Bio­phar­ma ex­ecs give Scott Got­tlieb’s nom­i­na­tion for FDA com­mish (al­most) a stand­ing O in End­points poll

A big ma­jor­i­ty of bio­phar­ma ex­ec­u­tives over­all are clear­ly en­thu­si­as­tic about Pres­i­dent Trump’s de­ci­sion to nom­i­nate Scott Got­tlieb as the next FDA com­mis­sion­er.

In our snap poll over the week­end Got­tlieb picked up 87% sup­port among the 580 qual­i­fied sub­scribers who vot­ed on the de­ci­sion, with 504 ap­prov­ing the choice against 76 who large­ly hat­ed it.

Keep in mind, so far the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion has earned a sol­id neg­a­tive rat­ing in the drug de­vel­op­ment busi­ness as ex­ecs in over­whelm­ing­ly De­mo­c­ra­t­ic re­gions reg­is­tered their dis­dain for his trav­el ban, re­ject­ed the no­tion of gut­ting reg­u­la­tions and ex­pressed fears that a new ap­proach on H-1B visas could make it much hard­er to re­cruit top tal­ent from be­yond US bor­ders. Got­tlieb, though, looks like a breath of fresh air in an in­dus­try that’s been feel­ing bad­ly choked in Wash­ing­ton, DC for the past two months.

“Ab­solute­ly!” cheered Al­ny­lam CEO John Maraganore when he was asked whether he ap­proved of the nom­i­na­tion. “First good thing Trump has done.”

The full spec­trum of pro-Got­tlieb sen­ti­ment ran the gamut from what could be de­scribed as the best of a bad lot to a big thumb’s up for a physi­cian who has ex­pe­ri­ence at the FDA and a deep un­der­stand­ing of the de­vel­op­ment and re­view process, which he will now push in­to high gear.

You could prac­ti­cal­ly hear the sigh of re­lief that fol­lowed deep-seat­ed fears that Trump might choose a Lib­er­tar­i­an like Jim O’Neill, who has sound­ed ready to drop the bar on new ap­provals about as low as it can get.

“I think it is a re­lief that Got­tlieb is ex­pe­ri­enced in reg­u­la­to­ry mat­ters and at the FDA, un­der­stands that a strong FDA is the best way to get med­i­cines to pa­tients and al­so sup­ports us­ing the best new sci­ence to im­prove the FDA’s ap­proval process,” said Basil Dahiy­at, the CEO of an­ti­body en­gi­neer­ing com­pa­ny Xen­cor. “Ra­tio­nal and rig­or­ous physi­cians and doc­tors who want to try new ideas are what in­dus­try needs at the FDA. Ap­point­ing some­body who wants to make the FDA bet­ter, rather than im­pose to­tal­ly un­found­ed ide­ol­o­gy to gut good reg­u­la­tion like some of the oth­er can­di­dates float­ed, is promis­ing.  Strange days in­deed that the al­ter­na­tive was even re­al­ly con­sid­ered.”

“Un­der­stands agency and in­dus­try needs,” not­ed one re­sponse. “The one ra­tio­nal choice amongst the can­di­dates men­tioned.”

A few oth­er com­ments from the pro-Got­tlieb side:

“He seems like a rea­son­able can­di­date, will­ing to lis­ten, and I see his ties to in­dus­try as a ben­e­fit, in terms of his un­der­stand­ing of the busi­ness.”

“He’s ex­pe­ri­enced and will bring a thought­ful ap­proach to the com­plex chal­lenges of run­ning FDA. This is not a job for a light­weight.”

Steve Holtz­man, the CEO of Deci­bel Ther­a­peu­tics, put it this way:

“While I am in many, many ways ide­o­log­i­cal­ly at the oth­er end of the spec­trum from Scott, I sup­port his ap­point­ment. He be­lieves in sci­ence-based reg­u­la­tion–ad­dress­ing BOTH ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty–and em­braces sci­en­tif­ic ad­vances that can, with good jus­ti­fi­ca­tion and with­out im­per­il­ing pa­tients, make clin­i­cal tri­als more ef­fi­cient. I al­so think that con­cerns about con­flict of in­ter­est, be­cause of his work with the bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try, are ill-found­ed. The blan­ket ap­pli­ca­tion of this type of log­ic leads to calls to ex­clude from FDA Ad­vi­so­ry Pan­els those most qual­i­fied be­cause those same in­di­vid­u­als, for the very same rea­son of their ex­per­tise, are sought by in­dus­try as ad­vi­sors. –While no doubt true that many will sell their souls and rep­u­ta­tions for a buck, it is al­so the case that such an ac­cu­sa­tion, made against a spe­cif­ic in­di­vid­ual with­out any ev­i­dence, can tell us more about the ac­cuser than the ac­cused.”

An­oth­er sim­ply said: “Pro-in­dus­try” in giv­ing a thumb’s up.

But you could find the ex­act same re­mark re­peat­ed among the 13% of our sub­scribers who end­ed up shak­ing their heads over the nom­i­na­tion.

“Too wed to in­dus­try,” not­ed one neg­a­tive re­sponse to Got­tlieb.

That in­dus­try ex­pe­ri­ence that Got­tlieb has that so many found re­as­sur­ing looked like a se­ri­ous con­flict of in­ter­est to the ‘no’ vot­ers. And be­sides, in some eyes Trump – who clear­ly alarmed the in­dus­try with vows to dereg­u­late drug de­vel­op­ment — can’t do any­thing right.

“Too close with the in­dus­try & wants to re­duce or elim­i­nate the reg­u­la­tions that have worked to keep the US safe.”

“His ar­dor for dereg­u­la­tion could be harm­ful to con­sumers and ul­ti­mate­ly the in­dus­try. Pro­pos­al to cen­tral­ize re­view de­ci­sions could re­sult in fur­ther politi­ciz­ing ap­proval de­ci­sions.”

“Un­qual­i­fied,” said an­oth­er.

”Will in­sti­tute dan­ger­ous pol­i­cy and be be­hold­en to Trump.”

Got­tlieb hasn’t been shy about mak­ing con­crete sug­ges­tions for a new and im­proved FDA. As I’ve writ­ten, he’s backed a more fo­cused ap­proach on rare dis­ease drugs, pub­lish­ing com­plete re­sponse let­ters of re­jec­tion and quick­ly mov­ing com­plex gener­ics to the mar­ket, among oth­er things.

Now he has to start de­liv­er­ing on those promis­es — or run the risk of se­vere­ly dis­ap­point­ing an in­dus­try whose clear sup­port may have well been the de­cid­ing fac­tor be­hind his nom­i­na­tion.

 

Here’s just a few more com­ments from sub­scribers …

 

Yes

Ac­cel­er­a­tion and sim­pli­fi­ca­tion of the process and re­quire­ments for ap­proval of biosim­i­lars is des­per­ate­ly need­ed. Pub­li­ca­tion of CR let­ters is over­due. In­creased use of sur­ro­gate end­points is a po­ten­tial con­cern de­pend­ing on how low the bar would be set. Sur­ro­gate end­points should be agreed up­on pri­or to ini­ti­a­tion of stud­ies.


While I am in ide­o­log­i­cal­ly at the oth­er end of the spec­trum from Scott, I sup­port his ap­point­ment. He be­lieves in sci­ence-based reg­u­la­tion–ad­dress­ing BOTH ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty–and em­braces sci­en­tif­ic ad­vances that can, with good jus­ti­fi­ca­tion and with­out im­per­il­ing pa­tients, make clin­i­cal tri­als more ef­fi­cient. I al­so think that con­cerns about con­flict of in­ter­est, be­cause of his work with the bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try, are ill-found­ed. The blan­ket ap­pli­ca­tion of this type of log­ic leads to calls to ex­clude from FDA Ad­vi­so­ry Pan­els those most qual­i­fied be­cause those same in­di­vid­u­als, for the very same rea­son of their ex­per­tise, are sought by in­dus­try as ad­vi­sors. While no doubt true that many will sell their souls and rep­u­ta­tions for a buck, it is al­so the case that such an ac­cu­sa­tion, made against a spe­cif­ic in­di­vid­ual with­out any ev­i­dence, can tell us more about the ac­cuser than the ac­cused.


Ex­cel­lent bal­ance of med­ical ex­per­tise, pri­or ex­pe­ri­ence and po­lit­i­cal deft­ness. Scott will force great change in cul­ture, or­ga­ni­za­tion, phi­los­o­phy and lead­er­ship at FDA. He will bring an es­pe­cial­ly pa­tient-cen­tric fo­cus to the FDA. We are par­tic­u­lar­ly ex­cit­ed about his be­lief in the need for a sep­a­rate re­view di­vi­sion for rare dis­eases at FDA. Great day for sci­ence, med­i­cine and for pa­tients. Not so great a day for FDAers who yearn for rigid, in­flex­i­ble and non-21st Cen­tu­ry drug de­vel­op­ment.


Doesn’t want to dis­man­tle agency he’s lead­ing.


He has the nec­es­sary ex­pe­ri­ence and deep un­der­stand­ing of both the agency and the in­dus­try. The changes he has been ad­vo­cat­ing in his pub­lished writ­ings have broad sup­port and were in­deed the type of bu­reau­crat­ic hur­dles that need­ed to be sim­pli­fied for the greater pub­lic good.


Calm per­sona. Reg­u­la­to­ry and med­ical back­ground. Has shown an un­der­stand­ing of da­ta.


Amer­i­cans don’t re­al­ize it but the pho­bia that the FDA and NIH staff have about in­dus­try in­puts and co­op­er­a­tions hurts the process of mov­ing re­search ad­vances to med­i­cines. For ex­am­ple, drug dis­cov­ery and clin­i­cal tri­als bio­mark­ers re­quires much bet­ter in­dus­try-NIH/FDA co­op­er­a­tions. (Cur­rent­ly, these are han­dled by the FNIH, con­sor­tia, PCORI and the IMI). Leg­is­la­tion that would al­low more pool­ing of NIH/FDA/in­dus­try funds is re­quired. A new Bio­mark­er Con­sor­tium that can move quick­ly would be good for med­i­cine, the pub­lic, and in­dus­try.

No

He be­lieves in de-em­pha­siz­ing safe­ty in fa­vor of med­ical in­no­va­tion. Both are im­por­tant, but with re­cent safe­ty set­backs as in the case of Juno, I fear that the safe­ty bar may be set a lit­tle low.


On a mat­ter of prin­ci­ple, it is al­ways bet­ter to have a watch­dog with as much neu­tral­i­ty and sep­a­ra­tion as pos­si­ble. You don’t want your watch­dog to be your best friend. They’re there to push back and bring the best out of you. Giv­en the choic­es we had, thank good­ness Scott was se­lect­ed, but that shouldn’t dis­tract us from the fact that when our friends be­come our over­sight, we erode the over­sight that does the in­sti­tu­tion jus­tice. The last­ing costs of non-neu­tral in­sid­er checks has been seen time and again through his­to­ry and across for­eign gov­ern­ments where a re­volv­ing door feeds cor­rup­tion and self-serv­ing bu­reau­cra­cies. Scott’s a great guy. He fun­da­men­tal­ly cares about pa­tients. He loves the in­dus­try and the FDA with pas­sion. But he should hum­ble him­self to his bias and re­cuse him­self. On­ly thir­ty years ago, the in­dus­try was clam­or­ing about ba­sic FDA rules and now the in­dus­try re­al­izes its im­por­tance. Thir­ty years from now, hope­ful­ly it’ll be fur­ther clear how im­por­tant it is to make sure what­ev­er checks come, we don’t write them our­selves.


Bet­ter than the al­ter­na­tives but still too dereg­u­la­to­ry.

Qual­i­ty Con­trol in Cell and Gene Ther­a­py – What’s Re­al­ly at Stake?

In early 2021, Bluebird Bio was forced to suspend clinical trials of its gene therapy for sickle cell disease after two patients in the trial developed cancer. As company scientists rushed to assess whether there was any causal link between the therapy and the cancer cases, Bluebird’s stock value plummeted – as did those of multiple other biopharma companies developing similar therapies.

While investigations concluded that the gene therapy was unlikely to have caused cancer, investors and the public may be more skittish regarding the safety of gene and cell therapies after this episode. This recent example highlights how delicate the fields of cell and gene therapy remain today, even as they show great promise.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) (Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Sipa via AP Images)

Sen­a­tors to NIH: Do more to pro­tect US bio­med­ical re­search from for­eign in­flu­ence

Although Thursday’s Senate health committee hearing was focused on how foreign countries and adversaries might be trying to steal or negatively influence biomedical research in the US, the only country mentioned by the senators and expert witnesses was China.

Committee chair Patty Murray (D-WA) made clear in her opening remarks that the US cannot “let the few instances of bad actors” overshadow the hard work of the many immigrant researchers in the US, many of which have won Nobel prizes for their work. But she also said, “There is more the NIH can be doing here.”

JP Gabriel, Ocugen

JP Gabriel watched from the bleach­ers as the pan­dem­ic raged. Now head of sup­ply chain at Ocu­gen, he's ready to bat

The world was in the middle of the most pressing public health risk his generation had ever seen, and JP Gabriel felt like he was sitting on the sidelines. As a VP of biologics and mRNA manufacturing at Ultragenyx, Gabriel watched from the sidelines as players like Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna used mRNA tech to chase their own Covid-19 vaccines.

This month, Gabriel got the chance to get his hands dirty against the pandemic — but it won’t be with mRNA.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Jenny Rooke (Genoa Ventures)

Ear­ly Zymer­gen in­vestor Jen­ny Rooke re­flects on 'chimeras' in biotech, what it takes to spot a $500M gem

When Jenny Rooke first heard of Zymergen back in 2014, she knew she was looking at something different and exciting. The Emeryville, CA biotech held the promise of blending biology and technology to solve a huge unmet need for cost-effective chemicals — of all things — and a stellar founding team to boot.

But back then, West Coast venture capitalists didn’t see in Zymergen the one thing they were looking for in a winning biotech: therapeutic potential. Rooke, however, saw an opportunity and made her bets. Seven years later, that bet is paying off in a big way.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Law pro­fes­sors call for FDA to dis­close all safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy da­ta for drugs

Back in early 2018 when Scott Gottlieb led the FDA, there was a moment when the agency seemed poised to release redacted complete response letters and other previously undisclosed data. But that initiative never gained steam.

Now, a growing chorus of researchers are finding that a dearth of public data on clinical trials and pharmaceuticals means industry and the FDA cannot be held accountable, two law professors from Yale and New York University write in an article published Wednesday in the California Law Review.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Novavax CEO Stanley Erck at the White House in 2020 (Andrew Harnik, AP Images)

As fears mount over J&J and As­traZeneca, No­vavax en­ters a shaky spot­light

As concerns rise around the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, global attention is increasingly turning to the little, 33-year-old, productless, bankruptcy-flirting biotech that could: Novavax.

In the now 16-month race to develop and deploy Covid-19 vaccines, Novavax has at times seemed like the pandemic’s most unsuspecting frontrunner and at times like an overhyped also-ran. Although they started the pandemic with only enough cash to last 6 months, they leveraged old connections and believers into $2 billion and emerged last summer with data experts said surpassed Pfizer and Moderna. They unveiled plans to quickly scale to 2 billion doses. Then they couldn’t even make enough material to run their US trial and watched four other companies beat them to the finish line.

FDA of­fers scathing re­view of Emer­gent plan­t's san­i­tary con­di­tions, em­ploy­ee train­ing af­ter halt­ing pro­duc­tion

The FDA wrapped up its inspection of Emergent’s troubled vaccine manufacturing plant in Baltimore on Tuesday, after halting production there on Monday. By Wednesday morning, the agency already released a series of scathing observations on the cross contamination, sanitary issues and lack of staff training that caused the contract manufacturer to dispose of millions of AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine doses.

Brad Bolzon (Versant)

Ver­sant pulls the wraps off of near­ly $1B in 3 new funds out to build the next fleet of biotech star­tups. And this new gen­er­a­tion is built for speed

Brad Bolzon has an apology to offer by way of introducing a set of 3 new funds that together pack a $950 million wallop in new biotech creation and growth.

“I want to apologize,” says the Versant chairman and managing partner, laughing a little in the intro, “that we don’t have anything fancy or flashy to tell you about our new fund. Same team, around the same amount of capital, same investment strategy. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

But then there’s the flip side, where everything has changed. Or at least speeded into a relative blur. Here’s Bolzon:

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Covid-19 man­u­fac­tur­ing roundup: Mary­land looks to grow biotech ca­pac­i­ty with $400M check; Rus­sia lands sec­ond Sput­nik V part­ner this week

A Maryland real estate project has added three new biotech-focused manufacturing and research buildings to an office park to keep up with demand created by the pandemic, the Washington Business Journal reported.

The Milestone Business Park — located off of I-270 in Germantown, MD — will see the new buildings and a total of 532,000 square feet as the campus rebrands to Milestone Innovation Park.