StreetTalk: Will Venture Capital Firms Turn Their Backs on Stem-Cell Research? - Korea-gate has proven to be a huge scandal, not only in science, but in finance, where investors who thought Suk was


StreetTalk: Will Venture Capital Firms Turn Their Backs on Stem-Cell Research?
Korea-gate has proven to be a huge scandal, not only in science, but in finance, where investors who thought Suk was on to something potentially significant in stem-cell research, were left with empty promises . . .

BioPharm International
Volume 19, Issue 2

Thus. any hint of fraud has a price attached to it, not just in the stem-cell world, but in the entire biopharm industry as a whole. According to the June, 2005 issue of Nature, a study of 3,247 scientists showed that over one-third of respondents said they had participated in research "tampering" by either changing the results of a study to accommodate the funding organization's presumably slanted point of view, or by withholding evidence that might prove to contradict the results shown in a study. The good news is that only three percent of the respondents admitted to intentionally publishing fraudulent and inaccurate research data. That is fairly astonishing when considering that 33% of the respondents admitted to engaging in fraudulent research behavior.

A cynic — or someone who is considering plowing $10 million into the next big stem-cell research project — may well wonder how many more are operating in the shadows, who are falsifying research data but not admitting it.

The stem-cell field can't afford any scent of scandal. It can't afford to send skewed messages to the investment community that their work is tainted or untrustworthy. That's especially so at a time when stem-cell research was having to go hat in hand to find the little money it was getting from the private venture capital sector. Even before the Hwang debacle, venture money decision makers were skeptical about an unproven field of research that is, by most accounts, years, if not decades, away from achieving legitimate commercial viability.

"Some of this stuff still looks like science experiments," said Ken Haas of venture capital company Abingworth Management, in a recent issue of Wired News. The publication reports that Haas, in a speech to the International Society for Stem-Cell Research in San Francisco last year, told audience members that the outlook for stem- cell funding was "bleak."

"Big pharmaceutical companies aren't funding early research," Wired News also reported. "And VCs have higher expectations in general from biotech firms because they perceive the industry as having graduated from its freshman status. The investment necessary to bring a company public has doubled, Haas said, and the returns have diminished."

According to the June 2005 issue of Red Herring, Venture capitalists have invested $441 million in 16 stem-cell-related businesses over the past five years. Sure, $441 million is a lot of money to you and me, but it is peanuts to venture capitalists. Cancer and heart disease research earn that kind of funding in a month.

Consider too, these numbers. The National Institutes of Health, the primary US government benefactor of stem-cell research — as well as all medical research, for that matter — earmarked $24.3 million on embryonic stem-cell research in 2004, and $203.3 million on adult stem-cell research. But the National Cancer Institute, an agency arm of the NIH, spent $4.7 billion on cancer research. Or consider the fact that the NIH spent $3 billion on AIDs research and you begin to see how low stem-cell outlays are on the totem pole.


While stem-cell research firms can count on larger sums of money from state and federal governments, like the $3 billion that California has earmarked for stem cell research over the next eight years or so, it won't gain any real momentum until the private sector begins to ante up in a big way.

Ask Advanced Cell Technologies. The Worcester, MA-based stem-cell research company was living high on the hog a year ago, with Robert Lanza, vice president of scientific development, bragging to the press how cash was rolling in and would continue to do so. "There's been an influx of interest in stem cells," said Lanza. "We're in a whole new world. We're flush with cash, and just months ago we were struggling as a private company to even make payroll and to keep the phones on."

That was then and this is now. While the company did hit the ground running in 2005 with an $8 million cash infusion from venture funders, the bloom fell off the rose fairly fast. In the last half of 2005, company stock went south, falling from $9 per share to $3 per share.

blog comments powered by Disqus



Bristol-Myers Squibb and Five Prime Therapeutics Collaborate on Development of Immunomodulator
November 26, 2014
Merck Enters into Licensing Agreement with NewLink for Investigational Ebola Vaccine
November 25, 2014
FDA Extends Review of Novartis' Investigational Compound for Multiple Myeloma
November 25, 2014
AstraZeneca Expands Biologics Manufacturing in Maryland
November 25, 2014
GSK Leads Big Pharma in Making Its Medicines Accessible
November 24, 2014
Author Guidelines
Source: BioPharm International,
Click here