Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (3566)	4/24/2001 2:51:58 PM
From: RCMac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

>> a Wild West of spin << Peter, That article reminded me of this observation, stated less gently: "The biotechnology stock group has acquired the worst -- the dirtiest -- reputation of any stock group in the science-and-technology sector. The futuristic appeal of the science underlying this technology has been exploited by stock marketeers peddling worthless paper, and by scientists peddling their academic and research credentials to nominal "scientific advisory boards" intended to dignify the issue of worthless paper. Public excitement about medicines that promise miracles has been transformed into private fortunes made in stocks without products, revenues, earnings, or scientific legitimacy. Be it up or down, biotech is now understood to be the red-light district of the NASDAQ exchange. "The same paragraph could have been written about the railway mania in the English stock speculations of the nineteenth century, or about the incipient oil business in the twentieth. Biotechnology is the only major, transforming technology now in human prospect. It is in biotech that you should position, by the turn of the century, as much as 75% of capital earmarked for science-and-technology investments. It is a case of hold your nose and buy biotech." This is from Michael Gianturco, How to Buy Technology Stocks (Boston, 1996), p. 143. -- RCM

To: Biomaven who wrote (3566)	4/25/2001 9:47:14 AM
From: scott_jiminez	Respond to of 52153

>>They make conclusions about how wonderful this is and how excited they are about that. And they really exaggerate and spin the results.<< The issues raised by that article, and those raised by the article below (from today's NYT), are two of most troubling practices of the entire BT industry. The level of spin and obfuscation that permeates this sector not only diminishes the appreciation of the science, but can contribute significantly to countless naive investors buying into the unrestrained hype and, as always, losing huge sums when the bubble bursts. And then, when a couple folks on SI point out these characteristics of the BT industry, they are relegated as pariahs. Dispatched for noting, in effect, much of the kingdom has no clothes. (my emphasis below) ------------- Scientists Often Mum About Ties to Industry By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG WASHINGTON, April 24 --Scientists who report research findings are expected to divulge any financial ties that might influence their work. But often they do not, according to the first comprehensive analysis of disclosure policies in science and medical journals. In reviewing 61,134 scholarly articles published in 181 academic journals in 1997, researchers at Tufts University and the University of California at Los Angeles found that just one-half of 1 percent detailed personal financial interests, including consulting arrangements, honorariums, expert witness fees, company equity and stock, and patents. All of those few disclosures appeared in just a third of the 181 journals. It is possible, of course, that scientists have few conflicts to report. But experts say previous studies have shown that as many as half of all academic researchers consult with industry, and roughly 8 percent have stakes in biomedical companies related to their research. So the more likely explanation, said Dr. Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of urban and environmental policy at Tufts and the study's lead author, is that journal editors "are not forceful enough" in requiring disclosure, "or there is widespread disobedience" of their rules. Dr. Krimsky's study appears in the April issue of Science and Engineering Ethics, a journal that was not part of his survey. It comes at a time of increasing concern about the effects of commercialization of science. And the findings are not surprising, said Dr. David Blumenthal, director of the Institute for Health Policy, a research center at Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Blumenthal, who studies the ties between academia and industry, said that scientists who failed to report conflicts generally "believe that they are people of integrity, and they feel they can separate their work from their financial interests." But research suggests otherwise, Dr. Blumenthal said. Studies have found that scientists with financial ties to the companies whose products they study are more likely to write favorably about those products. The issue of financial disclosure has been in the news of late; last year, the editors of The New England Journal of Medicine apologized to readers for violating their own conflict-of-interest policies by publishing reviews of the medical literature on drug therapies despite the reviewers' financial relationships with the companies marketing the drugs. Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen, The Journal's editor in chief, said that persuading scientists to divulge personal financial data was not easy. "We have to work at it," he said. When researchers ignore inquiries about conflicts, he said, many journals, including his own, assume none exist. Dr. Drazen said editors of journals around the world would meet in May and discuss whether researchers should be required to submit either a disclosure of conflict or what he called an "active negative disclosure," -- a declaration that the researcher is free of financial conflict. nytimes.com ---------------------------

To: Biomaven who wrote (3566)	4/25/2001 11:50:19 AM
From: XenaLives	Respond to of 52153

Peter, I don't know much about the other two cases mentioned in the article, but mentioning the RGEN PR struck me as Reuters putting a spin on their spin. I found the PR they referred to to be fair and balanced, and bought on it. Reuters' coverage was strictly negative while the PR mentioned both the good and the bad. This opinion was reinforced as I looked into the stock deeper and found that they had raised the issue of inadequate testing methods already and stockholders should have been prepared for "missing the primary endpoint".