Biotech ex­ecs slam Trump’s trav­el ban, count­ing the high cost to a glob­al in­dus­try

A large ma­jor­i­ty of the biotech in­dus­try has ve­he­ment­ly re­ject­ed Don­ald Trump’s trav­el ban in no un­cer­tain terms.

We de­cid­ed to take the tem­per­a­ture of the in­dus­try in a snap poll emailed to in­dus­try sub­scribers Sun­day af­ter­noon. In just two hours, 600 of our near­ly 13,000 sub­scribers weighed in — the vast ma­jor­i­ty dead set against the ban, many an­gri­ly cit­ing the im­me­di­ate im­pact the ex­ec­u­tive or­der will have on the bio­phar­ma in­dus­try.

In our fi­nal tal­ly for the sur­vey Tues­day morn­ing, we had reg­is­tered more than 1,400 re­spons­es, with 1,226 op­posed (87%) to the ban and on­ly 188 in fa­vor of it. Three out of four felt that the ban is cer­tain to have a neg­a­tive im­pact on the in­dus­try, threat­en­ing di­ver­si­fied staffs, at­ten­dance at US con­fer­ences, and throt­tling back key re­cruit­ing ef­forts. Sev­er­al CEOs reached out to me to voice their con­cerns for staffers with green cards who come from out­side the 7 coun­tries cit­ed by Trump, but who are nonethe­less wor­ried about their fu­tures here. And in many cas­es, it was clear that quite a few ex­ecs in the in­dus­try were sim­ply out­raged by a move that they felt would tar­nish the coun­try’s rep­u­ta­tion for years to come.

We asked BIO for a com­ment, but have yet to hear back. We did hear from BIO Chair­man Ron Co­hen, though, and added it up top.

Some ex­ec­u­tives sent di­rect state­ments. We’ve in­clud­ed them be­low. Be­low that you’ll see re­spons­es from our biotech read­ers, di­rect­ly from the poll. We’ll con­tin­ue to gath­er re­spons­es and post up­dates on our poll through Mon­day. Please spread the word if you get a chance.

Acor­da Ther­a­peu­tics CEO and BIO Chair­man Ron Co­hen:

I ap­pre­ci­ate your ef­forts in tak­ing and pub­lish­ing the re­sults of the sur­vey. Frankly, I am dis­mayed that as many as 13% of re­spon­dents ac­tu­al­ly min­i­mize the im­por­tance bio­phar­ma of the re­cent events. That’s more than 1 in 8. I be­lieve what they miss more than any­thing is that this is not mere­ly an is­sue of 7 par­tic­u­lar coun­tries, which them­selves may not be in the van­guard of med­ical/sci­en­tif­ic re­search; it is an is­sue of the mes­sage that is be­ing sent across the plan­et, of the chill­ing ef­fect on would-be im­mi­grants every­where, who will now see Amer­i­ca as less wel­com­ing, more threat­en­ing, and many of whom will there­fore choose to ben­e­fit oth­er coun­tries with their tal­ents in­stead.
Even peo­ple who are al­ready in the US, in my own com­pa­ny, are ex­press­ing anx­i­ety. Il­lus­trat­ing my point above, the anx­i­ety ex­tends to green card hold­ers from West­ern Eu­ro­pean coun­tries, who trav­el to Eu­rope for both busi­ness and fam­i­ly rea­sons—al­though the let­ter of the Ex­ec­u­tive Or­der would seem not to be rel­e­vant to them, they have con­tact­ed me and our head of HR to ask if they should be con­cerned about get­ting back to the US if they leave for such a trip.

Je­re­my Levin, CEO of Ovid

Every na­tion has the right to de­ter­mine who comes across its board­ers. Every na­tion and par­tic­u­lar­ly Amer­i­ca, needs to be vig­i­lant in de­fend­ing against and hunt­ing down ter­ror­ists. The ac­tions tak­en by the ad­min­is­tra­tion how­ev­er were poor­ly con­ceived, ill planned and ill thought through. By these ac­tions the ad­min­is­tra­tion has raised deep fears and con­cerns across the em­ploy­ee base of the in­dus­try where di­ver­si­ty, the flow of ideas and peo­ple and in­clu­sion have been the main­stay of in­no­va­tion and mak­ing Amer­i­ca the pow­er­house of med­i­cine it is and should re­main. Not on­ly was this a fun­da­men­tal change in the way we and the out­side world in­ter­act, it was a blow to good busi­ness and a de­struc­tive at­tack on the core of what makes Amer­i­ca the great­est en­gine of in­no­va­tion.

Al­ny­lam CEO John Maraganore:

At Al­ny­lam we live our val­ues and cel­e­brate many ben­e­fits from a di­verse work­force. Ac­cord­ing­ly, we re­ject all forms of dis­crim­i­na­tion and lim­i­ta­tions that pre­vent us from ben­e­fit­ing and grow­ing as a di­verse and in­clu­sive work­place. We have a num­ber of in­ter­na­tion­al em­ploy­ees work­ing legal­ly at our U.S. lo­ca­tions, and will con­tin­ue to sup­port them in every way we can.

David Schenkein, the CEO at Agios, sent me this:

I am first gen­er­a­tion Amer­i­can and on­ly here be­cause my par­ents es­caped the holo­caust and came to Amer­i­ca- this ban is hor­ri­ble and speaks against every­thing I be­lieve in.

Steve Holtz­man, CEO at the start­up Deci­bel, wrote:

Trump’s ban on im­mi­gra­tion and the no­tion of a re­li­gious test are deeply re­pug­nant to the fun­da­men­tal tenets and val­ues of not on­ly the Unit­ed States but al­so the biotech­nol­o­gy in­dus­try.
We are a sci­ence-based en­ter­prise built on the be­lief that the qual­i­ty of da­ta, not the po­si­tion of pow­er, pres­tige or re­li­gious or oth­er af­fil­i­a­tion of their pro­po­nent, are the source of their au­thor­i­ty.
So­cial ex­clu­sion is the moral equiv­a­lent of the ex­clu­sion of da­ta be­cause they con­tra­venes pop­u­lar be­lief.
We cher­ish all–re­gard­less of na­tion­al­i­ty, race, re­li­gious be­lief, sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion or gen­der iden­ti­fi­ca­tion–who wish to join our in­dus­try’s bat­tle to com­bat hu­man dis­ease and ad­dress un­met hu­man needs.

Then we got this from Bassil Dahiy­at, CEO of Xen­cor:

To sum up, fright­en­ing and de­struc­tive. We are one of many com­pa­nies made up of a large per­cent­age of im­mi­grant staff, high­ly tal­ent­ed and trained. We cease to func­tion with­out im­mi­grants, pe­ri­od. Some now can­not leave the coun­try for fear of be­ing shut out. Those not im­pact­ed di­rect­ly have been scared on-and-off for months be­cause of the an­ti-im­mi­grant sen­ti­ment that was val­i­dat­ed by the elec­tion. They took ac­tion to change their sta­tus that they wouldn’t have oth­er­wise be­cause of fear. Per­son­al­ly, my par­ents im­mi­grat­ed from a coun­try ad­ja­cent to those banned. Are they next?
This move will have a neg­a­tive im­pact on the pro­duc­tiv­i­ty of the biotech in­dus­try if it stands. Tal­ent is hard to come by and clos­ing the door to any sources is bad.
And I hear the fear at Cal­tech, my grad school, is high among the large per­cent­age of for­eign stu­dents. They wor­ry that Amer­i­cans think they are tak­ing their jobs. Cam­paign rhetoric is lis­tened to. What on earth makes sense about re­ject­ing the best and bright­est from our coun­try?  Not to men­tion refugees.  My next door neigh­bors grow­ing up were Viet­namese refugees. I can say for sure they were a ben­e­fit to Amer­i­ca.

Here’s a small col­lec­tion of the huge re­sponse we’re track­ing, all tak­en from the poll.

The trav­el ban rais­es eth­i­cal, moral and pos­si­bly le­gal is­sues. It is re­gres­sive along the very di­men­sions that en­abled the US to be the founders and lead­ers of the biotech­nol­o­gy in­dus­try- in­no­va­tion, en­tre­pre­neur­ship, op­por­tu­ni­ty and fair­ness. As has been wide­ly re­port­ed, Steve Jobs of Ap­ple, was the bi­o­log­i­cal son of a Syr­i­an im­mi­grant, Ab­dul­fat­tah Jan­dali, and was raised by His adop­tive moth­er, Clara, an eth­nic Ar­men­ian whose par­ents es­caped Ot­toman Turkey and im­mi­grat­ed to the US. The cur­rent process for vet­ting refugees is ex­ten­sive and there has been no ev­i­dence pre­sent­ed that pre­vi­ous en­trants have posed a dan­ger. Our coun­try went in­to war in Iraq based on as­ser­tions of im­mi­nent dan­ger that were lat­er found to be un­true. We need to un­der­stand the fac­tu­al ba­sis be­hind such ex­treme and sud­den mea­sures in or­der to avoid re­peat­ing our mis­takes. To the ex­tent this di­rec­tive pre­vents or dis­rupts the abil­i­ty of green card hold­ers to re-en­ter the US, their rights would be af­fect­ed in a dis­crim­i­na­to­ry way and that seems il­le­gal. The biotech in­dus­try re­lies up­on im­mi­grants to a large ex­tent and ef­forts to cre­ate ad­di­tion­al bar­ri­ers than those al­ready in ef­fect would slow in­no­va­tion and progress. Noubar Afeyan

“Yes, the trav­el ban will have an im­pact on the bio­phar­ma in­dus­try. There are many visa and green card hold­ers from those coun­tries who are ei­ther study­ing to be­come a re­searcher or clin­i­cian or cur­rent­ly hold­ing those po­si­tions. How­ev­er, now they are un­able to see any of their fam­i­ly who might re­main in those coun­tries – which can have a dev­as­tat­ing emo­tion­al toll. In ad­di­tion, they are now un­able to trav­el out­side the US for med­ical meet­ings, busi­ness de­vel­op­ment, clin­i­cal tri­al site ini­ti­a­tion, etc. This es­sen­tial­ly blocks them from ad­vanc­ing re­search, as well as their own ca­reer. (Anony­mous)

Part of the strength of bio­med­ical re­search in the US is its abil­i­ty to re­cruit the bright­est and best from oth­er coun­tries to come to US for grad school or post-doc, which then feeds in­to biotech in­dus­try. Trump’s hos­tile stance to­ward rest of world is go­ing to di­min­ish this flow of tal­ent.  Tom Woi­wode

My CEO has dual UK/Iran­ian cit­i­zen­ship (he lives in the U.K.) and is thus un­able to trav­el to the USA at present. (Anony­mous)

“Suc­cess­ful biotech com­pa­nies need out­stand­ing, high­ly skilled peo­ple and they re­cruit from all over the world to get tal­ent. And they need re­li­a­bil­i­ty they can re­tain these peo­ple and not be afraid they may not re-en­ter the US be­cause some type of ban has been or­dered overnight. Even if your biotech com­pa­ny cur­rent­ly does not em­ploy cit­i­zen af­fect­ed by the cur­rent list of coun­tries that are banned…who’s next? This ad­min­is­tra­tion – with their un­rea­son­able and un­pre­dictable be­hav­iour – dam­ages biotech in­dus­try, dam­ages the US econ­o­my and en­dan­gers our free way of life.” — Harpreet Singh, CEO, Im­mat­ics US Inc., Hous­ton, TX

Any ban on any race or re­li­gion has an im­pact on our in­dus­try be­cause our in­dus­try is one of sci­ence and rea­son. Many of us are im­mi­grants, sons and daugh­ters of im­mi­grants or mar­ried to im­mi­grants ( I am gay and mar­ried to my im­mi­grant hus­band from Viet­nam who came here in 1980) . This ban has an im­pact on every de­cent hu­man in the world…a neg­a­tive im­pact. Plain and sim­ple, this is NOT who we are as an in­dus­try or as a peo­ple, pe­ri­od. Proud­ly signed, — Paul James Hast­ings, Chair and CEO, On­coMed Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals

This is an in­dus­try that runs on brains. It needs the best, and they must be able to op­er­ate in a sup­port­ive en­vi­ron­ment, where they don’t fear for their safe­ty or face hos­til­i­ty. It is not for­tu­itous that over a third of the bio­phar­ma R&D work­force in the US is for­eign-born. Push­ing them out will evis­cer­ate in­no­va­tion. Bernard Munos, In­no­Think

“Di­ver­si­ty is the heart of biotech. Walk in­to any phar­ma or biotech and you will find peo­ple of all eth­nic­i­ties, re­li­gion, na­tions work­ing to­geth­er to solve health care prob­lems. To­day more than ever, if we are to main­tain our com­pet­i­tive­ness, we need the smartest peo­ple around the Globe to choose to come to Unit­ed States over oth­er coun­tries. A ban on im­mi­gra­tion, ban on refugees, even if tem­po­rary, sends the wrong sig­nal. — Sunil Joshi, Pres­i­dent & CEO, Gradalis

I am a biotech lawyer. Each of my clients, every shape and size, are for­tu­nate enough to have some of the world’s best and bright­est sci­en­tif­ic and busi­ness minds among their ranks. Many of them hail from out­side the US, in­clud­ing the coun­tries cov­ered by this ex­ec­u­tive or­der. Why would we want to lim­it our abil­i­ty to work to cure life-threat­en­ing dis­eases and con­di­tions? The drug dis­cov­ery busi­ness is hard enough as it is. Nev­er mind the fact that this is a heart­less act that flies in the face of this coun­tries most ba­sic tenets. (Anony­mous)

We re­ly on good sci­ence. We should at­tract the bright­est and best from around the world what­ev­er their coun­try of ori­gin. — Mike Grey

De­ploy sec­ond-or­der think­ing. This is on­ly a first step. Ex­trap­o­late for­ward. What this leads to. The best tal­ent goes else­where. — Praveen Tipir­neni

I have very ac­com­plished friends in our in­dus­try who are from those 7 coun­tries. (Anony­mous)

All but three of the ‘no im­pact’ votes (by 2:40 am) were anony­mous. And even in the mi­nor­i­ty of cas­es where no re­al im­pact was ex­pect­ed, you could al­so see op­po­si­tion to the move for big­ger rea­sons.

It will hit econ­o­my on­ly mi­nor if at all, phar­ma-biotech even less. But the im­age of US as leader of the free world goes down the riv­er. (Anony­mous)

But Trump has his loy­al sup­port­ers:

In the long term, firm­ness en­cour­ages re­spect. (Anony­mous)

Bio­phar­ma does not re­ly on any of the 7 coun­tries for em­ploy­ees, col­lab­o­ra­tions or busi­ness op­por­tu­ni­ties. (Anony­mous)

We have many tal­ent­ed re­searchers and sci­en­tists here in the USA that were in fact born and raised here. (Anony­mous)

This is a tem­po­rary pol­i­cy which im­pacts ar­eas not known for their con­nec­tion to bleed­ing-edge sci­en­tif­ic work. As­sum­ing the com­po­nent with green card hold­ers is worked out (and the court or­der around this ap­par­ent­ly has start­ed this), there will be min­i­mal im­pact on the in­dus­try over a 90 day pe­ri­od. (Anony­mous)

The coun­tries in­volved are hard­ly the heart­beat of biotech­nol­o­gy. To try and ex­trap­o­late this on tech­nol­o­gy laden sec­tors is a po­lit­i­cal ex­er­cise, not an ob­jec­tive or re­al­is­tic one. (Anony­mous)

And, of course, we got trolled, too. Anony­mous­ly.

You peo­ple are ut­ter dopes in need of a sto­ry. Trump “tem­porar­i­ly” banned en­try from a few na­tions…not all mus­lims, not all im­mi­grants. Get a clue. (Anony­mous)

By most ac­counts it seems that few CEOs of the Big Phar­mas have made any kind of com­ment on the ban, for or against.

For now, a spokesper­son for Mer­ck says that the phar­ma gi­ant is still as­sess­ing the sit­u­a­tion, adding:

We are com­mit­ted to our em­ploy­ees of all na­tion­al­i­ties and re­li­gions. We are ac­tive­ly reach­ing out to em­ploy­ees who may be af­fect­ed by the Ex­ec­u­tive Or­der to pro­vide le­gal ad­vice and oth­er as­sis­tance.

But a few high-pro­file ex­ecs have stepped up on Twit­ter.

John Hood [file photo]

UP­DATE: Cel­gene and the sci­en­tist who cham­pi­oned fe­dra­tinib's rise from Sanofi's R&D grave­yard win FDA OK

Six years after Sanofi gave it up for dead, the FDA has approved the myelofibrosis drug fedratinib, now owned by Celgene.

The drug will be sold as Inrebic, and will soon land in the portfolio at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is finalizing a deal to acquire Celgene.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: AveX­is sci­en­tif­ic founder was axed — and No­var­tis names a new CSO in wake of an ethics scan­dal

Now at the center of a storm of controversy over its decision to keep its knowledge of manipulated data hidden from regulators during an FDA review, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan has found a longtime veteran in the ranks to head the scientific work underway at AveXis, where the incident occurred. And the scientific founder has hit the exit.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ab­b­Vie gets its FDA OK for JAK in­hibitor upadac­i­tinib, but don’t look for this one to hit ex­ecs’ lofty ex­pec­ta­tions

Another big drug approval came through on Friday afternoon as the FDA OK’d AbbVie’s upadacitinib — an oral JAK1 inhibitor that is hitting the rheumatoid arthritis market with a black box warning of serious malignancies, infections and thrombosis reflecting fears associated with the class.

It will be sold as Rinvoq — at a wholesale price of $59,000 a year — and will likely soon face competition from a drug that AbbVie once controlled, and spurned. Reuters reports that a 4-week supply of Humira, by comparison, is $5,174, adding up to about $67,000 a year.

The top 10 fran­chise drugs in bio­phar­ma his­to­ry will earn a to­tal of $1.4T (tril­lion) by 2024 — what does that tell us?

Just in case you were looking for more evidence of just how important Amgen’s patent win on Enbrel is for the company and its investors, EvaluatePharma has come up with a forward-looking consensus estimate on what the list of top 10 drugs will look like in 2024.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

ICER blasts FDA, PTC and Sarep­ta for high prices on DMD drugs Em­flaza, Ex­ondys 51

ICER has some strong words for PTC, Sarepta and the FDA as the US drug price watchdog concludes that as currently priced, their respective new treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy are decidedly not cost-effective.

The final report — which cements the conclusions of a draft issued in May — incorporates the opinion of a panel of 17 experts ICER convened in a public meeting last month. It also based its analysis of Emflaza (deflazacort) and Exondys 51 (eteplirsen) on updated annual costs of $81,400 and over $1 million, respectively, after citing “incorrect” lower numbers in the initial calculations.

The key dates for KRAS watch­ers through the end of the year — the trail is nar­row and risks are ex­treme

There’s nothing quite like a big patent win when it comes to burnishing your prospects in the pipeline. And for Amgen, which seems to have rescued Enbrel for a run to 2029, the cheering section on Wall Street is now fixed on AMG 510 and a key rival.

And it didn’t take much data to do it. 

There was the first snapshot of a handful of patients, with a 50% response rate. Then came word that Amgen researchers are also tracking responses in different cancers, at least one in colorectal cancer and appendiceal too. 

Bain's Or­ly Mis­han joins Pfiz­er's neu­ro spin­out Cerev­el; On­colyt­ic virus biotech taps Sil­la­Jen ex­ec He­le­na Chaye as CEO

→ Bain Capital is deploying one of its top investors to Cerevel Therapeutics, steering a $350 million-plus neuro play carved out of Pfizer. Orly Mishan — a co-founder and principal of Bain’s life sciences unit — was involved in the partnership that birthed the biotech spinout in the first place. As Cerevel’s first chief business officer, she is tasked with corporate development, program management as well as technical operations. 

UP­DAT­ED: Sci­en­tist-CEO ac­cused of im­prop­er­ly us­ing con­fi­den­tial in­fo from uni­corn Alec­tor

The executive team at Alector $ALEC has a bone to pick with scientific co-founder Asa Abeliovich. Their latest quarterly rundown has this brief note buried inside:

On June 18, 2019, we initiated a confidential arbitration proceeding against Dr. Asa Abeliovich, our former consulting co-founder, related to alleged breaches of his consulting agreement and the improper use of our confidential information that he learned during the course of rendering services to us as our consulting Chief Scientific Officer/Chief Innovation Officer. We are in the early stage of this arbitration proceeding and are unable to assess or provide any assurances regarding its possible outcome.

There’s no explicit word in the filing on what kind of confidential info was involved, but the proceeding got started 2 days ahead of Abeliovich’s IPO.

Abeliovich, formerly a tenured associate professor at Columbia, is a top scientist in the field of neurodegeneration, which is where Alector is targeted. More recently, he’s also helped start up Prevail Therapeutics as the CEO, which raised $125 million in an IPO. And there he’s planning on working on new gene therapies that target genetically defined subpopulations of Parkinson’s disease. Followup programs target Gaucher disease, frontotemporal dementia and synucleinopathies.

But this time Abeliovich is the CEO rather than a founding scientist. And some of their pipeline overlaps with Alector’s.

Abeliovich and Prevail, though, aren’t taking this one lying down.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chi­na has be­come a CEO-lev­el pri­or­i­ty for multi­na­tion­al phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies: the trend and the im­pli­ca­tions

After a “hot” period of rapid growth between 2009 and 2012, and a relatively “cooler” period of slower growth from 2013 to 2015, China has once again become a top-of-mind priority for the CEOs of most large, multinational pharmaceutical companies.

At the International Pharma Forum, hosted in March in Beijing by the R&D Based Pharmaceutical Association Committee (RDPAC) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), no fewer than seven CEOs of major multinational pharmaceutical firms participated, including GSK, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB. A few days earlier, the CEOs of several other large multinationals attended the China Development Forum, an annual business forum hosted by the research arm of China’s State Council. It’s hard to imagine any other country, except the US, having such drawing power at CEO level.