Ryan Posey
From Cyberlaw
March 6
Last Thursday, we did some negotiation for tonight's class. There was so much to negotiate, we decided just to focus on the BIOTECH model agreement and hammer out the really contentious details. Here is what we came up with:
I was on the Biotech side. Because time ran out, we only discussed the Biotech proposed agreement and not the Harvard model license. I think that would have taken much longer.
February 14
Rposey 11:24, 14 February 2006 (EST)
I came upon this seemingly little-cited article the other day Has BYU Prof Found Aids Cure? This seems like enormous news, if true. Interestingly, the stock of the little company (Ceragenix) that funded the research has skyrocketed to $4.65, formerly languishing as an delisted penny stock. Yahoo! is even now tracking it since the news emerged.
(I found it via digg.com, one of my new favorite websites -- an interesting expression of the collaborative and community space on the internet).
- Nesson here: Please follow up on this. What better introduction could we have the legal tension Dagi mentioned between research publication and dangers of securities fraud.
- Ceragenins are highly cool compounds, structurally (who says there's no "good" cholesterol!) They kick the crap out of viruses, bacteria, fungi, etc. BYU's study is an in vitro study; the drug prevents extracellular HIV from entering target lymphocytes. But most HIV "burden" is intracellular (cells already infected). So if workable in vivo, this would probably treat/place into remission HIV/AIDS but wouldn't cure it, unless it wipes out infected lymphocytes as well. I would say that if investors don't know the difference (and risk) of equating in vitro success with in vivo success, there's a big problem in "informed investing." But should that difference be up to the investor to delineate, or should a company tell them that in a prospectus?Doc 17:48, 14 February 2006 (EST)
February 13
Rposey 11:24, 14 February 2006 (EST)
What happened in class today?
We had a discussion about the role of politics in biotechnology. Do the ethical and moral concerns necessarily implicate political concerns? Is it possible, necessary, or useful to separate these concerns?
I wonder what would be the best method for ensuring that the most valuable and useful research is carried out. Who could decide? Academics? Politicians? Industry? Consumers? I would imagine that academics and doctors have the most direct knowledge of what can be achieved/studied and what will benefit society. Does the current model (cutting/restricting/directing NIH funding) give too much power to whichever administration is in power? Does the “industry-funded” biotech R&D lead to minor, repetitive, “me-too” treatments instead of focusing on cures or revolutionary treatments? How could we imagine a nationally coordinated regime of scientific funding and political/moral involvement?
We had a presentation on the drug discovery/business process from Theo Dagi. Biotech companies “want to be pharma companies down the road.” The goal of a biotech company is that it will create drugs, treatments, or therapies to benefit humanity and make a ton of cash. Investors are concerned about the “pipeline.”
