????輝瑞（Pfizer）擬與阿斯利康（AstraZeneca）合并（注：根據最新消息，阿斯利康已經拒絕了輝瑞提高出價之后的收購要約。）到底是為了避稅并削減成本，還是為了促進互補性研究？也許兩者兼而有之。

????目前為止人們主要關注的是該交易的財務影響，但是科研方面值得進一步關注。上周二，輝瑞公司首席執行官伊恩?里德在英國國會工商專責委員會的聽證會上表示，兩家公司“在心血管、代謝和腫瘤領域擁有互補的信息組合。”

????總部位于阿姆斯特丹的 The ANT Works是一家研發分析初創公司，這家公司從互動的視角來分析了這兩家公司的科研情況（基于專利申請），以便評估里德的說法。The ANT Works分析了57.000多份專利文件，包括1994年至2012年期間在美國、歐盟和日本的專利申請和授權專利。它向《財富》雜志獨家提供了自己分析得出的交互式圖像，展示了這兩家公司明顯重疊的領域（這將導致兩家公司裁員）以及各自獨特的優勢。

????數據得出的主要結論是，輝瑞公司目前在研究領域處于主導地位，約80％的已注冊專利與研究領域相關，而阿斯利康只有20％。The ANT Works首席戰略官托馬斯?格尼表示，這也意味著重疊程度最大的治療領域（如心血管、神經科學和心臟病學）將是阿斯利康最有可能裁員的領域。他說：“從科學的角度來看，如果進行合并，很可能是阿斯利康削減研究人員。”這也是阿斯利康到目前為止一直反對交易的主要原因（另一個原因是嫌要約價格太低）。阿斯利康首席執行官帕斯卡爾?索利奧特與兩位首席科研人員也出席了聽證會并表達意見。

????但圖形也顯示了阿斯利康將為輝瑞公司帶來的潛在全新藥物，這也確實證實了里德的說法。這筆交易已經引發了大量的爭議，不過用數據說話總比只談政治要好。（財富中文網）

????Is the proposed merger of Pfizer and AstraZeneca a tax dodge, a cost-cutting cornucopia, or the ultimate in complementary research? It may well end up being all of the above.

????But since most of the attention thus far has been on the financial implications of the deal, it's worth taking a closer look at Pfizer CEO Ian Read's claim, made on Tuesday in a hearing before Britain's Business Select Committee, that the two companies have "complementary portfolios of information in cardiovascular, metabolic and oncology."

????Amsterdam-based The ANT Works, an R&D analytics startup, has put together an interactive visual look at both companies' research--based on patent filings--as a means by which to assess Read's claim. The ANT Works analyzed over 57.000 patent documents, which include patent applications and granted patents in the US, EU and Japan between 1994-2012. Provided exclusively to Fortune, the interactive map shows where there are clear overlaps--which it is fair to say will lend themselves to job cuts--and where each company has unique strengths.

????The main conclusion of the data is that Pfizer is by far the dominant player when it comes to research, with roughly 80% of the registered patents connected to research areas compared with AstraZeneca's 20%. That also implies that the therapeutic areas with the greatest overlap, such as cardiovascular, neurosciences, and cardiology will be most likely to be cut at AstraZeneca, says Thomas Gurney, CSO at The ANT Works. "If you look at this from the science perspective, he says, "if there is a merger, most likely the AstraZeneca scientists will lose." That's a big part of the reason why AstraZeneca is resisting so far (in addition to its assertion that the offer itself is too low). Indeed, AstraZeneca head Pascal Soriot showed up at the hearings with two of his head scientists in tow to make a point.

????But the graphic also shows areas where AstraZeneca offers access to a potential brand new pipeline for Pfizer, giving some credence to Read's claims as well. There's enough here for ammunition on either side—but it's nice to have data rather than simply politics in the mix.?