Search results

Biotech companies stand as key actors in pharmaceutical innovation. The high risk and long timelines inherent with their R&D investments might hinder their access to funding, potentially stifling innovation. This study aims to explore into the appeal of biotech companies to capital market investors, whose financial backing could bolster the growth of the biotechnology sector.

This paper uses a dataset of 774 US publicly listed biotech firms to investigate their risk and return characteristics by comparing them to pharmaceutical firms and a sample of matched non-biotech R&D-intensive firms over the sample period 1980–2021. Tests show that the conclusions remain consistent across diverse methodological approaches.

The paper shows that biotech companies are riskier than the average firm in the market index but outperform on a risk-adjusted basis both the market and a matched group of R&D-intensive firms. This is particularly true for large capitalization biotech, which is also shown to provide a diversification benefit by reducing the downside risk in past crisis periods.

This paper provides insight relevant to the current debate about the overall performance of the biotech industry in terms of policy changes and their impact on small, early-stage biotech firms. While small and early-stage biotech firms are playing an increasing role in scientific innovation, this study confirms their greater vulnerability to financial risks and the importance of access to capital markets in enabling those companies to survive and evolve into larger biotech.

Amidst continued calls for the democratization of access to higher education for historically underrepresented populations alongside the first global health crisis in a century lies the opportunity to address persistent societal needs: increasing access for underrepresented minority students to educational pathways that lead to careers in lucrative fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM).

Student participants enrolled in the biotechnology pathway Associates, Bachelors and Masters programs share programmatic experience in an accelerated biotechnology program through a bi-annual survey grounded in the central tenets of social-cognitive career theory aimed at understanding requisite academic, social and financial support for student success.

The pathway program described in this paper emerged to address the need to support underrepresented students in degree attainment and taking on roles in the growing field of biotechnology through a novel, multi-degree, multi-institutional pathway to STEM degree attainment and career success.

This work has advanced understanding about how to effectively align higher education institutions with each other and with evolving STEM labor market demands while documenting the impact of essential academic, career and social supports recognized in the literature as high impact practices in broadening participation and increasing retention of underrepresented minority students in lucrative STEM careers.

Pathway programs which best support student success include robust mentoring, experiential learning and robust student scholarship support, part of the design of this unique pathway program. The authors share how this program utilizes high impact practices to provide low-income, underrepresented minority students with supportive, accelerated biotechnology degrees in preparation for success in the job market. What's more, of all our BS-level graduates thus far, 100% are employed and 93% within the biotechnology field. For many, the opportunity to raise their family out of poverty via a stable, high paying job is directly tied to their successes within this program.

The Internet is rapidly changing the way in which information is displayed and accessed on a global level. Taking into consideration the new communication opportunities offered on line, businesses will be forced to alter both their internal and external communication strategies, and be prepared to flow with the changes. One of the sectors that can benefit from the global expansion of Internet communications is biotechnology. In order to understand the on‐line corporate communication model used by biotechnology companies, the Internet sites of 600 firms were accessed and analysed. The data presented highlight the type of on‐line messages, their function (marketing or PR oriented), the targeted audiences, and the level of on‐line interaction provided by the company’s site. Finally, the interpretation of results concludes with an integrated on‐line communication model for biotechnology companies.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the potential of agri-biotech to play a role in meeting the world’s food, feed, fiber and fuel needs. Using case studies, policy developments in the key Asian countries of China, India and Japan are also scrutinized to determine the extent to which they enable or obstruct biotech’s potential.

The authors first examine some key challenges facing the agriculture and agri-food sector and the potential role biotech can play in addressing them. These challenges include feeding the world’s growing population, improving nutrition worldwide, dealing with allergen risks, reducing nutrient and chemical loading in watersheds, addressing water scarcity issues, and reducing waste in the food system. The authors then turn their attention to the agri-biotech systems in three Asian giants, including China’s centralized governance approach, India’s central-local policy and regulations, and Japan’s pragmatic and evidence-based regulatory framework.

Each nation has evolved its own system of governance based on the different challenges facing the society, the recognized potential of different biotech interventions, and citizens’ collective perceptions regarding both the potential and the risks that biotech innovations embody. Systems that are less evidence-based appear to be more discretionary and therefore are less predictable in their outcomes. This increases risks to prospective exporting firms and importing firms, driving up system costs and effectively serving as barriers to entry and to trade. It also dampens and distorts entrepreneurial and innovation incentives.

From the review and observations the authors then discuss ways and means of establishing priorities through a risk assessment framework in which key risks are enumerated and assessed in terms of their likelihoods and their conceivable consequences. Such an approach would allow challenges to be met with a degree of foresight and adaptability.

The sometimes disjointed, sometimes strategic use of biotech regulations have fragmented markets and created fiefdoms which undermine the potential of novel technologies to address the challenges facing society.

For illustrative purposes, the authors touch on land and water governance, regulatory and institutional bottlenecks and reforms and the potential for agri-biotech to play an elevated role if vested interests and obstructions can be overcome.

This study draws on research and literature from several disciplines. It also includes discussions relating to bureaucratic and administrative behavior which erodes the extent to which markets can be contested. This results in balkanized markets and non-cooperative behavior that undermines and distorts incentives for entrepreneurial effort and innovation. That such behavior takes place in markets and disciplines that are fundamental to assuring food security, nutrition and health, as well as good governance of scarce water and land resources is of considerable concern.

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether biotechnology and health-care firms in Australia have poorer continuous disclosure (CD) practices as reflected in Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) queries relative to other firms.

Univariate tests and multivariate logit regressions are used to examine whether the frequency and nature of ASX queries and firms’ replies to price queries differ between biotechnology/health-care firms and the control firms.

Results suggest that biotechnology/health-care firms are more likely to receive volume queries and ASX Listing Rule 4.10 queries. They are also more likely to respond to price queries with new information relative to the control firms. However, biotechnology/health-care firms do not otherwise have statistically significantly different CD practice compared to the control firms, as reflected by the frequency and attributes of various types of ASX queries and by the way firms reply to price queries.

Evidence from this study can help evaluate the adequacy and enforcement of CD requirements and the need for further improvement. Investors can also use the evidence to better understand the information risks associated with investment in the biotechnology/health-care industry.

Prior research has not used multivariate methods to examine biotechnology/health-care firms’ CD practice in Australia or to examine accounting determinants of different types of ASX queries and firms’ responses to price queries.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the adoption of the open innovation paradigm in the bio‐pharmaceutical industry and investigate through which organisational modes (e.g. collaborations, in‐ and out‐licensing) open innovation has been implemented and how these modes are interwoven with the different phases of the drug discovery and development process. Open innovation is currently one of the most debated issues in management literature. Few contributions, however, have paid attention so far to systematically and longitudinally addressing the adoption of open innovation in a specific industry.

A two‐step research strategy has been adopted. First, a panel study of top industry representatives was organised to operationalise the concept of organisational modes of open innovation in the bio‐pharmaceutical industry. Second, the open innovation modes used by the first 20 pharmaceutical biotech firms worldwide have been documented over the period 2000‐2005 in the various phases of the drug discovery and development process.

A framework of analysis, establishing the relations between open innovation modes and the phases of the drug discovery and development process, has been developed and assessed in the industry, allowing the determinants of adoption of different modes and their managerial implications to be discussed and to relate them to the peculiarities of the biotech industry.

The paper contributes to the ongoing debate on open innovation by representing one of the first attempts to systematically and longitudinally assess the extent and particularly the determinants of the adoption of open innovation in a specific industry.

Sixty quota‐sampled consumers were interviewed regarding their knowledge about biotechnology, their perceptions of risks and benefits resulting from the application of the technology, and related ethical concerns arising from the technology. Comparisons were made between food‐related and other applications. The effect of information on responses to focused questions about biotechnology was examined. Analysis of interview data indicated that knowledge of the new biotechnology was very low, particularly with respect to food and agricultural applications. Both risks and benefits were seen as applying more to other people and society than the self. The provision of information about biotechnology appeared to increase perceptions of potential benefits, but not reduce perceptions of risk. It was concluded that public knowledge of the new biotechnology remains uncrystallized (particularly with respect to food and agricultural applications) and opinions are likely to be formed via whatever public information becomes available.

The biotechnology sector provides business‐to‐business service and continuous innovation is an imperative for biotechnology organisations in order to survive. The aim of this paper is to outline the elements in Estonian biotechnology organisations that inhibit them from becoming more innovative, and based on that, suggest how managers can increase their organisational innovativeness (OI).

The study is based on single‐respondent structured interviews that were carried out in 15 biotechnology organisations in Estonia. The questions were divided into five categories: strategic orientation to innovation, processes related to resource allocation, processes related to work organisation, behaviour related to innovation initiation and behaviour related to innovation implementation. For each category OI the score was calculated and analysed.

The study hypothesised that OI is about half of its potential and the lowest scores were expected to emerge in the resource allocation to innovation and processes related to work organisation categories. The authors found that OI was higher than expected among the study sample and the only resource allocation score was significantly lower than the scores of other categories. Surprisingly, the score of strategic orientation to innovation was the next lowest after resource allocation.

The results imply that Estonian biotechnology organisations could increase their innovativeness by better integrating innovation into their formal strategy and rewarding employees for innovative ideas. Also, specific aspects in other categories are elevated (rotating employees across functions/regions, introducing development discussions, etc.) that would enhance OI.

The originality of the paper lies in its profound overview of recent literature on OI, and the development of an interview questionnaire that covers a range of relevant issues assumed to support innovation.

The potential of biotechnology to cure disease and feed the Third World has not eased public disquiet about its safety. In the rush to commercialization, can lessons be learnt from the introduction of nuclear power a generation ago? While France’s nuclear programme stayed on track, America’s was derailed by accidents and corporate secrecy. So is an industry under state control safer than one in private hands? And in the absence of clear evidence about the long‐term effects of genetic manipulation, how can we design a consultation process that addresses public concerns?

Emerging biotechnology firms rely on a network of socio‐economic partnerships that can be classified as “interimistic” or close, collaborative but relatively short‐lived. Few studies have assessed the importance of relational governance to the performance of these partnerships. The purposes of this research were to determine the effect of relational governance on the performance of financial partnerships and to compare biotechnology manager assessments of their financial and non‐financial partnerships.

Interviews were conducted with managers of emerging biotechnology companies and lead investors in Canada, France and Germany. Relational governance was assessed by relational norms such as flexibility, information sharing, solidarity and fairness. Performance was assessed by overall effectiveness and partnership benefits. First, the contribution of relational governance to partnership effectiveness and benefits was examined. Second, for the financial partnerships, the perceptions of both biotech managers and lead investors were compared. Third, the biotech manager perceptions of their financial and non‐financial partnerships were compared.

Relational governance is positively associated with performance. Communication (information sharing) was most predictive of partnership performance. Biotech managers view their financial partnerships as being less relational than do their lead investors. Also, biotech managers view their financial partnerships to be less relational than those with their non‐financial partners.

The findings extend our knowledge of the positive influence of relational governance from longer lasting exchanges to “interimistic” technology partnerships. The communication of pertinent and timely information is particularly relevant for both biotech managers and lead investors and can allay fears of opportunistic behaviour and develop trust and commitment.