promotion TeamBiotech and Pharmaceutical IndustrySeoulKorea Trade Investment Promotion Agency (Kotra) 2009Google Scholar
Wong, JosephQuach, UyenThorsteinsdóttir, HallaSouth Korean Biotechnology – A Rising Industrial and Scientific PowerhouseNature Biotechnology 22 2004 DC42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muralitharan, MorleyChandler, Stephen F.Gray, ChrisCurrent Status of Bioindustry in South KoreaAsia Pacific Biotechnology News 9 2005 955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korea Biotechnology Industry Association (KBIA)Bioindustry in KoreaSeoulKBIA 2006 www.bak.or.kr/sp?pname=eng.bio.index&spname=sub1Google Scholar
Fuyuno, IchikoHwang Scandal Hits Korean Biotech HardNature 439 2006 265CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moon, SunungJeon, YongilHow Valid are Long-term Government Plans? Technological Forecasting of the Korean Biotechnology IndustryJournal of Policy Modeling 31 2009 891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)Prescription Drug User Fees – OverviewWashington, DCFood and Drug Administration 2004 www.fda.gov/oc/pdufa/overview.htmlGoogle Scholar
Walter, Emily P.FDA Hears Testimony on Prescription Drug User Fee ActMedPage Today 2010 http://www.medpagetoday.com/ProductAlert/Prescriptions/19508Google Scholar
Sullivan, ThomasPDUFA 2012 – Background from PhRMA’s PerspectivePolicy and Medicine 2010 www.policymed.com/2010/04/pdufa-2012-background-from-phrmas-perspective-.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Bethan2009 FDA Drug ApprovalsNature Reviews Drug Discovery 9 2010 89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anticipating REMSNature Review Drug Discovery 7 2008 963CrossRef
Hughes, Bethan2008 FDA Drug ApprovalsNature Review Drug Discovery 8 2009 93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Office of Technology PolicyThe US Biotechnology IndustryWashington, DCOTP 1997Google Scholar
Wechsler, JillFDA Overhauls Drug Regulation While Protecting its TurfFormulary 37 2002 543Google Scholar
Webster, ChristopherCopmann, ThomasGarnick, RobertBiologics: Can There be Abbreviated Applications, Generics, or Follow-On ProductsInternational BioPharm 2003 www.biopharm-mag.com/biopharm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=73785&&pageID=2Google Scholar
Licking, Ellen FosterHayes, EmilyMerrill, JessicaHealth Care Reform: For Biopharmas There is Much to LikeIn Vivo 28 2010 34Google Scholar
McCaughan, MichaelHealth Care Reform and Business Development: 10 Reasons it MattersIn Vivo 27 2009 24Google Scholar
Health Care Reform Package Provides $1B Tax Credit for BiotechsOrange County Business Journal 2010 http://sdbj.com/news/2010/may/15
Gayle, RichardHealthcare Reform Gave Biotech Everything it Wanted, and MoreXconomy 2010 www.xconomy.com/national/2010/03/24/healthcare-reform-gave-biotech-everything-it-wanted-and-more/Google Scholar
Sorenson, CorinnaUse of Comparative Effectiveness Research in Drug Coverage and Pricing Decisions: A Six-Country ComparisonNew YorkCommonwealth Fund 2010Google ScholarPubMed
Young, DonnaBurrill Predicts CER Will Plague InnovationBioWorld Today 21 2010Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health (NIH)Stem Cell BasicsWashington, DCNational Institutes of Healthhttp://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/defaultpage.asp
Dolgin, Janet L.Embryonic Discourse: Abortion, Stem Cells and CloningFlorida State University Law Review 31 2003 101Google Scholar
Stolberg, Sheryl GayBorder, John M.Limits on Stem Cell Research Re-Emerge as a Political IssueNew York Times 2004 www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/politics/06STEM.html?pagewanted=all&positionGoogle Scholar
Arnold, WayneSingapore Builds a Better Scientist TrapInternational Herald Tribune 2003 1Google Scholar
Biotechnology in Singapore: Send in the ClonesThe Economist 2002 58
Takahashi, KazutoshiTanabe, KojiOhnuki, MariInduction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined FactorsCell 131 2007 861CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Office of the President of the United StatesExecutive Order 13505, Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem CellsFederal Register Part IV 74 2009 10667www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Removing-Barriers-to-Responsible-Scientific-Research-Involving-Human-Stem-CellsGoogle Scholar
Kington, MD, Ph.D Raynard SNational Institutes of Health Guidelines on Human Stem Cell ResearchStem Cell Information: The National Institutes of Health Resource for Stem Cell ResearchBethesda, MDNational Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services 2011 http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009guidelines.htmGoogle Scholar
Green Light for US Stem Cell WorkBBC News 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7847450.stm
Moran, Nuala‘Game Changing’ iPS Cells Move from Science to MarketplaceBioWorld Today 20 2010Google Scholar
Young, DonnaBreaking News in Biotech: ‘Court Slams the Brakes on Obama’s Stem Cell Funding Policy,’BioWorld Today 21 2010Google Scholar
Kendall, Susan K.United StatesLaws and Public Policy about Cloning, Cloning – A WebliographyEast Lansing, MIMichigan State University Libraries, Michigan State University 2009 http://staff.lib.msu.edu/skendall/cloning/laws.htm
National Conference of State LegislaturesHuman Cloning Laws 2008 www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14284Google Scholar
Willgoos, ChristineFDA Regulation: An Answer to the Questions of Human Cloning and Germline Gene TherapyAmerican Journal of Law and Medicine 27 2001 101Google ScholarPubMed
Haas, JosephEurope’s Biosimilars Ahead of US, But Still EarlyPink Sheet DAILY 2008 www.elsevierbi.com/publications/the-pink-sheet-daily/2008/9/29/europes-biosimilars-ahead-of-us-but-still-earlyGoogle Scholar
Haas, JosephG-CSF Biosimilars Approved By EU Could Impact Amgen SalesPink Sheet DAILY 2008 www.elsevierbi.com/publications/the-pink-sheet-daily/2008/9/24/gcsf-biosimilars-approved-by-eu-could-impact-amgen-salesGoogle Scholar
Gryta, ThomasMerck Move Shows Hurdles to Developing Biotech GenericsWall Street Journal 2010 http://online.wsj.com/home-pageGoogle Scholar
Usdin, StevenBouchie, AaronBiosimilar Fault LinesBioCentury – The Bernstein Report on BioBusiness 18 2010 A1Google Scholar
Ogg, Jon C.Can Merck Defeat Biotech LeadersBioHealth Investor- Biotech and Medical Business Blog 2008 www.biohealthinvestor.com/tag/merck-bioventuresGoogle Scholar
Carroll, JohnMerck Acquires Biosimilars in $130M PactFierce Biotech 2009 www.fiercebiotech.com/story/merck-acquires-biosimilars-130m-pact/2009-02-12Google Scholar
Sandburg, BrendaSandoz Hones Biosimilars StrategyPink Sheet DAILY 2008 www.elsevierbi.com/publications/the-pink-sheet-daily/2008/9/5/sandoz-hones-biosimilars-strategyGoogle Scholar
Seoane-Vazquez, EnriqueRodriguez-Monguio, RosaSzeinbach, Sheryl L.Visaria, JayIncentives for Orphan Drug Research and Development in the USOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 3 2008 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman-Labadie, OlivierZhou, YouwenThe US Orphan Drug Act: Rare Disease Research Stimulator or Commercial OpportunityHealth Policy 95 2010 216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollack, AndrewPfizer Deal Signals a Move into Treating Rare DiseasesNew York Times – Business Day 2009 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE5D8153BF931A35751C1A96F9C8B63Google Scholar
Lakkis, Maha M.Global and Regional Drug Regulatory Harmonization InitiativesDrug Information Journal 44 2010 289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanley, AgnesPharma Manufacturing Standards and Regulations – Taking the Plunge to Harmonize Pharmaceutical RegulationsPharmaceutical Manufacturing 2010 www.pharmamanufacturing.com/articles/2010/034.htmlGoogle Scholar
Harman, Robin F.The EMEA – Drug Regulation at a Supranational LevelPharmaceutical Journal 269 2002 752Google Scholar
Abraham, JohnA License to Print MoneyHealth Matters 4 2001 6Google Scholar
Ward, PhilipEMEA Implements Wave of Changes – The EU’s Regulatory Agency Aims for Efficiency with Recent ChangesApplied Clinical Trials Online 2010 http://appliedclinicaltrialsonline.findpharma.com/appliedclinicaltrials/Regulatory+News/EMEA-Implements-Wave-of-Changes/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/652127Google Scholar
European Medicines Agency (EMA)European Medicines Agency Welcomes Adoption of New Pharmacovigilance Legislation by European ParliamentLondonEuropean Medicine Agency 2010Google Scholar
Pisano, GaryCan Science be a Business? Lessons from BiotechHarvard Business Review 2006 114Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×