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 : Geron Corp. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill De who wrote (808)	1/18/1998 12:53:00 PM
From: telebob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3576

< amessage to all> GERN went to 17 after the gene cloning news in 1997 and some months later was 8 . so i guess you should have bought at 16 when they made that announcement back then .

To: Bill De who wrote (808)	1/18/1998 10:59:00 PM
From: taxikid	Respond to of 3576

sure and let you sell your 17 long @ 20.. c'mon.. the stock is going to bounce anyway.. it is now "in play" and will be for a while.. like a week or two at best.. i have no position now.. but gern was one of most profitable "no brainer" shorts ever.. bottom line.. i will begin shorting when the price is near my target again.. if i miss it? well too bad.. i certainly would short the hell out of it if in fact it did go into high teens.. had i waited.. i would have missed the three points i grabbed off gern last week.. carpe diem, baby taxi

To: Bill De who wrote (808)	1/19/1998 2:52:00 PM
From: Rob-Chemist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3576

I agree with most of what you said in your post in terms of GERN stock price - it provides a very useful perspective on how to think about the stock price. I should note, however, that from a technical perspective, I do not think very much of GERN's findings regarding the role of telomerase in aging/cancer and the potential for developing products based on this enzyme. There might be a product in terms of using telomerase as a diagnostic agent for staging tumors and deciding on the appropriate therapuetic approach, but it will depend on how telomerase compares with other markers. One area I greatly disagree with your post is the significance of universities and scientists supporting a discovery. Normally, univeristies do not "support" research findings (or in most cases, the research itself) - they only provide a place to do the research. Then, the research is only done at the university if the scientist can convince someone to give them money to do the research (and the university usually gets a substantial chunk of this money via indirect costs to support the bureaucracy, among other things). In terms of the comments of scientists stating the importance of the research, they are generally considering the importance only in terms of increasing our understanding of a phenomenon as opposed to being able to do something about it. As an aside, if it were engineers stating the importance of a result, then I would put much greater faith in its societal significance since engineers are taught to think about feasibility as well as academic importance (Note: I am a scientist, not an engineer).