Yeah, exactly. Drug development is a long, expensive proposition involving both expertise and luck, with biological luck being one heck of a hurdle.
Targets have value. With the glut, however, there's little capacity to assign value to any given unknown. MLNM and Bayer have discovered some shots on goal, but we don't know the venue for the match.
Ashley.... yes, you're correct.... it's the same old "Incyte shot on goal" argument. But it's one-level-refined, so we've got about five years to determine if I'm blowing hot air.
By then, everyone will have forgotten a bad call.
I hope.
A little perspective..... Bayer was one of the earliest of biotech participants. Due to completely inept management, they cut back after early, modest success. Of major pharmas, they were THE bunglers with respect to early commitments...... when they did stick their toes in, they bought garbage. Bad timing, bad guidance.
And then biotech was producing big progress in the clinic and on bottom lines.
Panic! "What the hell do we do now?", rang out in Leverkeusen. And they finally did something smart. They signed the MLNM and CRGN deals, which would force their internal engines to come up to speed.
That takes time. There is, undoubtedly, enormous focus at Bayer to weed through the prospects. |
