A swarm of top biotech ex­ecs protest against Trump’s trav­el ban, say­ing it threat­ens the en­tire in­dus­try

The re­ac­tion against Pres­i­dent Trump’s de­ci­sion to ban trav­el from 7 pre­dom­i­nant­ly Mus­lim na­tions drew an in­stant re­ac­tion from the biotech world, gain­ing a quick thumbs-down from a large ma­jor­i­ty of the hun­dreds of in­dus­try ex­ec­u­tives we’ve been in touch with.

Now the biotech op­po­si­tion is get­ting or­ga­nized.

In a let­ter pub­lished in Na­ture Biotech­nol­o­gy this morn­ing, 166 biotech ex­ecs lev­eled a blast at Trump’s trav­el ban, now stayed at least tem­porar­i­ly by a court rul­ing, say­ing that it strikes at the heart of the in­dus­try’s abil­i­ty to re­cruit the best and bright­est staff from all over the world while rais­ing deep seat­ed fears among all their staffers from out­side the US.

The let­ter was signed by a long line­up of high-pro­file ex­ec­u­tives drawn from the CEO suite, ven­ture cap­i­tal and acad­e­mia, in­clud­ing Herve Hop­penot, the French CEO of Delaware-based In­cyte, George Scan­gos, the for­mer Bio­gen CEO who’s now lead­ing a start­up, and MIT’s Bob Langer, a se­r­i­al biotech en­tre­pre­neur with more than 30 star­tups to his cred­it.

“If this mis­guid­ed pol­i­cy is not re­versed,” they say, “Amer­i­ca is at risk of los­ing its lead­er­ship po­si­tion in one of its most im­por­tant sec­tors, one that will shape the world in the twen­ty-first cen­tu­ry.”

The let­ter un­der­scores the groundswell of op­po­si­tion in the in­dus­try to the ban. It al­so high­lights a grow­ing di­vide be­tween the ex­ec­u­tives who lead this field and BIO, the in­dus­try or­ga­ni­za­tion which lob­bies on their be­half. So far BIO has stayed mum about the trav­el ban.

(Ed­i­tor’s note: Late on Tues­day I re­ceived the fol­low­ing state­ment from BIO Chair Ron Co­hen and three board mem­bers, Je­re­my Levin, John Maraganore and Paul Hast­ings, tak­ing ex­cep­tion to that re­mark about BIO.

“We did want to high­light an in­ac­cu­ra­cy in your re­port re­gard­ing spec­u­la­tion that the let­ter re­flects a “grow­ing rift” be­tween BIO and its CEO and com­pa­ny mem­bers. There is no such rift, grow­ing or oth­er­wise; we are choos­ing to speak out on the ban as in­dus­try lead­ers, not as a trade as­so­ci­a­tion. This is not dis­sim­i­lar to how tech in­dus­try CEOs, not their trade as­so­ci­a­tion, have spo­ken out on this mat­ter. In­deed, we be­lieve that BIO is an es­sen­tial or­ga­ni­za­tion for the well-be­ing of our in­dus­try, which is why we all de­vote con­sid­er­able time out of our busy sched­ules to its ac­tiv­i­ties.”

My re­ply: Si­lence is a po­si­tion, and it’s marked­ly dif­fer­ent from what ex­ecs, in­clud­ing these board mem­bers, have ex­pressed.)

Most of the top CEOs of the Big Phar­ma com­pa­nies, many of whom have been lob­by­ing for tax re­form that would al­low them to repa­tri­ate bil­lions of dol­lars in re­serves held over­seas, have al­so stayed qui­et on this is­sue. But there was at least one ex­cep­tion to the Big Phar­ma rule of si­lence — aside from Al­ler­gan CEO Brent Saun­ders.

“Sci­ence doesn’t have any bor­ders, so any­thing that gets in the way of a bor­der­less sci­ence ex­change doesn’t help,” said As­traZeneca CEO Pas­cal So­ri­ot, quot­ed to­day by Bloomberg. The UK-based phar­ma gi­ant has re­search and man­u­fac­tur­ing sites in Mass­a­chu­setts and Mary­land. “We want to be able to move our peo­ple and our sci­en­tists around the world.”

The Bloomberg sto­ry al­so rais­es con­cerns that the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion’s fo­cus on the H-1B visa pro­gram used to bring in sci­en­tists from around the world could be al­tered, mak­ing it hard­er to re­cruit abroad.

Here’s a por­tion of the let­ter:

The Unit­ed States has led the world in med­i­cine pro­duc­tion for decades, not on­ly be­cause of its abil­i­ty to fi­nance drug dis­cov­ery, but al­so be­cause, more than any oth­er coun­try, the Unit­ed States rep­re­sents op­por­tu­ni­ty re­gard­less of bor­ders, gen­der, race, sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion or po­lit­i­cal cast. This has en­abled our in­dus­try to at­tract the best tal­ent, wher­ev­er it is found. This as­pect of our in­dus­try is a core rea­son the Unit­ed States has built its unique strength in bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals.

At a stroke, the new ad­min­is­tra­tion has com­pro­mised years of in­vest­ment in this na­tion­al trea­sure. Our col­leagues who are here on visas or are in glob­al out­posts are now fear­ful and un­cer­tain of their sta­tus. Sci­en­tists based in oth­er coun­tries and em­ployed by our com­pa­nies are afraid to come to the Unit­ed States or are can­cel­ing trips. The par­ents and fam­i­lies of im­mi­grants who live and work in the Unit­ed States are re­luc­tant to at­tempt to trav­el to and from the US.

Though the ban from the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion is aimed at sev­en coun­tries, our glob­al em­ploy­ees in­ter­pret the un­der­ly­ing mes­sage as, “Amer­i­ca is no longer wel­com­ing of any im­mi­grants, what­so­ev­er.” They fear sim­i­lar or­ders could be is­sued for oth­er coun­tries at a mo­ment’s no­tice. They fear be­ing stig­ma­tized and dis­crim­i­nat­ed against, sim­ply be­cause of their re­li­gion, ir­re­spec­tive of the na­tion they come from. Sev­er­al among us have heard from em­ploy­ees about their de­por­ta­tion fears, how they do not feel com­fort­able leav­ing the coun­try on busi­ness or how they now feel cut off from their fam­i­ly abroad.

Every na­tion has the right to de­ter­mine who comes across its bor­ders. Every na­tion needs to be vig­i­lant in de­fend­ing it­self against and hunt­ing down ter­ror­ists. The ac­tions tak­en by the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion, how­ev­er, were poor­ly con­ceived and im­ple­ment­ed; they have raised deep fears and con­cerns across the biotech in­dus­try, in which di­ver­si­ty and the free flow of ideas and peo­ple have cre­at­ed an Amer­i­can pow­er­house of med­i­cine. 

If this mis­guid­ed pol­i­cy is not re­versed, Amer­i­ca is at risk of los­ing its lead­er­ship po­si­tion in one of its most im­por­tant sec­tors, one that will shape the world in the twen­ty-first cen­tu­ry. In­deed, it will harm an in­dus­try dom­i­nat­ed by small­er com­pa­nies and star­tups, the very kind of in­dus­try the ad­min­is­tra­tion has said it wants to sup­port. It will slow the fight against the many dis­eases that af­flict us, as well as car­ry neg­a­tive eco­nom­ic con­se­quences for the Unit­ed States.

You can find a PDF with the list of ex­ec­u­tives who signed the let­ter here: Im­mi­gra­tion Let­ter Sig­na­tures

Com­mu­ni­cat­ing the val­ue of pre­ci­sion med­i­cine

By Natasha Cowan, Content Marketing Manager at Blue Latitude Health.
Many stakeholders are confused by novel precision medicines, including patients and healthcare professionals. So, how can industry help them to navigate this complexity?

Precision medicine represents a new paradigm in healthcare. It embodies the shift from treating many patients with the same therapy, to having the tools to identify the best treatment for every patient.

Spe­cial re­port: Twen­ty ex­tra­or­di­nary women in bio­phar­ma R&D who worked their way to the top

What differentiates a woman leader in biopharma R&D from a man?

Not much, except there are fewer of them in senior posts. Data suggest women are not more risk-averse, family-oriented or less confident than their male counterparts — indeed the differences between the two sexes are negligible. But a glance at the top R&D positions in Big Pharma leaves little doubt that upward migration in the executive ranks of biopharma R&D is tough.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

GSK's asth­ma bi­o­log­ic Nu­cala scores in rare blood dis­or­der study

GlaxoSmithKline’s asthma drug Nucala, which received a resounding FDA rejection for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) last year, has shown promise in a rare blood disorder.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Mer­ck buys a fledg­ling neu­rode­gen­er­a­tive biotech spawned by an old GSK dis­cov­ery al­liance. What’s up with that?

Avalon Ventures chief Jay Lichter has a well-known yen for drug development programs picked up in academia. And what he found in Haoxing Xu’s lab at the University of Michigan pricked his interest enough to launch one of his umbrella biotechs in San Diego.
Xu’s work laid the foundation for Avalon to launch Calporta, which has been working on finding small molecule agonists of TRPML1 (transient receptor potential cation channel, mucolipin subfamily, member 1) for lysosomal storage disorders. And that pathway, they believe, points to new approaches on major market neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s, ALS and Alzheimer’s.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA slaps a hold on an AML tri­al as Mark­er scraps a fail­ing ovar­i­an can­cer pro­gram, sink­ing shares

The FDA has placed a hold on a Phase II AML trial from the small immuno-oncology biotech Marker Therapeutics. Marker disclosed the issue two weeks after responding to FDA concerns, adding it to the Q3 release Tuesday. The company also announced it was scrapping a Phase II ovarian cancer program it determined was unlikely to succeed.

The agency’s concern centers around two reagents used in manufacturing for their trial for acute myeloid leukemia patients who have received a stem cell transplant. The reagents are from third parties and not present in the final product, Marker said.

Eli Lil­ly-backed biotech grabs $100M to dis­patch an­ti­body-oligonu­cleotide con­ju­gates af­ter mus­cu­lar dy­s­tro­phy

Hold up your hand. Make a fist. Now open it. And again.

If you can do it fully and with ease, then the proteins in your hand are likely working properly. If you can’t then they may not be. In people with myotonic muscular dystrophy, something more atomic is going on.

In those folks, the problem is RNA. Certain base pairs repeat far beyond normal, up to 11,000 superfluous letters in some cases. The extended strands form “clumps.” Proteins misform and can’t function properly. They often allow one movement but not the reverse, a condition called myotonia that gives the dystrophy its name.

As­traZeneca sets stage for mar­ket­ing ap­pli­ca­tion with promis­ing piv­otal lu­pus drug da­ta

After fumbling in its first late-stage lupus study, AstraZeneca disclosed that a second pivotal trial testing its experimental drug, anifrolumab, had met the main goal, in August. Earlier this week, the British drugmaker broke out the numbers from its successful study.

Last year, anifrolumab failed to meet the main goal of diminishing disease activity in the 460-patient TULIP I study, a 52-week trial that tested two doses of the drug versus a placebo. But in the 373-patient TULIP II study, the higher dose (300 mg) was compared to patients given a placebo — patients in both arms were on baseline standard care.

FDA Vas­cepa re­view spot­lights new safe­ty sig­nals, pos­si­ble min­er­al oil spoil­er as Amarin hunts a block­buster ap­proval

An in-house FDA review of Amarin’s Vascepa raises a set of hurdles the biotech will have to clear if the biotech expects to get the long-awaited FDA approval that could set it on a path to superstar status. But it appears that Amarin has survived another potential setback without introducing a major new threat to its prospects.

The stakes don’t get much higher, with analysts saying a win this week for Amarin could lead to billions in new sales — provided the agency stamps it with an OK. And investors liked what they say in the FDA review this morning, bumping the stock $AMRN 17%.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA puts Sol­id Bio’s lead gene ther­a­py pro­gram on hold — again — af­ter an­oth­er pa­tient is hurt by SGT-001

Solid Biosciences continues to be plagued by safety issues.

Close to 18 months after the gene therapy biotech was able to quickly shed an FDA hold on their lead Duchenne muscular dystrophy program for SGT-001, regulators have stepped back in to force another halt after another patient was hit hard by a set of serious adverse events remarkably similar to the first set.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.