Australian Biotechnology: A 10-Year Study of Investor Performance

A recent study assessed the investor performance of the Australian drug development biotech (DDB) sector over a 15-year period from 2003 to 2018. The current study builds on that research and extends the analysis to 2020, using a 10-year period starting 2010, to exclude the impact of the global financial crisis in 2008/09. Based on a value-weighted portfolio of all 41 DDB firms, the overall sector delivered a negative annualized return of -4.1%. Individual firm performance was also assessed using the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in share price over the period as a measure of investor outcomes. On this basis 68% of firms produced negative CAGRs over the period, and of the 32% of firms that produced positive CAGRs, six firms produced CAGRs greater than 20% per annum and in three cases of recently-listed firms, the CAGR’s were greater than 50%. Overall however, the sector overall delivered very poor investor returns and despite a relatively large number of listed biotech firms, Australian biotechnology continues to be small and weak in terms of its contribution to global biotechnology industrialization. As such it lacks the critical mass to grow a robust bioeconomy based on drug development, which remains the standard-bearer of biotechnology industrialization.

The Role of the Biotechnology Industry in Addressing Health Inequities in Africa: Strengthening the Entire Health Care Value Chain

There are many misconceptions surrounding health care in Africa, a continent of 54 sovereign countries and a population exceeding 1.2 billion souls which is growing at the fastest rate in the world. Enormous diversity has direct impact on the notion, practices, and availability of health care on the continent. There are no satisfactory generalizations about the state of health and the strength of health care systems for the continent as a whole. Indeed, differences between neighboring countries are enormous, as well as among population groups within countries. There is a significant mix of public, private, and faith-based health care providers. In most African countries, 60 percent of health providers fall into the latter two categories (IFC, 2008). Moreover, movements towards national and private risk pooling for payment of health care are underway in only a few countries, but virtually all modern African constitutions declare health care as a human right and aspire to some form of Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Despite these principles, Africans endure a dual burden of communicable and non-communicable disease. In the face of these challenges, Africans are confronted with out-of-pocket payment for health services – when it is available at all – and challenging logistics for accessing and maintaining consistency of care. The patient journey for Africans is a winding path, often exacerbated by an additional reliance on the importation of talent, pharmaceuticals and vaccines, medical and diagnostic tools, and digital support of the health systems. The health care value chain in Africa is incomplete. Each of Providers, Payers and Producers need further development. When any of these is weak or missing, there cannot be a sustainable health system. The issue, therefore, is not scientific or clinical competence; it is capacity and the necessity to promote a comprehensive and integrated health care ecosystem – including the Producer segment. To address the Producer link, more direct engagement by the global biopharmaceutical industry in assisting and investing in the advancement of indigenous laboratory and clinical development, product production and distribution, and the advancement of human capital necessary to achieve health care sovereignty for the continent is necessary. There is all the more reason to do so as humanity enters the age of genomic and precision medicine. There is a pathway for African health care to leapfrog as it has done in telecommunications.

Strategic Alliance and Acquisition Performance: Impact of Interfirm Synergies and Motives in the Bio-Pharmaceutical Industry

This study draws on transaction cost, resource dependence, and organizational learning theories to posit relationships between transaction performance and transaction structure (alliances versus acquisitions), interfirm synergies, and motives. The study involves analysis of 66 international and intra­national alliances and acquisitions that were undertaken in the pharmaceutical industry. An initial survey was administered to firms involved in these transactions to gather information regarding motives, transaction structure, and interorganizational synergies. A second survey was administered two years after the transaction to gather information on transaction performance. Findings support the importance of transaction structure and strategic synergies between firms. Specifically, transaction structure and high levels of strategic fit between the firms had a positive impact on performance. There is also some evidence that synergies must be linked to the motives driving the transaction. The study yields meaningful results regarding factors leading to success of transactions (alliances and acquisitions) in a longitudinal study of intranational and international transactions in the biopharmaceutical industry.

Drug Repositioning as a Pharmaceutical Strategy: The Obvious Benefits are Real but Beware of Pitfalls That May be Less Apparent.

For the last 15 years the drug discovery strategy referred to as “drug-repositioning” has been a recognized approach towards bringing new therapeutics to market and has continued to grow in popularity over this time frame. Melior Discovery is a company with a founding mission centered on drug repositioning. The author shares his perspective on lessons learned over 15 years of conducting drug repositioning efforts, complete with advantages and disadvantages that he has encountered using this approach and why, overall, this means of drug discovery provides a compelling business rationale.

Considerations for Potential Global Expansion of Serum Institute of India

In a time of global vaccine shortages, especially for COVID-19 products, Serum Institute of India (SII) is straining to meet demand for vaccines in India. While this organization is not known worldwide, they entered into a recent alliance with AstraZeneca, who is partnered with Oxford University for Covid-19 vaccine, to manufacture their supply of vaccines for distribution in India. Several other such partnerships are also underway. And, SII is considering plans to become a much larger player, not only in India, but globally. This commentary is focused on if, when, where, why, and how global expansion could proceed. Our work was carried out as a class project to identify options and strategies appropriate for expansion and has been expanded subsequently as events continued to develop.

A conversation on accelerating innovation in biopharma and life sciences through global collaboration and alliances

We note and reflect on the power of international partnering and collaborations that led to many of the innovations that were brought to market extremely quickly and successfully during the Covid-19 pandemic. These collaborative global approaches suggest the potential for developing broader, open innovation models in more extensive regional and global collaborations for other biopharma and life science market segments. In this article, we adopt a ‘virtual panel discussion format” to frame and discuss potential issues and models that would need to be designed, developed and tested, with the purpose of engaging emerging global regions as equal partners. We also consider similar challenges for regions within countries – even in the US - that lack significant sources for capital across the company life cycle. Several recent open innovation alliance approaches or models are discussed as potential models. They are: the Eli Lilly FIP Net (fully integrated pharmaceutical network); the Enlight Bioscience alliance developed by Pure Tech Ventures; the Harrington Project linking academia to industry; and, the Corporate Accelerator model notably recently expanded globally by Illumina. We outline a proposal to create a guiding coalition, or “think tank” to further test and develop the proposals discussed herein.

Innovations arising from post-COVID-19 in Bioentrepreneurship Education

That COVID-19 has changed multiple facets of our working and social lives is a claim that few would challenge. COVID-19 also changed the focus of the business of biotechnology and how business is done. New collaborations rapidly formed and cooperated openly, collegially, and virtually in ways rarely seen in a field where intellectual property rights loom large.

Foundational Tools for Building a New Bioeconomy

While biotechnology has been transforming the diagnosis and treatment of disease, it has also been altering everything from the production of crops to how we manufacture goods. Berkeley Lights, which sits at the nexus of biotechnology, microfluidics, and information technology, is playing a critical role in enabling the way living cells can be harnessed as microscopic factories to power the emerging bioeconomy.

A Case Study - NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.

NeuBase is accelerating the genetic revolution by developing a new class of precision genetic medicines which can be designed to increase, decrease, or change gene function, as appropriate, to resolve genetic defects that drive disease.