This past weekend I caught up with an old family friend who happens to be a practicing oncologist in the Bay Area. After the expected chit chat, we began discussing personalized medicine and if the ‘hype’ was legit or just a ‘media creation’ based on intelligent PR campaigns.
I learned that physicians are indeed moving towards personalized medicine as the true benefits of mapping the genome have made it from the lab to the doctor’s office. Understanding our unique fabric makes it easier for doctors to steer patients down the correct treatment regimen. However, what I found most interesting (if able to interpret the conversation correctly) is that the benefits are not based on which therapy is best for the patient. Rather, the benefits of personalized medicine are based on what therapy is least likely going to show clinical success. Therefore the goal is to identify which has the greatest chance of failure, and then chose an alternative treatment if one exists. The true benefit is saving the precious time the patient has while not harming the body past the point a secondary therapy has little chance of being successful.
My next thought was what if there are three treatment options? Looking at early-stage prostate cancer there are multiple therapeutic options including surgery, radiation (internal and external) cryo and more. But once the cancer spreads beyond the prostate, and becomes a far more challenging disease, how do physicians make the next call? I know the answer is rely on skilled doctors to do their jobs, but the promise of personalized medicine combined with experienced doctors is an exciting prospect.
Yes, there is a long way to go, but how remarkable the progress made in such a short period of time. I spent some time speaking with the CEO of Target Discovery at BayBio a few weeks ago. Thought his comments dove-tailed nicely with my weekend conversation and wanted to share.
At the recent Massachusetts Biotechnology Counsel annual meeting, there was a lot of talk about what it will take for the industry to “Make it in Massachusetts”—a nod to a famous gubernatorial campaign slogan during the era of the state’s massive technology boom. Today, the Boston walls once plastered with “Make it in Massachusetts” bumper stickers are covered up by Shepard Fairey graffiti and similarly, the DNA of the state’s economy has changed.
The technology companies that fueled the Massachusetts Miracle have been superseded by burgeoning biotechs like Biogen, EMD Serono and Genzyme. With its elite universities, leading research hospitals and strong venture community, the state’s biotechnology cluster has been an engine of growth, but like all industries, it faces considerable challenges in the face of recession. There are lessons to be learned here in our back yard that can be applied across the industry.
According to the Massachusetts Biotechnology Counsel 2015 Strategic Report, almost 50 percent of public biotech companies in the state risk running out of cash by the end of the year while one-half to one-third of private biotechs in Massachusetts will look to raise funds this year. A precarious position—particularly for early stage companies just bringing new innovations from the bench to industry.
I’m not smart enough to develop novel antibodies that could change the way we treat cancer like some of my clients, but I do have some thoughts on where biotechs—particularly clinical stage companies—can concentrate their communications efforts in this difficult environment. In this economy, securing financing, attracting partners and continuing R&D is more difficult yet more critical than ever. Whether your company is based in Massachusetts, Montreal or Munich, determining where to dedicate your communications resources in this environment can be daunting. Here are a few ideas:
Leverage your thought leaders—What do your internal and external key opinion leaders have to say about industry trends? Look for ways to strategically package their expertise to select media for thoughtful commentary.
Pick your PR battles—When you have constrained resources or budgets, it’s often better to maximize a specific event, like the release of data in a peer reviewed publication—than to spread your program too thin. Core audiences like media, analysts and potential partners would rather hear about one substantial piece of news than three pieces of fluff.
Don’t wait to communicate until you have a major announcement—Are your news and publication pipelines thin? Think about what issues your audiences care most about then focus your efforts there. It may be months before you have data or hard news to release, but don’t be afraid to capitalize on other industry milestones. Do you have a unique perspective about a newly released study or trend that is getting lots of attention? Let people know about it.
Maximize your exposure—Don’t stop communicating when you’ve captured the headlines. Are you distributing positive media coverage to investors and partners? If you have a company blog, are bloggers linking to media coverage of your company in the context of their posts? In today’s on-line, on-demand media world, stories still have value (some may argue more) after the paper or magazine hits the recycling bin.
The road ahead is challenging, to be sure, but those who communicate effectively during the down market will reap the benefits of being top of mind when recovery strikes.
There are many obvious signs that spring has arrived. Hopefully it starts with warmer weather, perhaps the start of the baseball season, an occasional blossoming flower and the onslaught of ‘cause walks’.
With health care PR campaigns driving interest around each walk, these incredibly organized and profitable fundraisers bring in piles of money year after year. Naturally if you work in an office setting, one is constantly targeted by peers to support their cause, often inspired by a personal connection to a loved one or close friend.
While at BayBio last week, I thought about the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer after a good friend had asked me early in the week to support his walking with a donation. I had the opportunity to ask several CEOs of biotech companies if research has made a difference and are we better off today then five or ten years ago in treating cancer. Was encouraging hearing the answers, meaning we all need to continue walking or supporting friends and colleagues.
Yesterday was the 20th BayBio event held in South San Francisco. In an era of declining interest in tradeshows, there were more than 700 attendees representing 400 companies. There is undeniable momentum in research as personalized medicine continues to show remarkable progress in fighting disease.
Naturally the economy’s impact to R&D and venture funding dominated the discussion. Buoyed by the news of BiPar’s $500M acquisition by Sanofi-Aventis earlier in the week, it remains clear that great technology along with superb management teams can equal great business outcomes.
The other buzz on the event floor, will the promise of a more “streamlined FDA” be a reality in an Obama White House? With new HHS and FDA heads, can something be done to ensure medications and treatments make it to patients faster? The notion that speeding the process puts patients at risk was not shared by the attendees. One CEO quipped: “There are airplanes flying today with hundreds of passengers on them which were designed completely on computers and deemed safe by the FAA. After all the necessary testing demonstrated airworthiness, the airlines now have more fuel efficient and safer aircraft which were delivered years earlier than expected.”
Schwartz attended the event and captured video from the BayBio booth. Hope you enjoy some of the highlights.
This year’s Massachusetts Biotechnology Council Annual Meeting provided a sober look at the state of the Massachusetts biotech industry and what the cluster must do to succeed in the years to come. Our world-class teaching hospitals and academic institutions, our talented scientists, physicians and researchers coupled with a vibrant VC community has resulted in Massachusetts being a world leader in the industry, but according to the council, other states and even countries are fast on our heals of potentially claiming the “super cluster” position. While Massachusetts has enjoyed being the launch pad for exciting companies like Genyzme and Biogen, today’s “rising stars” and even companies that are not yet formed but are a glimmer of hope in a scientist’s eye based on a patent or piece of IP, now face new, bigger challenges due to today’s economic conditions. The key theme of the day’s presentations was the importance of greater collaboration among industry, academia and venture capitalists. In order for the Commonwealth to not only survive today’s economic landscape but more importantly, prosper and maintain our leadership position, it will be key for these organizations to work together.
According to the MBC’s 2015 Strategic Report which was released at the conference, scientific collaboration and innovation is a critical linchpin to the success of the state’s biotech industry. The report discusses the need to better align the academic community with industry to improve collaboration and to address technology transfer processes taking innovation from the bench top to industry. Unlike other biotech powerhouse cities like San Francisco and San Diego, tech transfer doesn’t happen as seamlessly in Massachusetts. One of the calls to action was development of a consortium of academia and industry, so that the gene discovery and validation process that occurs in the academic setting can then be developed by companies with the funds and means to build accurate models and implement clinical trials. Without this technology transfer, we won’t see progress.
While it may seem ironic to say that I found the Economic Outlook session uplifting, it provided some clarity on where the industry is heading and it’s not all bad! Moderated by Xconomy Founder, CEO and Editor-in-Chief Robert Buderi, the session discussed on how the recession actually presents us with a tremendous opportunity. While pharma generally bets the bank on a blockbuster drug, nimble-minded biotech companies should focus on a “niche-buster” and be creative and adaptive in clinical trials. It is these companies who will come out standing—many of whom get their start here in the Bay State.
The MBC continues to host interesting, thought-provoking meetings that provide valuable forums for discussion, networking, collaboration and innovation.
