Scientists Simplifying Science

Category archive


Blogs about the business of science, entrepreneurship, venture capital, management, consulting

MedNess-Pill for Alzheimer’s?

in ClubSciWri/SciBiz/Uncategorized by

Hello and welcome to yet another exciting week of MedNess. We bring the news from medicine and healthcare with greatest impact. It seems like; year 2017 will be the year of neurology! It is just the second month of the year and treatment strategies for various neurological disorders are making headlines.

Merck halts Phase 3 study on Alzheimer’s drug- another setback for amyloid theory

Clinical trials on Verubecestat- a small molecule BACE 1 and BACE2 inhibitor were called off after an interim analysis on Phase 2/3 studies did not show promising results. The analysis team concluded that there was “virtually no chance of finding a positive clinical effect”. However, another trial on patients with early symptoms of Alzheimer’s will continue. It has been speculated that the drug was too weak, or was dosed inadequately or the disease had progressed too far in patients for the drug to show concrete effect. The failure of this trial is another blow to the famous “amyloid theory”. According to this theory, the amyloid plaques are believed to be cause of the disease. Verubecestat is a beta secretase inhibitor. This disappointing cessation of clinical trial came months after Eli Lilly’s Alzheimer’s drug; Solanezumab failed in Phase 3 clinical trials in November last year. Unlike Verubecestat, Solanezumab targets plaque rather than beta secretase enzyme. This brings in disappointment not only for the patients but also for the researchers. The evidence suggests that once the disease has advanced and patients have established dementia, the removal of amyloid plaque might not yield effective outcome.

                              Do we have a pill to cure Alzheimer’s? Some quick facts:

  • Alzheimer’s is an irreversible brain disorder causing cognitive impairment
  • More than 5 million Americans are expected to suffer from Alzheimer’s
  • Sixth leading cause of death in the USA
  • No new drug has been introduced to provide symptomatic relief or to halt its progression since last decade

Picture source:

There are couple of drugs at various stages of trial that are being tested under the amyloid plaque hypothesis. These drugs either act on the plaque or beta secretase enzyme (BACE inhibitor) or available as amyloid immunotherapy. These candidate drugs are from Biogen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Amgen and Novartis. Apart from BACE inhibitors, hopes are also high for Axovant’s intepirdine. Intepirdine is believed to improve cognitive symptoms by targeting receptor 5-HT6 that stimulates the release of a neurotransmitter. Interestingly, intepirdine was abandoned by GSK in 2010. The drug failed when compared to placebo. However, one study showed tangible effect on cognitive symptom when intepirdine was paired with the approved Alzheimer’s drug Aricept.

MedNess: Merck’s stock suffered severe blow after the announcement of cessation of clinical trial. On the contrary, shares of Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Biogen and Roche, the fellow Alzheimer’s drug makers, increased. (Fierce Biotech, Business Insider, STAT news, The Boston Globe)

Axovant’s nelotanserin passes phase 2 study for Lewy body dementia

Axovant Sciences declared successful completion of phase 2 study of nelotanserin. The company is now setting its foot forward for phase 3 study that is expected to initiate later this year. Axovant Sciences reported preliminary results from the first small group of 11 patients.

Lewy body dementia or LBD is the second most common form of dementia. The hallmark characteristic of this form of dementia is the build up of abnormal proteins i.e. Lewy bodies thus affecting cognition, movement, behavior and alertness.

The study included patients with either LBD or Parkinson’s disease dementia. These patients experienced frequent hallucinations as assessed by mini mental state examination (Pharmaceutical Business Review)

CRISPR battle of patents: The Broad institute and MIT wins!

The scientists who first demonstrated the use of most powerful gene editing technology in biotech suffered a major blow on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, in their fight to gain exclusive rights on their invention. CRISPR gene editing system has revolutionized the field of biotechnology enabling scientists to make changes in DNA. Jennifer Doudna, a UC Berkely biochemist and her European collaborator Emmanuelle Charpentier first published this gene editing technology in prokaryotic system (type of bacterial system) in 2012 in Science. UC Berkely and University of Vienna filed for U.S. patent in March 2013. There were 155 broad claims to the CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Feng Zhang, a biologist at the Broad Institute, demonstrated the use of this technology in eukaryotic cells (type of plant cells, animal cells and human cells). The Broad Institute filed their patent in 2013; months after Berkeley group filed their patent. Since the patent claims by Broad Institute were fewer than Berkeley’s, the Broad Institute’s patent was issued on April 15 2014 through accelerated approval while Berkeley group is still awaiting their approval. After the Broad Institute was granted their patent, UC Berkeley filed an interference claiming that the Broad Institute should not have been granted the patent since Doudna’s and Charpentier’s CRISPR research outlined in 2012 paved the way for Zhang’s research in eukaryotic system. The Broad Institute argued that the research was not obvious and the patent claims from both the institutes were different. The federal Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled out UC Berkeley’s claims and sided with the Broad Institute. With this decision, UC Berkeley plans to move forward with their patent application, which if approved, will provide them right on the use of CRISPR on all cells. This would also mean that if the technology will be employed commercially, the companies would have to get licenses from both the Broad and the Berkeley group.

MedNess: The patent decision in the favor of the Broad institute increased the stocks of Editas Medicine by 30%. Editas Medicine licenses Broad’s patents for human genetic disorders. (Fierce Biotech, STAT News, The LA Times, NPR, Wired)

Are pharmaceutical industries in favor of Trump’s FDA pick? The story so far….

Donald Trump is pushing deregulation of FDA in order to accelerate the drug approval process. His ideology: drug costs are higher, drug approval process through FDA takes forever, drug companies are involved in “unfair foreign trade”, drugs should be manufactured in the USA and finally, drug companies should add the innovation factor for the better cure of the diseases. This recipe will work in favor of patients to bring the overall drug costs down and patients can have quicker access to the newer agents. Not to forget, drug manufacturing in the USA brings back jobs and the “fair trade” promotes revenue generation. This all sounds good, except, the pharmaceutical industries have opposing views. The most common complaint of every patient and every healthcare researcher is the never-ending drug approval process by the FDA. So suddenly, when we might be able to overcome this hurdle, why is everyone (read the researchers, pharmaceutical companies and informed patients) so anxious? The truth is bitter sweet. Even though we rant over the FDA, we still knew, the FDA has best interests at heart and such a tight screen is probably important for the safety of the patients. In addition, a 2011, study found that the FDA usually approves cancer drugs before Europe does. Moreover, the researchers at Yale found the FDA’s drug review is at least a month faster than Europe’s or Canada’s.

The pharmaceutical industries on the other hand are concerned about the high drug costs. In addition to the limited patient safety, deregulation in the FDA might not provide enough time for pharmaceutical companies to justify high costs of the drugs to patients and to insurance companies. The pharmaceutical companies will not be able to account for high costs of the drugs owing the limited safety and efficacy analysis that ultimately affects both the patients and the companies. President Trump said last month he has a “fantastic person” lined up for the role of the FDA commissioner. A survey conducted by Mizuho Securities of drug company executives indicated that 72 percent agreed Scot Gottlieb should be Trump’s pick to head the FDA. Until then, we all wait! (Reuters, The New York Times, Forbes)



MedNess- At the frontier of Medicine, Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Business

in Poli-Scie/SciBiz/Uncategorized by

Hello and welcome to the biweekly roundup of Healthcare business top stories. Please follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn


BMS’s injectable Opdivo approved by FDA for bladder cancer

FDA approved intravenous use of Opdivo (nivolumab), a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who have not benefitted from platinum-containing chemotherapy or in cases where the disease progressed within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum containing chemotherapy. Last year, FDA approved Roche’s Tecentriq, a checkpoint inhibitor, for the treatement of bladder cancer.

From the business standpoint, this was much awaited good news for BMS as the Opdivo did not make the cut as first line monotherapy study in non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2016. However, Merck’s Keytruda gained FDA approval soon after Opdivo failed in NSCLC study (Fierce Pharma).


The battle of patents: bad news for Teva Pharmaceuticals

Genric drug maker giant: Teva Pharmaceuticals lost the patent challenge in U.S. District Court, safeguarding their star drug Copaxone against generic competition. Copaxone, approved in 1996, became the most prescribed drug for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. The patents protecting Copaxone against generic competition expired two years ago for 20mg dose. Novartis and Momenta launched their 20 mg alternative (Glatopa) in 2015. To recuperate, Teva launched a 40 mg formulation of Copaxone. However, this week, U.S. District Court invalidated Teva’s last and fourth key patent protecting 40 mg Copaxone from generic drug competition. Teva lost other 3 patents last year (

Trump pledges to bring drug costs down

Pharmaceutical industries were told by Trump that the drugs should be manufactured in the USA and the foreign countries buying US manufactured drugs should pay “fair share”. These changes in addition to “better innovation” will help bringing prices down for the US patients (CNBC).

MedNess from MedPol: Amgen CEO Robert Bradway announced that soon nearly 1600 jobs will be added. Bank of America Merrill Lynch predicted that Trump’s policies could help Amgen recover their stocks by 23% in the next 12 months (CNBC)


US President’s executive order on immigration: the aftermaths

This is not a political blog, but the executive order has a very significant impact on the scientific, medical and healthcare community. In the following paragraphs, I will brief you with the sectors that have been affected.

  • NRMP issues the statement for the upcoming Match

Nearly 260 people from seven nations affected by travel ban, applied through National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) for medical residency in the USA (Association of American Medical Colleges, AAMC). Both the applicants and the hospital programs are concerned and affected by the travel ban. However, NRMP has urged the programs and the applicants to be discrete in their decisions that are in the interest of healthcare. The official statement issued by NRMP on their website states, “The medical education community must support all international medical graduates and their families during these difficult times. As for the current Match cycle, NRMP encourages applicants and programs to make the best decisions they can under current circumstances. For its part, NRMP will be liberal in granting waivers to applicants and programs if they cannot meet their respective Match obligations because of the effects of the Executive Order” (

  • Dark times for the US hospitals and patients from seven nations affected by travel ban

Ill patients scheduled for treatment at the USA’s premier healthcare centers, John Hopkins Medicine and Cleveland Clinic are uncertain of their treatment options. Hopkins is taking a step ahead by either urging the patients to postpone their travel or sending their staff abroad for their treatment (STAT News)

We wrap up our biweekly MedNess and MedPol news section. Have a great weekend!

Image source:

Battle of Wisdom: CRISPR-CAS9

in Sci-IP/SciBiz/SciWorld by
Editor’s Note: Gene editing for a better (or worse) is coming to a store near you. Some of you may have followed the ongoing patent war on the ownership of CRISPR-Cas9 technology between University of California (Berkeley) and Broad Institute (MIT-Harvard). But there could be many who are wondering what is the fuss all about? At the Career Support Group (CSG) for STEM PhDs we might still continue the debate about CSG’s usefulness to biologists vs non-biologists, but as inventors we are always in unison about perfecting the art of claiming ownership. #ClubSciWri is always attempting to listen and respond to your expectations and we are pleased to present the “Battle of Wisdom:CRISPR-Cas9” from Dileep Vengasseri. Dileep has nicely deciphered the meshwork underlying this matrix of claims to the CRISPR invention. We hope this story helps make sure that the next big thing from your gray matter secures your rightful ownership to the intellectual property.- Abhinav Dey

My dear friend, this 60 minutes of my time and 1597 words are for you! As you rightly said, maybe we should discuss our opinion(s) in public at least for educating others on what we have learned during the due course of our time.

Disclaimer: All what is written/expressed here are my personal opinions, and are not to be construed in any manner as a reflection/opinion of the firm that I am associated with. My words are solely my words! I will try to be as generic as possible to ensure there is absolutely no conflicts of any interest. This is purely a personal blog, written within the constitutional freedom that my Country has offered me when I was born here.

Many great battles are won not in the battle fileds, but in the minds of the battle leaders. What we read, saw, and talked about were the after-effects of those battles won or lost inside those great minds. In the great epic Mahabharata, Arjuna was about to lose Kurukshetra battle even before it was fought. But, there was a Krishna to save him from that humiliation. Many may not be as lucky as Arjuna was.

Before I begin, with all due respect, let me remind all of us one trivia very clear. US is not the “World” … it is just one of the many countries [a privileged one, indeed] of this world.  A larger population residing outside that privileged country, do not play a “World Cup” between their states or clubs. They don’t re-spell a word to make it look like they have invented it. For them, the metal “Al” is still aluminium and not aluminum.

We, living at the periphery of the world of modern(?) science, have got enough fuel from CRISPR-Cas, the game-changing method of gene editing, to satisfy our ego of being a part of a ‘privileged community’ who understands (?) the words like ‘gene editing’ and ‘CRISPR-Cas’.  For all such ‘privileged souls’, the “IP Battle of CRISPR-Cas” is more than just another battle. Let me call it a “Battle of Wisdom”.

But, was this battle worth fighting?

Let me begin with disecting this IP battle to four main sections: (1) Technology (2) The Battle Field (3) The Win and (4) The Strategy. May be, in future, I can complete this article with “Lessons Learnt”.

  1. Technology: At least from what is publically available, we know that Doudna/Charpentier’s team made that beautiful gene editng system work in-vitro in prokaryotic cells, in a neater, simpler manner than what it was in the nature itself. Instead of using a 3-component system including tracrRNA, crRNA and Cas9, her team beautifully designed a 2-component system, including a key synthetic, single guided RNA (sgRNA), that effectively performed site specific genome editing along with Cas9 (It is interesting to note that in-vitro 3-component system is also IP protected!). What was the big deal? The big deal was its simplicity, efficiency, and marketability. It was not that gene editing methodologies never existed before… however, now the World has access to an elegant gene editing system that is much more easy to perform (no more protein engineering!) & predictable. We also know that Feng Zhang (don’t forget George Church’s back-to-back publication in Science along with Feng Zhang) made it work in the eukaryotic system.
  2. The Battle Field: No one (at least the majority of money makers) wants a gene editing system that works only in prokaryotic systems. So, the “Battle of Wisdom” eventually boiled down to the IP on gene editing in eukaryotic system with CRISPR-Cas. Duodna filed a US patent application (remember, US is not the World, more so when it comes to IP protection) first and Feng Zhang got the first granted patent in US (note that the USPTO could have  provoked an interference at that time itself, but they didn’t!). Feng Zhang’s patent ‘claims’ to ‘cover’ eukaryotic CRISPR/Cas gene editing system (no comments on its “claims” and/or its “coverage” as the battle is still on…at least let the battle be fought under the belief that the land that is going to be conquered is still fertile!).  Duodna had anyway made it easier for Feng Zhang to get his patent granted by ‘boasting about’ her team’s achievement in multiple forums and explaning ‘how difficult it is/was to make it work in a eukaryotic system’.   Alas! enough of such wisdom on eukaryotic system was passed on to that Patent Attorney who filed her provisional applications, at least before the one on 19th October 2012 that is prior to the Feng Zhang’s priority date of 12th December 2012. Now, the battle of wisdom (what we call as “Interference Proceedings”) is to establish who invented (i.e., conceived and/or reduced-to-practice) the “eukaryotic CRISPR-Cas” first. Duodna will be fighting to make a point that porting CRISPR to  eukaryotic system is just a non-inventive aspect. Feng Zhang is going to fight back at least on the ground that if it is that obvious why did it then take Doudna a good 6-9 months to achieve the same.   I refrain from making any comments on how long or short is 6-9 months in a field like Molecular Biology. I know that my dear friend, who forced me (as usual) to write this long article, has wandered in the wilderness of IISc campus behind an elusive protein for a good 6 years :-)). And, I must admit that I have made the entire story of this Battle of Wisdom to a deeply  abridged version as the facts of this case are much more than what this layman article can handle. But, I believe that this much background is good enough to make my “teaching moments” convincing.
  3. The Win: Does it matter who wins this battle? Of course, YES! All battles are known after the leader who has won it (Aravind Kejriwal and Hilary Clinton are no where near their counterparts, as of today). Generally, the winner get the privilege to write the history that we all can read and study. But, is this Battle of Wisdom the same as any other great battles fought, lost and won? No. What is required to win this battle? It is required to show that who has invented the “eukaryotic CRISPR-Cas” first; it is required to show what is inventive/not inventive in this field; and it is required to show what constitutes an adequate written description/enablement in this field so that the “public disclosure function” (spirit and letter of any patenting system in the world) of the patenting sytsem is intact.  But, as with any other battle, only one person can be the winner. But, what will they both win or lose? The loser will any way have a deep wound in ego that may take years to heal. But, will he/she lose everything? Need not be. It depends on what other IP portfolio or picket-fencing that he/she has done around this gene editing tool. For example, a good claim on the synthetic guide RNA, a good IP portoflio on a better Cas9 proteins,  a better method for transfecting the cell, or an alternative to Cas9 itself… all these can make or break a commercial deal.  Is the winner going to get everything? Need not be.  During this entire process, it might open a pandora box and a myriad of avenues to potentially invalidate the patent claims that the winner can take home, to limit its claim scope, to limit its application coverage etc.
  4. Strategy: Isn’t it important for everyone in the field of IP to realize that most often a “hand shake” may do more good than “a fight”.  Before taking the army to a battle, it is important to know if raisng a white flag will be more beneficial than a gruelling battle. It is important to understand for what one is fighting a battle.   Does anyone fight for satisfying an ego or to make a point?  It is imporant to  understand that in a patent battle field, a wiser does not fight from their heart, but from their mind!. It is  important for each of the fighting members to know “What will happen if we do not fight, but rather collaborate?”.  Both Doudna/Charpentier and Feng Zhang could have been still partners in Editas, and they could have ruled the field.  When you fight in public, you expose yourself…you expose more than what you wanted to. And, what you have exposed can kill you even if you win YOUR fight.

Three more points to ponder:

  1. IP protection of PCR technology made Roche the king of DNA amplificaiton for quite sometime. Why? It is true that PCR was a technology that literally transformed the world of Biotechnology. But, was the IP protection on PCR probes for important pathogens less important? Were Taqman probes for real time PCR less important? Were the chips that made thermal cycling easier less important? No. All of them “together” made PCR a “cult” technology. That’s what a strategy means.
  2. IP protection in the field of ESC took Thompson and Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) to the center of the scientific world. Many IP/Tech Transfer cells in the Universities across the world wanted to be like WARF. As far I know, WARF gave its rights for free to any academic instituties, but made any industry pay for the same. Great! What were the other things that were needed to sustain and progress that technology ? An environment that morally support ESC research, a completely synthetic media to grow ESC, a culture that is devoid of mouse fibroblasts … all these were essential for taking ESC to reach its maximum potential. In modern day science, it is unlikely that we will see a winner of a single battle emerging as the “real winner”. A real winner is going to be the one who knows the game and strategize accordingly.
  3. US is not the “World”, and IP rights are jurisdictional. So, make yourself open to strategize for the real world!

Another Disclaimer: While starting my blog in WordPress, I had promised that I will not proof-read what I have written. In the past, many times, I had become a victim of my perfectionism and my writings had never seen the light. So, please pardon any typographical, grammatical, or otherwise errors. I hope factual errors are not there. Please let me know if you find any errors so that I can correct the same.

Authored by


Dr Dileep Vangasseri, PhD (Indian Institute of Science, IISc); Post-Doctoral research, University of Pittsburgh; Senior IP Professional, John F. Welch Technology Center, GE India Technology Center Pvt. Ltd., GE Global Research, Bangalore, India). Dileep has over ten years of in-house IP experience in Life Sciences, Healthcare and Medical Diagnostics industry after eight years of academic research experience in Bio-Organic Chemistry, Gene Therapy and Cancer Immunotherapy. He is well versed in all facets of patent analytics, techno-competitive intelligence, technology forecasting and business development.

This blog was originally posted here on December 7 (2016).

Featured image source: Pixabay

Creative Commons License
This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Med-Ness-JPM meeting, Epipen and more…..

in SciBiz by

Hi all, its our second week and co-incidentally this week SciWri turned one. Happy Birthday SciWri and may the members continue to spread the light of wisdom through their blog sections!


35th Annual JP Morgan Healthcare Conference (JPMHC17)

The annual JPMHC17 took place in San Francisco from Jan9-13. This conference boasts to be one of the largest healthcare conference wherein pharmaceutical companies and small-scale biotech companies present their most recent innovation technology and share their future goals. The major highlights of this year’s conference are as follows:

  • Major focus on Oncology as leading pharmaceutical companies presented their innovative ideas at the pipeline stage or approval stage. CAR-T therapy presentations stole the show.
  • Genomics was another hot topic that was discussed and new therapies and technological advancements were presented. Illumina’s $100 genome was one of the most successful presentations. Illumina’s latest baby NovaSeq was unveiled at JPMHC17. This new machine (available as 5000 or 6000 system) is expected to expedite the experimental plan while reducing the over all cost, although, the real “$100 genome” deal is still far. The introduction of NovaSeq is definitely good for the company’s rising stock.

Head turning business deal: $5.2 billion bid by Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd for Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, specializing in oncology drugs, developed drugs like Iclusig (Ponatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia); AP32788- kinase inhibitor for NSCLC and now Brigatinib for Alk positive NSCLC patients resistant to or who experienced drug progression on Pfizer Inc’s Xalcori (Crizotinib). The deal is expected to close by end of February.


Do we have an alternative to Mylan’s EpiPen?

2016’s most controversial product, EpiPen’s alternative is expected to hit the market with a list price of $4500. Kaleo’s Auvi-Q allergic device will be available for as low as $360 in cash for uninsured patients. However, the company has agreed to cover the full cost for those with a high deductible insurance plan or with household income less than $100,000.


Biosimilar for AbbVie’s Humira accepted for Review

Abbvie’s Humira (adalimumab), indicated for multiple inflammatory conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, pulls in annual sales of nearly $15 billion. This drug was approved in US and EU. Boehringer Ingelheim introduced their biosimilar to Humira and has been accepted for review by both FDA and EMA.

In September last year, FDA also approved Humira’s first biosimilar version- Amgen’s Amjevita.


Joe Biden’s Cancer Moonshot Future

Cancer Moonshot- an initiative by Joe Biden was a ray of hope for the scientists focusing on cancer research. However, researchers all over the US have feared the thwarting of research after the successful fulfillment of Barak Obama’s presidential term. In one of the last initiative, National Cancer Institute (NCI) is designing a new plan wherein the scientists can pursue new combination therapies. NCI will act as a mediator between the drug makers and the outside researcher’s thus enabling scientists to access new drugs for research.

At the present, six companies including Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Kyowa Kirin, Loxo Oncology and Xcovery have participated in the program.

Francis Collins to stay as NIH Director under Trump’s administration

Francis Collins has been asked by the president-elect Donald Trump to stay on his position as National Institute of Health Director. The duration of his stay is still unknown. He has been serving at NIH since last eight years under Obama’s administration.


This was the succinct version of MedRecap, MedNess, MedPol and MedPharm..more to follow next week. Have a great weekend.

Med-Ness: At the Frontier of Medicine, Healthcare and Pharma Business

in SciBiz by

This weekly blog will bring the major pharmaceutical and healthcare highlights. We all hate to move from blog to blog, post-to-post and website-to-website. Here, at Med-Ness we understand and value our reader’s time. Along with the major highlights, I will give you my opinion and my take for the week. 

     Med-Ness is for you if you are:

  • An inquisitive scientist and want to stay abreast in all the fields
  • Money minded and want to know business aspect
  • Medical Writer
  • Healthcare consultant

We will also focus on different sections each week. For example, next week will be the post-dated (or should I say, post-week?) section discussing the most coveted healthcare conference- JP Morgan 2017 (#JPM17)! Seriously, what is the fuss about this year’s conference? Never have I ever seen such hysteria about any conference! I hope one day my blog creates such a frenzy in the pharmaceutical field.

I will also brief you about the changing healthcare stocks and other market trends.

And how can I forget about political aspects? Did anybody say Trump’s take on Pharma industry? Where there is money, there is a political agenda. That is completely my take. Finally, I will bring in forefront any new policies or regulatory aspects that might or can affect the pharmaceutical business.


CNNMoney ranked healthcare stocks on number 2 position on their list, “5 stocks to buy in 2017”

So lets start with the simple and most commonly seen noun, “stock”. The dictionary spells out a very straightforward definition except; there is nothing simple about stocks. Moving on, stock is the capital that can be raised by any business firm when they issue and provide subscriptions for their shares. It basically defines and provides ownership rights to a company. So let’s say, you decide to buy stocks of a pharmaceutical company. With this stock you bought or rather own that part or percentage of the company. If the company makes profit or its net worth increases, so does the value of the stock increases. A Stock market aka equity market or share market enables such buying or selling of stocks.

  • Have you ever wondered about stocks, investments and equity research?
  • Have you ever thought of investing in healthcare market shares?
  • Have you ever felt speechless in the presence of colleagues talking about market forecast?

The most important question to ask is what determines the trends in stock market? Why should or why shouldn’t you buy a particular stock. The key to this question lies in research known as “equity research”. Equity Research involves analysis and forecast of company’s financials. The whole agenda behind such an exploration is to recommend a particular stock to buy or sell.

“Money has transformed every watchdog, every independent authority. Medical doctors are increasingly gulled by the lobbying of pharmaceutical salesmen”

– Thomas Frank

If you want to follow a particular stock market yourself, you will have to observe and understand the stocks in order to predict their future worth. This might take weeks or even months. All you need to keep is patience! In addition, if you are an amateur in healthcare stocks, you might have to consider previous historical trends to determine the worth of a particular stock. To learn more about stock market, I recommend you all two insightful articles published Forbes.…/01/…/10-things-you-absolutely-need-to-know-about-stocks…/how-to-spot-the-stock-markets-trend-before-it-is-obvious-to-all/

The variability in the stock market due to drug introduction or rejection.

A pharmaceutical company invests in the drug much before it is available to the patients. The drug stays in the pipeline stage for years. The reason- it has to pass all the safety tests before it reaches the patient. Now, the success or failure of the drug’s safety or its use will determine the worth of its stock. Sometimes, small biotech start-ups or pharmaceutical giants announce the research of a particular drug against a disease or condition. The requirement and the need for that research will determine its initial stock worth and successful launch of the drug and Phase IV post-marketing analysis will determine the rise or fall of the stock. According to “Investopedia”, orphan drugs (drugs for the treatment of rare diseases or conditions) are most expensive drugs in the USA. Such drugs will often bring more revenue and hence increased stock value.

The information on new drug launches could be obtained from company’s website or from The Wall Street Journal or from Businessweek. You can also keep a check on the drugs entering clinical trials ( to follow drugs from the company.

With this, we wrap up our very first post on Med-Ness. Let the medicine and business madness continue. Have a great weekend!








Imit pursued her Ph.D. from the University of Utah, and is currently pursuing her Postdoctoral fellowship at the Albert Einstein Medical College in Bronx, NY. She has an expertise in preclinical drug development and regulatory protocol development and analytical chemistry focussed on Oncology. Her current work explores the signaling pathways involved in hematopoiesis and leukemia stem cells. She is passionate about medical and science communication.

NASDAQ Image Source:

Creative Commons License

This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


Entrepreneurship and IP Part III: Trade secrets

in Sci-IP/SciBiz by

Tradesecret blog_final_Lipika

Trade secret can be of any commercially valuable information that gives your business a competitive advantage as it is not known to your competitor or public. It could be a formula, physical device, survey method, idea, recipe (e.g., recipe for Coca-Cola), business plan, pattern, advertising or sales strategy, distribution method, document tracking process, consumer profile, manufacturing process or a little tweak involved in the process, computer algorithm (e.g. Google’s search engine), compilation of information (customer list, suppliers list etc.), financial information, that helps the owner gain a competitive advantage in market place.

Trade secret may have a combination of information available in public domain and information unique to the company. And compilation of such information provides a significant advantage to the owner.

How to protect trade secret?

Typically speaking, for trade secret protection, no registration or no government grant is required. You simply need to maintain secrecy of the information. However, few countries (e.g., US & EU) have formal legislation for trade secret registration. World Trade Organization (WTO) recognizes protection of trade secrets. Member states of WTO and counties that are party to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual-Property Rights (TRIPS) are obliged to provide trade secret protection. Protection lasts as long as the information is kept confidential. Simply saying information as trade secret will not help, you need to take substantial and reasonable measure to keep the information confidential. Once the information is made available to public or if someone discovers from an independent source, the trade secret protection ends.

Challenges of start-ups:

Trade secret policies differ greatly in an established company and in early stage start-ups. Many start- ups and SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) exclusively use trade secret to protect their Intellectual Property (IP). Start-ups have challenges in terms of space – many of them operate from incubation centre, accelerator, shared office space etc. However, they should have some policy documents for trade secret identification and protection. Start-ups should at least address the following:

1) Identifying your Trade secret

Every business has some set of information that can be categorized as trade secret.  First, you should identify such information. Take a through look of your company’s asset. It would be very difficult to prove later that a particular category of information is trade secret if you do not have a hard copy document or electronic format stating the same.

2) Maintenance of Trade secret

Once you have identified your trade secrets, you need to set up policies and procedures to protect them. Trade secrets are considered as the most valuable asset for start-ups. You can consider the following measures to protect your trade secret:

  • Signing non-disclosure agreements (NDA) with your third party development partners and manufacturers. NDA is a contractual agreement between you and the recipient of the information.
  • Signing trade secret assignment with employees, independent contractors and consultants. Writing them down makes it clear to the employee and others that these set of information are trade secrets & they should take effort to keep confidential.
  • Marking documents as confidential, password protection, limiting distribution of password & access to priority documents.
  • Locking important folders and listing who can access the information.
  • Reporting periodic status of the trade secret information. During the process of growth & operation some information might lose the status of trade secret e.g., product launch, patent filing etc. Regular auditing of information is required for appropriate maintenance of trade secrets.
  • Marking emails, attachments etc. as trade secret/private/confidential, specific guidelines for document sharing provision and email usage.
  • Having physical security, locks and limited access to the area/systems having confidential information.
  • You must have clear policies as how you handle visitors coming into your space. Your employees should know what information can/cannot be shared, and also not accessing confidential documents/ keeping off desk in the vicinity when the visitors are around. As the company grows, the policies and procedures expand and will become more robust.

3) Patents or trade secret

For start- ups, filing patents may be too expensive but the technology may be entitled for patent protection. In some cases, you can choose ‘trade secret’ as an alternate mode of protection. Furthermore, patent law requires complete disclosure of your invention in patent application in return for obtaining a 20 year monopoly. Some information/technology that you have developed might be of high value but not appropriate for patent protection. And you may also lose trade secret rights for such information by public disclosure in the process of patent filing. In addition, it might just be a gift to your competitor, as the information could easily be available to them.

If the trade secret is about an innovative product, others may reverse engineer and then entitled to manufacture and use the product. You need to know that, unlike patent law, trade secret does not protect against independent discovery of the information. The decision of keeping information as trade secret or filing a patent depends on technology, valuation, business consideration and evaluation of relative benefits of patent and trade secret.

4)  Employee awareness about trade secrets

Notify your employees about the category of information that are trade secret and routinely remind them.

Your trade secret policy should start to roll on immediately, when an employee comes on board and remain until she/he leaves the company. Employees coming on board can also ‘contaminate’ trade secret information from earlier employer(s), that should not happen. When employees leave, remind them about the non-disclosure documents they had signed and ensure that critical information do not leave with them. It is their duty to maintain the confidentiality of trade secret information of the employer for specified period of time (as mentioned in the trade secret agreement) even after their employment.

5) Trade secrets and misappropriation

When a trade secret is leaked out, unauthorized use of such information by persons/competitors/third parties other than the owner is regarded as an unfair practice and violation of the trade secret. In case of misappropriation, you need to show by record to substantiate, that the said piece of information is trade secret and you took adequate measure to protect the information.

The court will look into following while establishing misappropriation of trade secrets,

  • The information was confidential to company.
  • The information was of commercial value, and use of such information in an improper way results in financial damage to the company.
  • Company took reasonable efforts to keep the information as secret through agreements, trade secret policy and procedures.


Trade secret is considered as one of the important form of Intellectual Property rights protection for start-ups. Value lies in information what works for your company, as well as what did not work and not spending resource what did not work. Documentation of such wealth of information (not known to your competitor) over time adds tremendous value to your company.

In case of industries, where employee attrition is very high, special measure should be taken. You should maintain record that you developed specific technologies or strategies independently of your competitor.   It will create a good defence in the long term protection of your company’s IP assets.

Finally,  do not loose valuable intellectual property  rights, just because you did not consider entering into a non-disclosure agreement, data encryption, training employees, marking documents as confidential, password protection of accounts, documenting trade secret policies due to lack of time or so.  Trade secrets are extremely valuable, but that value can instantly vanish, if not maintained adequately.

References: 1, 2, 3, 4

Image source: Author

This post is the third in the series of articles on “Entrepreneurship and IP”.

Link to the First part of the series: “Entrepreneurship and IP Part-I: Starting up right”

Link to the Second part of the series: “Entrepreneurship and IP Part II: Patent strategy and business value”


Disclaimer: The materials in the blog are solely for the purposes of informing, assisting and educating the readers and are not in any way a substitute for professional opinion or advice. They do not constitute legal advice or legal opinion or solicitation.

Dr. Lipika Sahoo, Founder & CEO of Lifeintelect Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., a registered Indian Patent and Trademark Agent having 16 years of experience in academia and industry. She holds a PhD from Indian Institute of Science (IISc). She holds triple masters; MSc from Sambalpur University; PGDIPR from National Law School of India University (NLSIU); PGCBM from Xavier Institute of management (XIMB); and advanced certifications from World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Patents and Patent Drafting.||

News: The Author will be  conducting a workshop in IIM, Bangalore on IP & Entrepreneurship for start-ups & entrepreneurs associated with IIM ecosystem.


Link to Poster: IP_DrLipika_Poster_24thAug


Creative Commons License
This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Entrepreneurship and IP Part II: Patent strategy and business value

in Sci-IP/SciBiz by

Lipika 2

Innovation is the central issue in economic prosperity” -Michael Porter

There are several challenges for a start-up company, including developing a viable product or service, business development, employee recruitment, business value creation, tackling competition from bigger companies and new entrants, technological advancement and also managing legal and regulatory compliances. Typically start-ups are flooded with recommendations and advice from friends, peers, mentors and investors about business challenges and patent strategy they should follow.

One of the expensive mistakes a start-up entrepreneur can make is messing up their intellectual property right policies.  Irrespective of size of the company, effective and diligent IP portfolio management is vital for any emerging company. Bigger companies have the resources to address IP issues with relative ease, but what about start-up company? Are the filing strategies for start-ups different from that of established enterprises? Should start-ups wait for venture capitalists to fund their patent filings? Should they focus on business development or prioritize patent protection? Should they wait for patent protection till they have conducted enough customer discoveries?

Patent rights are important because they create a legal barrier to competition, important drivers of risk reduction, adding value to business and for raising seed or venture funding by licensing or transferring IP rights. A start-up needs to manage its own IP rights while avoiding the IP rights of others.

According to WIPO, “A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. To get a patent, technical information about the invention must be disclosed to the public in a patent application.”

First thing we need to understand start-ups usually have a tighter budget to address IP issues. In addition, filing strategies differ for start-ups and bigger companies. The key difference is that, the latter have a validated business model, products in the market, qualified customers and established new product development channels. Whereas, the former should validate the actual paying customers who will buy the product or technology within start-up’s business framework. If the start-up cannot validate the actual paying customers for the innovation, then protecting such innovation is expensive waste of time and resource unless there is an actual customer demand for the start-up’s product or technology. The business value from patents should be measured for it to be managed well. Patenting decision should be backed by data. Once they have established that a strong demand exists they must move quickly and ensure a strong IP protection to restrict competitors.

The second most important point for start-ups is to remember that patenting decisions must go hand in hand with business processes, as opposed to being an event or an output of product development process. Patenting decisions should be integrated into business strategy on an ongoing basis. We always let our clients know the viable option to integrate IP strategy in innovation process. Proactive IP strategies can help overcome patenting mistakes.

There are few important things you need to know as a start-up to address patenting issues efficiently and in cost effective manner.

1. Specifying protective IP provisions in employees, contractors, partners and suppliers agreements/contracts:

Start-ups usually start their business with consultants, suppliers, partners, contractors and employees. If these stake holders develop an invention during their working time with the start-ups, the invention will belong to the start-up if IP ownership clause is covered in the agreement/contract. However, the stakeholder will always retain her/his right to be mentioned as inventor. All stakeholders including owner and executive board members should sign agreement and assign all IP rights to the start-up if generated using start-up’s resources.

2. Accountability for IP process

Large companies have an in house IP counsel who has the knowledge of company’s ongoing innovation process and are often in charge of IP protection. However, for start-ups with limited budget, it does not make any sense to hire full time IP counsel. Start-ups could look for training one of company’s managers in IP processes who could be accountable for IP protection. Another viable option for start-ups could have an external IP strategist who could be part of the innovation team and has access to product development pipeline on a part-time basis.

Accountability of IP process ensures that the IP created are adequately protected and unrecoverable errors that open unwelcome competition are minimized. Furthermore, it reinforces that IP creation and protection are aligned with company’s business processes

3. Protecting valuable innovations with patents

It is true that not all companies create patentable invention, and it is also true that patents can be obtained for simple safety pins to complex automobiles.

Sometimes companies decide not to protect innovations with patent filings for various reasons like; cost factors, strength of protection, time factor or wrongly informed etc. At times these are business decisions.

If you don’t protect your invention, and the product becomes successful, competitors may copy your product. Smaller competitor may sell at lower price as they would not have incurred research and development expenditure. Also, larger organization has the advantage of volume and scale; they can compete for a reasonable market price.

Also, chances are there that someone else may patent same or equivalent invention and could legitimately exclude you from manufacturing or may ask you to pay a licensing fee for the use of invention.

However, you may also consider disclosing your invention to the public without patenting it. Then it becomes prior art for all future applications. This is commonly known as defensive publication. In such scenario, no one (including yourself) can file patent for the same invention due to lack of novelty.

4. Patents are territorial

Patents are territorial rights, granted and enforced by national patent office as per the law of that country. At present, there is no “Universal patent” or “World patent”. However, there are few regional patent offices like, “European Patent Office (EPO)” and the “African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)” that accept regional patent application and grant patent for that region.

Again, if you are seeking patent protection in multiple countries, you may consider filing an international application under ‘Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)’. PCT has 148 participating nations; any resident of these nations can initiate a single international patent filing process through PCT. However, the grant and enforcement of patent will be done by national patent office that you will choose.

5. Invention has to be unique universally

Though patents are territorial rights, but the invention has to be unique world wide, in order to be patentable. Before incurring the expense for patent filing, it is highly recommended to conduct a worldwide patent search to identify similar patents, to understand the novelty and inventiveness of the invention.

6. Have cost effective strategies for patent filings

Patent application drafting, filing, prosecution and maintenance can be expensive when you have too many international filings. So it is important to develop good strategies to minimise cost on managing IP assets. Start-ups should work closely with a patent attorney or patent agent and should do some initial work by themselves to save money. They should be actively involved in patenting process and understanding the patent procedures.

7. Patent claim coverage

Patent should provide long term business value and competitive advantage to company. Patent claims should cover more than just the product. It should cover the reason why the customer will buy your product. Patent claims should capture the value of the product. It should cover functional benefits of the product and claims should have sufficient scope to prevent your competition from providing the same value to your customer.


Intellectual property rights, especially patents, help in safeguarding a start-up’s innovation, serve as an indicator for potential VC funding and a guide to discover potential alliance partners.

Innovation to a large extent happens in start-ups, smaller companies, research labs and universities. As company becomes too large, decision-making process becomes slower. Large companies usually do not stay responsive to support a vibrant innovation ecosystem. Most of the times they prefer to buy smaller start-up companies with a thriving innovation process and good IP assets. Without legal ownership of technology, both sides may find it difficult to disclose the invention for the fear of idea or concept being stolen. Therefore, start-ups should have a good patent portfolio to trade with. Patents are tools that can help facilitate a deal with other company that may want part of your right though license or technology transfer. How will you trade the interesting things the other company has to offer if you don’t have anything to trade for?

References: 1, 2, 3

This post is the second in the series of articles on “Entrepreneurship and IP”.

Disclaimer: The materials in the blog are solely for the purposes of informing, assisting and educating the readers and are not in anyway a substitute for professional opinion or advice. They do not constitute legal advice or legal opinion or solicitation.

Dr. Lipika Sahoo, Founder & CEO of Lifeintelect Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., a registered Indian Patent Agent having 16 years of experience in academia and industry. She holds a Ph.D from Indian Institute of Science (IISc). She holds triple masters; MSc from Sambalpur University; PGDIPR from National Law School of India University (NLSIU); PGCBM from Xavier Institute of management (XIMB); and advanced certifications from World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Patents and Patent Drafting. Dr. Lipika is also an inventor and passionate about technology & innovation; likes music, history & architecture. | |


Image source: Google


Creative Commons License
This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Entrepreneurship and IP Part I: Starting up right

in Sci-IP/SciBiz by

“The best way to predict the future is to create it.” – Peter Drucker

Innovation and entrepreneurship are the most common buzz words today. One can clearly see the energy, enthusiasm of young talents raring to plunge into entrepreneurial ventures in Indian start up ecosystems. Whether it is a post doctoral researcher in IISc thinking about starting a company based on a brilliant idea of 3D printing technology or a fresh engineering graduate fuelling his renewable energy project for his start up, or a yoga therapist ready to go global with her brand, all are proficient in their respective fields. It is a privilege to associate with such diverse, creative and brilliant entrepreneurial ventures. While it is important for an entrepreneur to follow her passion, initiative, commitment to the idea and dedication to her venture, it is also equally important to starting up right. Protection of Intellectual property(IP) is a valuable business asset for a start up. Irrespective of nature of business, IP provides both business value and competitive advantage for a company. IP policy should be ingrained by design into company strategies as the business develops. Succeeding in the marketplace with your idea is a journey- a continuous process. You need to think and follow some strategies for successfully building an enterprise. Here is what you need to know while starting your venture if you are new to the business world.

Choosing a business name:

1) Company name and Trademark: Trademark is a mark capable of being represented graphically and is capable of distinguishing your goods or services from others. A mark could be:  Brand (Example: BPL), Device (refers to pictorial representation. Example: CoCa-Cola), Name (Example: TATA), Letter (Example: IBM, GM), Word (Example: LIFEINTELECT, INFOSYS) and so on. Think long and think deep about your business name. A name that will last long because rebranding is expensive and stressful. Choose a name which will embody your values, stand out and communicate your identity to your consumers. You should avoid generic or descriptive phrases as your company name. For example, “Laptop Service”, ‘The Solar Panel” etc. Arbitrary and coined names are considered as stronger mark and are entitled to greater protection. For example, “Yahoo’ for internet service, “Kodak” for camera etc.

2) Company name for Limited Liability Company: If you are planning for Limited Liability Company, you need to check the availability of names with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Registrar of Companies.

3) Your web presence: A company’s website can be a great tool for promoting business. You will need to work with an available web domain and register your company domain name with a web hosting company.

Please note that all these three bodies function independent of each other. So before choosing your company name you need to check the availability of names with all three.

Understand your industry’s best IP practices:

Protecting your intellectual property through patents, trademarks, designs, copyrights, technical know-how and other tactics creates a legal fencing necessary to safeguard your idea, builds a cushion of competitive advantage and helps in fund raising. Despite being expensive, it is necessary to build a strong IP portfolio. And that should be adequately funded and managed well.

Before creating the IP road map for your company, it is imperative to know how your industry deals with intellectual property. For example, in biotechnology, pharmaceutical and telecommunication industry, products stay on the market for decades. That suggests start-ups in these sectors need bulletproof IP and patent protection from the beginning. However, retail industry, consumer device and manufacturing sectors have a shorter product life-cycle. So, the best strategy used by these industries is to file late in the product-development process, and may also benefit from the use of different IP policies such as trade secrets and confidentiality agreements.

Start the IP protection process early:

Whatever may be the IP strategy you follow for your business, you need to understand, plan and execute them from the beginning. If you have a big idea for a product or process, it is always good to know the possible options to protect the idea. Talk to an IP consultant and do some research at an early stage. Believe me, many times it helps a lot in iteration and proof of concept phase, and aid your innovation process. If patenting early is best, search out an IP firm in the beginning. Already years in business but don’t have IP policies to protect your valuable ideas or brand? Get started now. In the present day knowledge economy, IP protection should not be at the bottom of your to-do-list. Additionally know that, for industrial design and patent protection, the subject matter has to be new & novel. So, you need to file for patent protection or design registration before making any public disclosure.


Every business is different and every industry requirements are different. So an IP strategy of a company depends on technology, funding, consumer base, product life cycle and stages of company. Success in market place depends on several factors, and if you don’t plan for success from the beginning you are almost certainly planning to fail. You should have immediate, short-term, intermediate and long-term strategies for IP protection and innovation.

References: 1, 2, 3

— Lipika Sahoo


–This post is the first in an upcoming series of articles on “Entrepreneurship and IP”.–

Disclaimer: The materials in the blog are solely for the purposes of informing, assisting and educating the readers and are not in anyway a substitute for professional opinion or advice. They do not constitute legal advice or legal opinion or solicitation.

Dr. Lipika Sahoo, Founder & CEO of Lifeintelect Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., a registered Indian Patent Agent having 16 years of experience in academia and industry. She holds a Ph.D from Indian Institute of Science (IISc). She holds triple masters; MSc from Sambalpur University; PGDIPR from National Law School of India University (NLSIU); PGCBM from Xavier Institute of management (XIMB); and advanced certifications from World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Patents and Patent Drafting. Dr. Lipika is also an inventor and passionate about technology & innovation; likes music, history & architecture.||


(image source:


Creative Commons License
This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Entrepreneurship Experience in Bangalore

in Entrepreneurship/Face à Face/SciBiz by


I have been asked to put down my experience of starting and running a business in Bangalore. All of us have lived in Bangalore for at least 2 years inside the IISc campus. Our view of Bangalore is heavily skewed by our experience at IISc. My view of Bangalore was that it is a very settled, slow moving, high-tech and amazingly green city.

I graduated from IISc in December 2008 and returned to Bangalore only in January 2015. This time I was in a different part of Bangalore, the startup region – south Bangalore. I was pleasantly surprised to see the speed of development here. Everywhere you go, you will find boards of companies hanging over houses, buildings and shops, new buildings being constructed to house more and more companies. No street is left untouched by the startup buzz.

We started our company at a coworking space. The concept of cowork space is pretty amazing as it gives you a feel of office without being too hard on your budget. Most companies are bootstrapped at least in the initial period of their existence, our case was no different. Companies providing cowork spaces most often convert big houses into workspaces, where they charge you per seat (~5k) and also provide you with a registered address for your company. You can also get a dedicated room or cabin for your team at a slightly higher cost per month.

Being in a cowork space you get to interact with other startups and participate in their journey. I will often see a 3 member founders team suddenly getting a lot of funding and increasing their team to 30-40 in a matter of a week and then moving out of the coworking space. Others will remain stable and work on their product. Some will stop coming as their startups were not going anywhere.

Our company is now 1 year old, unofficially (0.5 years, officially). We are now incubated at IISc. Instead of putting everything in one post, what I have decided is to write to you in intervals as I go through more experiences.


Neha Satak Astrome Tech


Astrome Technologies (
(An Indian Space Technology Company)




Creative Commons License
This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The mantra is…………..Innovation

in SciBiz by



I believe there would be a general agreement on the fact that companies in today’s world need to innovate to survive. However, the conundrum is how much of the company’s revenue (small/medium enterprises) or initial funds (as for start-ups) be focused on the research activity?


Let us take examples of two types of business models (we would only consider biotech/life science industry). First is the ‘service’ model where the companies provide technological services for fee. These might range from providing protein purification services to next generation sequencing. The companies rely on their expertise and promote their cause by trying to give the best services. Since many of the companies utilize an already known technology they focus on giving their clients the best technological support and in due course would expect good ‘word of mouth’ publicity for the company to promote its services. The better companies which survive for the longest duration however are also focused on improving the ‘in –use’ technologies to sharpen their service portfolio. This is crucial as the subtle improvements can bring in new clients and can also cater better to the existing client base. One general question can be since these companies utilize instruments or reagents from established players (Illumina, Agilent etc.) why should the service provider invest money to innovate? Surely the instrument manufacturers are doing their bit and the service providers can acquire the technology from them! So why not completely focus on marketing and spend little on ‘in-house’ research? Well, research does not always mean big ticket breakthroughs! Even subtle changes for example, in the protocol of a particular assay can bring in great benefits both in terms of economic advantage as well as technological advancement. Second is that newer methods can provide a valuable feedback to the instrument manufacturers and therefore the possibility of partnership increases. This gives a huge fillip to the ‘brand value’ of the service provider. Hence one cannot completely shut innovation even in service based business models.


Let us now look at the ‘product’ based business model (again in the realms of life science industry). I guess there is no denying the fact that for product based life science organizations ranging from companies delivering ‘bioinformatics suite’ to companies selling enzymes, innovation has to take the primary seat. Newer and better products are the keys to survival!


But having known these facts how many SMEs (Small medium enterprises) really focus on innovation? Many companies think that money spent on R&D is not worth it especially in the life science sector as there is a long incubation period and higher failure rates. But then investing in research is like buying insurance. Not only the companies need to invest but invest in the right idea and people to continue surviving in this fast paced era!







About the author: Dr Debojyoti Dhar, PhD (Indian Institute of Science, IISc) has over 10 years experience in academic and industry ‘research and development’ (R&D) activities along with strong multi domain knowledge in pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. He has worked extensively on translational control of gene regulation during his PhD (Indian Institute of Science, IISc) and post doctoral research (UMass Medical School, USA).

Dr Dhar has also worked on diabetes and metabolic syndrome at Connexios Life sciences, a drug discovery company based in India. He has held leadership positions in various companies with roles in R&D, Business Development, Corporate Communications and Consultancy and has thorough knowledge on new cutting edge technologies in the bio-science space. An avid reader with keen interest in quantum physics and holistic medicine, Dr Dhar writes a blog on disease, research and its impact on society and life science industry in general ( Dr Dhar has to his credit various publications in top-tiered peer reviewed journals and has attended and presented lectures at many conferences and Institutes.

At present, Dr Dhar is Director at Leucine Rich Bio Pvt Ltd., a bioinformatics driven organization. He takes care of the business development, corporate communications activities apart from spearheading innovation and general management of the organization.

Creative Commons License
This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Go to Top
%d bloggers like this: