1. bitech-industry
What have been the most important enhancements in biotechnology during the last quarter-
century? If you ask 29 industry professionals, as I did for this report, you're sure to get
Twenty nine numerous replies. The first thing that struck me about the responders was their
optimism. Although it's enticing to present the views of this most professionals in terms of
"boom" and "bust," most experts preferred to intensify the constructive. Among those who
pointed out failures, nearly every one was qualified with something along the lines of "but it
may be too early to tell."
A positive outlook in biotech is nothing in short supply of amazing given, as Andy Strayer,
Pharm.D., vp for clinical procedures at PPD (www.ppdi.com), notes, only 1 in ten biotech
organizations is prosperous. But while the deficiencies have been many and notable, the
perception is that achievement far exceeds failure. Of course, that generalization is hard to
prove. Biobusiness' boom and bust cycles more or less track parallel peaks and troughs for
the field of biology itself, which has developed dozens of technologies that are gorgeous in
notion, but aggravating in their commercial recognition. Remember antisense?
John Thompson, senior vp of corporate development at Invitrogen (www.invitrogen.com),
identifies the last 25 years in biotech as "a time of powerful growth and unparalleled
breakthrough," mainly in the important understanding of how life works through such agents
as DNA, genes, proteins, and cells. The Scientific American special issue on biotechnology
in 1980, and the March 1980 Time cover story on interferon caused Crawford Brown, Ph.D.,
CEO of Eden Biodesign (www.edenbiodesign.com), to change academic course from
chemical engineering to microbiology. During these 25 years Dr. Brown notes that biotech's
"sky-high" hopes to cure cancer (not forgetting the well-known cold) remain incredibly
elusive.
"Even today, as noted in the joint Financial Times/Scientific American supplement on stem
cells dispersed during the BIO meeting, that cycle of hype and hope remains." Although Dr.
Brown believes that lots of the promises of stem cell research are likely "false hopes," he
conjectures that "real medical and economic benefits" will happen, but they could take quite a
few years. Not many are so pessimistic. Michael Goldberg, general partner with Mohr
Davidow Ventures (Menlo Park, CA), quotes Nobel prizewinning Prof. Paul Berg (Stanford):
"Human embryonic stem cells will have a greater result on human medicine and reduction of
suffering than recombinant DNA."
Goldberg notes that Geron (www.geron.com) will begin clinical trials of the first human
embryonic stem cell therapy, based on the work of Hans Keirstead, Ph.D., a neurobiologist at
the University of California (Irvine). Interleukin-2, which Fortune featured on its cover in 1985,
was touted as "the next interferon" and a potential cancer cure but, as outlined by Goldberg,
was "a giant bust." He believes that gene therapy may be heading down the same road of
long-on-promise, short on results. Mario Elhers, M.D., Ph.D., CMO at Pacific Biometrics

2. (www. pacbio.com), weighed in with various studies. What's in, he says, are
pharmacogenomics, biomarkers, companion diagnostics, blockbuster protein drugs,
theranostics, fully humanized monoclonal antibodies, RNAi, protein therapeutics, and
structure-guided drug design. What's out: antisense, gene therapy, ex vivo cell therapies,
cancer vaccines, high throughput screening against non-validated drug targets. bitech
industry, biotechnology