Peter,
With the field of drug discovery expanding exponentially in terms of the number of targets companies can aim at with new technologies I have reached a new level of confusion in trying to value biotechs.
Is there a generally accepted distinction between "research " and "development" with respect to product pipelines in the biotech investor community? A difference between drugs generated by a company's drug discovery programs and ones in its development pipeline?
Following is a bit of context for the above question.
Last Monday, NeoTherapeutics CEO came out with this statement: "NeoTherapeutics has many exciting opportunities, including Neotrofin(TM) for Alzheimer's disease, as well as numerous other neurological indications, more than 100 other drugs in our robust drug development pipeline, and our functional genomics subsidiary NeoGene Technologies." Emphasis mine.
biz.yahoo.com
Compare this to the following chart from their website:
neotherapeutics.com
Nigel and I both thought Mr. Glasky was overestimating the # of drugs under development -- as opposed to research -- by 95+ drugs. I said as much on the Neuroscience thread started by Scott Jiminez, and suggested that Mr. Glasky's statement needed clarification, at least. An officer of the company went so far as send me an unsolicited email in support of his statement. Said officer allowed that the compounds were not in as "advanced" a stage of development as the ones given in the referenced chart, but maintained they nevertheless could be included in the development pipeline. No rationale was supplied to support that contention, in fact, the officer seemed to equate the number of drugs their medicinal chemists have discovered with the development pipeline.
So is NEOT's definition of a "drug development pipeline" too broad or mine too narrow?
Perspective from other SI biofreaks -- reckon you know who you are -- appreciated, too.
TIA and Cheers, Tuck |
