IN a sector where investors must rely on the flow of news rather than profits, the uncertainty surrounding developments at British Biotech will do nothing to help the industry shake off the spectre of a disastrous 1997 stock market performance.
The man at British Biotech's helm for the last 12 years - its founder Keith McCullagh - has abandoned ship, and it is difficult to imagine that anyone would be eager to fill the void left by his departure.
The Oxford-based company also appears prepared to drop plans of becoming a fully-integrated drugs company with its own sales staff. It will instead cut its workforce by 14% and institute other savings designed to avoid a trip to the market for further external funding.
British Biotech will seek a US partner to help market cancer treatment Marimastat, and is toying with the idea of striking a similar deal for pancreatitis treatment Zacutex. Both drugs are in phase III trials, and so are the company's most advanced products.
If the UK's biotech flagship follows through with this plan, it can expect to collect only 10% to 20% of future Marimastat sales. And it could be at the lower end of this range, given the company's severely weakened negotiating position.
If the marketing of Zacutex is also farmed out, the royalties collected on its sales will similarly drop.
Of even more concern is the biotech firm's pipeline of research and development projects, which is feeble compared to those of stablemates such as Coretecs and Celltech.
British Biotech has no products in phase II trials, where half of all compounds fail because they are found to be ineffective, uneconomic or have serious unforeseen side-effects.
Although long-term value is where the bulk of all biotechnology and pharmaceutical worth resides, it would appear that British Biotech investors will have to be more patient than most. Whether or not this faltering by the UK's original biotech star portends another disastrous year for the sector remains to be seen.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article