In­dus­try lead­ers need to speak out now more than ever

Biotech Voices is a collection of exclusive opinion editorials from some of the leading voices in biopharma on the biggest industry questions today. Think you have a voice that should be heard? Reach out to senior editors Kyle Blankenship and Amber Tong.

The House im­peach­ment man­agers pre­sent­ed a grip­ping, vis­cer­al case two weeks ago in pros­e­cut­ing the 45th pres­i­dent for in­cite­ment of mob vi­o­lence to stop the cer­ti­fi­ca­tion of a free and fair US elec­tion.

Yet nev­er has a case so damn­ing pre­saged an ac­quit­tal so fore­gone. Sev­en brave sen­a­tors crossed the aisle to do the right thing and vote for a re­pub­lic, if we can keep it.

Just be­cause the im­peach­ment tri­al is over does not mean the threat to our de­mo­c­ra­t­ic norms is. The Sen­ate ac­quit­tal comes with a long-term cost: the hy­per­vig­i­lance of the Amer­i­can peo­ple. It is up to all of us to de­ter­mine what the for­mer pres­i­dent’s con­duct means for our na­tion’s fu­ture.

In biotech­nol­o­gy, our day job is to dis­cov­er and de­vel­op in­no­v­a­tive, ground­break­ing ther­a­pies and see that they get de­liv­ered fair­ly to the world’s pa­tient pop­u­la­tions. My com­pa­ny, Nkar­ta Ther­a­peu­tics, is com­mit­ted to re­al­iz­ing the po­ten­tial of the body’s nat­ur­al killer cells to treat can­cer. As CEOs, in­ten­sive fo­cus on our day jobs does not ex­cuse us from the role that our boards and col­leagues re­ly on us to play, which is to lead. Lead­er­ship, at its core, means call­ing out bad be­hav­ior and stand­ing up for what is right.

In the 2020 elec­tion, the Amer­i­can peo­ple vot­ed for a new ad­min­is­tra­tion com­mit­ted to sci­en­tif­ic in­tegri­ty, so­cial jus­tice, racial rec­on­cil­i­a­tion and eco­nom­ic re­new­al. How­ev­er, I be­lieve that the last four years un­leashed malev­o­lent forces in our so­ci­ety; how quick­ly, and if, Pan­do­ra’s box can be closed is an open ques­tion.

Emerg­ing biotech com­pa­nies re­cruit top sci­en­tists from every race, cul­ture and back­ground. For me, build­ing an in­clu­sive cul­ture that tru­ly cel­e­brates our dif­fer­ences means that si­lence is not an op­tion. I once had an in­vestor call me and fret that he had Googled my com­pa­ny name and saw as many ar­ti­cles on the first screen about so­cial jus­tice as he did about break­through sci­ence. I asked him if he had any doubts that I am do­ing every­thing in my pow­er to suc­ceed sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly and fi­nan­cial­ly. “None what­so­ev­er,” he said.

“That makes me hap­py to hear,” I replied. “Those ar­ti­cles you saw — and the com­pa­ny val­ues they rep­re­sent — are a big rea­son why the team is work­ing so hard on the sci­ence and feels as in­vest­ed in this com­pa­ny as you do.”

His­tor­i­cal­ly, many bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal CEOs have been care­ful to watch our words so we do not alien­ate the par­ty that be­lieves in the free mar­kets up­on which our suc­cess ul­ti­mate­ly de­pends. How­ev­er, I have be­come in­creas­ing­ly out­spo­ken in my be­lief that biotech CEOs need to be more out­spo­ken in their be­liefs.

In to­day’s po­lit­i­cal en­vi­ron­ment, I be­lieve it is more im­por­tant than ever that we show the par­ty in pow­er our hearts, our true val­ues and our com­mit­ment to pa­tients. For me, that starts with speak­ing out against a new breed of cult-of-per­son­al­i­ty pop­ulism that dis­dains sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge, traf­fics in racism and vi­o­lent ri­ots and un­der­mines democ­ra­cy.

Amer­i­can lead­ers across gov­ern­ment, in­dus­try, me­dia, ed­u­ca­tion and be­yond have a spe­cial re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to use our voic­es to de­fend shared val­ues that should tran­scend par­ti­san af­fil­i­a­tion. The free­doms too many Amer­i­cans take for grant­ed can be in­stant­ly lost, and tra­di­tion­al al­lies of con­ser­v­a­tives like the bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try are unique­ly sit­u­at­ed to de­mar­cate un­cross­able lines.

Why take the risk? Be­cause si­lence is a greater risk. Our in­dus­try de­pends on de­mo­c­ra­t­ic sta­bil­i­ty and the mar­ket con­fi­dence it in­spires. Sta­ble mar­kets are why biotech en­tre­pre­neurs can raise the enor­mous cap­i­tal re­quired to bring long­shot break­throughs to pa­tients. For this rea­son and many more, we can­not turn our heads at threats to the foun­da­tion of the U.S. po­lit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic sys­tem.

That’s why the bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try de­cid­ed to re­con­sid­er po­lit­i­cal con­tri­bu­tions to mem­bers of Con­gress who sup­port­ed over­turn­ing the re­sults of a con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly prop­er and ex­haus­tive­ly ad­ju­di­cat­ed elec­tion. As the vice chair of the Biotech­nol­o­gy In­no­va­tion Or­ga­ni­za­tion (BIO), the largest biotech in­dus­try group, I was heart­ened that so many of my col­leagues on both sides of the aisle agreed that this was the right course of ac­tion.

But the best way to com­bat dis­crim­i­na­tion and in­val­i­date white su­prema­cy is to em­brace racial di­ver­si­ty and to reck­on with past so­ci­etal trans­gres­sions. In the health­care sys­tem, that means ac­knowl­edg­ing lega­cies of mis­treat­ment and mis­trust that have made mi­nori­ties dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly skep­ti­cal about vac­cines and clin­i­cal tri­al par­tic­i­pa­tion.

Pfiz­er and Mod­er­na en­rolled an im­pres­sive 42% and 37% mi­nori­ties, re­spec­tive­ly, in their Phase III COVID-19 vac­cine clin­i­cal tri­als. Me­dia and pa­tient ad­vo­cates want to know if this is a flash in the pan or an on­go­ing com­mit­ment. CEOs must con­tin­ue to speak out and act af­fir­ma­tive­ly if we are to main­tain cred­i­bil­i­ty and car­ry that mo­men­tum over to di­ver­si­fy tri­als in oth­er dis­ease ar­eas. Pro­grams like BIO Equal­i­ty rep­re­sent a long-term, in­dus­try­wide ef­fort to fight for di­ver­si­ty, ac­cess and af­ford­abil­i­ty for all pa­tients. Nkar­ta is proud to be a BIO mem­ber.

My ap­proach to drug de­vel­op­ment is in­formed by my own ex­pe­ri­ence liv­ing with Crohn’s dis­ease and run­ning a pa­tient ad­vo­ca­cy group for chil­dren with bow­el and blad­der con­di­tions. I can speak the heresy that drug costs are, in fact, too high, be­cause I’m talk­ing about low­er­ing pa­tient out-of-pock­et costs, not slash­ing in­sur­ance and gov­ern­ment re­im­burse­ment rates that have en­abled us to in­no­vate life-sav­ing vac­cines and an­ti­bod­ies against COVID-19 with record speed.

I can agree with HHS Sec­re­tary De­signee Xavier Be­cer­ra that health care is a fun­da­men­tal right but strong­ly dis­agree that in­val­i­dat­ing patents is a smart strat­e­gy to help pa­tients ac­cess med­i­cine. I can be­lieve in the so­cial con­tract that al­lows new med­i­cines — whether small mol­e­cules, pro­teins, an­ti­bod­ies or cell ther­a­pies — to be priced for a re­turn on in­vest­ment ini­tial­ly so long as gener­ics en­ter the mar­ket with­out de­lay, un­nec­es­sary ne­go­ti­a­tion or com­pli­ca­tion once patents ex­pire.

I can agree that Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) is a pa­tri­ot but dis­agree with her state­ment that Big Phar­ma com­pa­nies buy­ing up small­er ones some­how de­val­ues them. Ac­tu­al­ly, this dy­nam­ic churn frees sci­en­tists to start new com­pa­nies and in­no­vate anew, while large com­pa­nies — with their glob­al sales teams and armies of com­mer­cial pro­fes­sion­als and drug de­vel­op­ers — sell, mar­ket and dis­trib­ute new med­i­cines.

Fight­ing for de­mo­c­ra­t­ic ideals doesn’t mean fi­deli­ty to politi­cians from any par­tic­u­lar par­ty. For me, in these tu­mul­tuous times, it is about hav­ing a moral com­pass, do­ing what’s right and speak­ing up for pa­tients and sci­en­tists who rep­re­sent the glo­ri­ous di­ver­si­ty and great hope of our plan­et.

The Price of Re­lief: Ex­plor­ing So­lu­tions to the Ris­ing Costs of On­col­o­gy Drugs

In 2020, The National Cancer Institute estimated about 1.8 million new cases of cancer diagnosed in the United States, while the costs associated with treatment therapies continued to escalate. Given the current legislative climate on drug pricing, it’s never been more important to look at the evolution of drug pricing globally and control concerns of sustainable and affordable treatments in oncology.

Lat­est news on Pfiz­er's $3B+ JAK1 win; Pacts over M&A at #JPM22; 2021 by the num­bers; Bio­gen's Aduhelm reck­on­ing; The sto­ry of sotro­vimab; and more

Welcome back to Endpoints Weekly, your review of the week’s top biopharma headlines. Want this in your inbox every Saturday morning? Current Endpoints readers can visit their reader profile to add Endpoints Weekly. New to Endpoints? Sign up here.

For those of you who attended #JPM22 in any shape or form, we hope you had a fruitful time. Regardless of how you spent the past hectic week, may your weekend be just what you need it to be.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 128,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

A $3B+ peak sales win? Pfiz­er thinks so, as FDA of­fers a tardy green light to its JAK1 drug abroc­i­tinib

Back in the fall of 2020, newly crowned Pfizer chief Albert Bourla confidently put their JAK1 inhibitor abrocitinib at the top of the list of blockbuster drugs in the late-stage pipeline with a $3 billion-plus peak sales estimate.

Since then it’s been subjected to serious criticism for the safety warnings associated with the class, held back by a cautious FDA and questioned when researchers rolled out a top-line boast that their heavyweight contender had beaten the champ in the field of atopic dermatitis — Dupixent — in a head-to-head study.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 128,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Robert Califf, FDA commissioner nominee (Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Sipa via AP Images)

Rob Califf ad­vances as Biden's FDA nom­i­nee, with a close com­mit­tee vote

Rob Califf’s second confirmation process as FDA commissioner is already much more difficult than his near unanimous confirmation under the Obama administration.

The Senate Health Committee on Thursday voted 13-8 in favor of advancing Califf’s nomination to a full Senate vote. Several Democrats voted against Califf, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Maggie Hassan. Several other Democrats who aren’t on the committee, like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, also said Thursday that they would not vote for Califf. Markey, Hassan and Manchin all previously expressed reservations about the prospect of Janet Woodcock as an FDA commissioner nominee too.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 128,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Michel Vounatsos, Biogen CEO (World Economic Forum/Ciaran McCrickard)

Bio­gen vows to fight CM­S' draft cov­er­age de­ci­sion for Aduhelm be­fore April fi­nal­iza­tion

Biogen executives made clear in an investor call Thursday they are not preparing to run a new CMS-approved clinical trial for their controversial Alzheimer’s drug anytime soon.

As requested in a draft national coverage decision from CMS earlier this week, Biogen and other anti-amyloid drugs will need to show “a meaningful improvement in health outcomes” for Alzheimer’s patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to get paid for their drugs, rather than just the reduction in amyloid plaques that won Aduhelm its accelerated approval in June.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 128,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

CRO own­er pleads guilty to ob­struct­ing FDA in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to fal­si­fied clin­i­cal tri­al da­ta

The co-owner of a Florida-based clinical research site pleaded guilty to lying to an FDA investigator during a 2017 inspection, revealing that she falsely portrayed part of a GlaxoSmithKline pediatric asthma study as legitimate, when in fact she knew that certain data had been falsified, the Department of Justice said Wednesday.

Three other employees — Yvelice Villaman Bencosme, Lisett Raventos and Maytee Lledo — previously pleaded guilty and were sentenced in connection with falsifying data associated with the trial at the CRO Unlimited Medical Research.

Susan Galbraith, AstraZeneca EVP, Oncology R&D

Can­cer pow­er­house As­traZeneca rolls the dice on a $75M cash bet on a buzzy up­start in the on­col­o­gy field

After establishing itself in the front ranks of cancer drug developers and marketers, AstraZeneca is putting its scientific shoulder — and a significant amount of cash — behind the wheel of a brash new upstart in the biotech world.

The pharma giant trumpeted news this morning that it is handing over $75 million upfront to ally itself with Scorpion Therapeutics, one of those biotechs that was newly birthed by some top scientific, venture and executive talent and bequeathed with a fortune by way of a bankroll to advance an only hazily explained drug platform. And they are still very much in the discovery and preclinical phase.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 128,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

‘Skin­ny la­bels’ on gener­ics can save pa­tients mon­ey, re­search shows, but re­cent court de­ci­sions cloud fu­ture

New research shows how generic drug companies can successfully market a limited number of approved indications for a brand name drug, prior to coming to market for all of the indications. But several recent court decisions have created a layer of uncertainty around these so-called “skinny” labels.

While courts have generally allowed generic manufacturers to use their statutorily permitted skinny-label approvals, last summer, a federal circuit court found that Teva Pharmaceuticals was liable for inducing prescribers and patients to infringe GlaxoSmithKline’s patents through advertising and marketing practices that suggested Teva’s generic, with its skinny label, could be employed for the patented uses.

A patient in Alaska receiving an antibody infusion to prevent Covid hospitalizations in September. All but one of these treatments has been rendered useless by Omicron (Rick Bowmer/AP Images)

How a tiny Swiss lab and two old blood sam­ples cre­at­ed one of the on­ly ef­fec­tive drugs against Omi­cron (and why we have so lit­tle of it)

Exactly a decade before a novel coronavirus broke out in Wuhan, Davide Corti — a newly-minted immunologist with frameless glasses and a quick laugh — walked into a cramped lab on the top floor of an office building two hours outside Zurich. He had only enough money for two technicians and the ceiling was so low in parts that short stature was a job requirement, but Corti believed it’d be enough to test an idea he thought could change medicine.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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