Skip to main content

Financing Biomedical Research

Since I commented briefly on the pseudo-science of the anti-vaccine folks Sunday, I thought I would stay on a biomedical kick today, and perhaps tomorrow. Though the subject of today's post is, aside from the applicability of that broad label, very different from Sunday's. As for tomorrow ... tomorrow only knows.

Today, I'm looking at an article by Jose-Maria Fernandez, Roger M. Stein, and Andrew W. Lo, "Commercializing Biomedical Research Through Securitization Techniques." You can access it here.  
The idea is that biomedical innovation is getting more expensive and riskier. Upon whom shall that risk fall? Well, securitization is the obvious method of spreading the risk around, although the word "securitization" acquired rather a bad odor from its connection with the pre-2007 housing market.
Anyway, the authors are undaunted by that odor. They propose securitizing megafunds of $5 to $15 billion that could yield a floor of 8.9% for equity investors.
The debt holders, holding something the authors dub "research backed obligations," would make less than the equity holders, as is typical. Still, they would get between 5% and 8% according to a "simulation using historical data for new molecular entities in oncology from 1990 to 2011."
The beaming fellow above is Andrew Lo. I tried to copy the author's diagram of the waterfall/schematic for their proposed structure, but somehow it wouldn't paste onto here.
I wish them well, of course. Anything that gets market-oriented funding to real scientists weakens the pseudo sort.
Go, Lo!



Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …