|
????今年早些時候，醫藥巨頭輝瑞（Pfizer）宣布將研發支出削減三分之一，其股價當天隨之上漲超過了5%。兩天之后，默沙東公司（Merck）反其道而行之，宣布將繼續保持先前的研發投入水平，不過其股價隨后卻應聲下跌將近3%。投資者向醫藥巨頭們傳達了一個明確信息：不要再投入巨資用于新藥研發，即便公司正在失去舊有藥品的專利保護，面臨所謂的專利懸崖困境。從私營企業購買現成藥方要便宜得多。 ????非常不幸，這種觀點真是鼠目寸光。它僅僅著眼于眼前利益，卻忽略了企業的長期發展。這反映了華爾街對人民健康的漠視，即便這種健康僅僅是字面上的。 ????目前有很多新創企業可供醫藥巨頭收購。但這種情況不會持續太久。看看醫藥領域的風投情況就知道了，因為它正是推動新藥開發的資金引擎。高層數據顯示，大量風投資金正流入醫藥領域，然而其中大部分都流向了風投不會置之不理的成熟企業。初期新創企業的日子則要難熬得多，2011年前三個季度，獲得風投的新創醫藥企業的數量比去年同期減少了17%。 ????而且，許多風投公司也“正式”結束了和新創醫藥企業的蜜月期。風投公司Scale Venture Partners有著16年的歷史，最初是美國銀行（Bank of America）的內部風險集團，它于近日宣布停止所有生命科學領域的投資。擁有43年歷史的摩根泰勒（Morgenthaler）近來也表示，今后只會投資于技術公司（其醫療保健團隊將嘗試募集一支獨立基金）。總體而言，一項針對美國風投協會（National Venture Capital Association，NVCA）成員公司的調查指出，41%的受訪者計劃在未來三年削減對醫藥行業的投資。預計削減幅度最大的將是心血管和糖尿病治療領域。 ????為何會出現這樣的局面？絕大部分風投公司認為問題的根源在于美國食品及藥品管理局（FDA）的指導和透明度不斷下降，導致醫藥公司和投資者很難預測未來成本。凱特?米切爾是Scale Venture Partners的聯合創始人，還曾擔任過美國風投協會主席。他指出：“現在通過美國食品及藥品管理局審批的時間要比原來長得多，我們甚至還要花更多時間才能弄清楚FDA的想法。Prestwick Pharmaceuticals是我們投資的公司之一，我們原以為它已經進入了‘快速通道’（fast track），但仍然又過了三年，它才通過了國家食品及藥品管理局的審批。我們真是沮喪透頂，這意味著我們必須投入更多資金來維持公司運作。” ????與此同時，軟件等非健康領域的資本密集度正在下降，而商業化速度則在加快。因此， “全能型”風投公司很難抗拒拋棄或弱化醫藥領域投資的誘惑。 ????這種狀況令人不安。醫藥巨頭正屈服于華爾街最原始的本能，而沒有展示企業的社會責任感。就讓別人來收拾爛攤子吧。上帝保佑我將來得的病有現成的藥可以治就好。風投公司至少有一個可行的生存戰略，而且我同意美國食品及藥物管理局應該先管好自己。然而，與此同時，風投界卻忽視了近來的研究。研究顯示，過去十年來，美國風投公司在生命科學領域的投資事實回報要優于在軟件領域的投資。相比支持一家尚無成果的醫藥新創企業，在兩年內投資然后轉手一家移動應用公司可能讓人感覺更有把握，但后者未見得是更佳的長期投資對象。 ????我們面對的是日益逼近的失衡，對新藥的需求遠遠超過了供給。或許有一天我們回眸往事會無比后悔，當初不該將財務方面的短期考量置于長期規劃之上——至少我們中有幸活下來的人會這么想。 ????譯者：項航 |
????Earlier this year, drug giant Pfizer (PFE) announced plans to slash spending on research and development by a third. Its shares closed that day up more than 5%. Two days later rival Merck (MRK) went the other way, saying it would maintain existing R&D levels. Its shares fell by nearly 3%. Investors had sent Big Pharma a very clear message: Stop spending so much money to create new drugs, even if you're losing exclusivity on your older drugs through the so-called patent cliff. It's cheaper to just buy developed molecules from private startups. ????Unfortunately, such sentiments elevate short-term dollars while ignoring long-term sense. They're reflective of Wall Street's callous indifference toward America's health, even when that health is literal. ????Right now Big Pharma has plenty of startups to acquire. But that wealth of opportunity won't last much longer. Just take a look at venture capital investment in pharma, since it's the financial engine that drives new drug development. High-level data indicate plenty of venture dollars are flowing into the sector, but the vast majority is going to mature companies that VCs won't let wither on the vine. Early-stage startups are having a much tougher go of it, with 17% fewer raising venture capital during the first three quarters of 2011 than during the same period in 2010. ????Moreover, a number of veteran VC firms are formally ending their pursuit of pharma startups. Scale Venture Partners, which began life 16 years ago as Bank of America's (BAC) in-house venture group, recently stopped making any life sciences investments in new companies. And Morgenthaler, a 43-year-old firm, recently said it will invest only in tech companies going forward (its health care team will try to raise an independent fund). Overall, a recent National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) members' survey found that 41% of respondents plan to decrease their number of pharma investments over the next three years. The therapeutic areas expected to be cut deepest are cardiovascular and diabetes. ????Why? Most VCs point their fingers at decreased guidance and transparency from the FDA, which makes it difficult for both companies and their investors to understand future costs. "It just takes a lot longer now to get approval than it used to, or to even know what the FDA is thinking," says Kate Mitchell, co-founder of Scale Venture Partners and former chair of the NVCA. "One of our companies, Prestwick Pharmaceuticals, supposedly was put on a 'fast track,' but it still took another three years before receiving FDA approval. It's incredibly frustrating and means we need to invest more to keep the companies running." ????At the same time, non-health-care sectors like software have become less capital-intensive and quicker to commercialize. So if you're a "generalist" VC firm, the temptation to abandon or de-emphasize pharma is hard to resist. ????It's an unsettling state of affairs. Big Pharma is succumbing to Wall Street's worst instincts rather than demonstrating corporate and civic responsibility. Just let the next guy handle the fallout, and pray there's an existing cure for what eventually ails me. VCs at least have a viable survival strategy, and I agree that the FDA needs to get its house in order. At the same time, however, VCs are ignoring recent research showing that their investments in life sciences actually outperformed those in software companies in the U.S. over the past decade. It might feel better to fund and flip a mobile app firm in 24 months than to back an unproven pharma startup, but that doesn't necessarily make it the smarter long-term investment. ????What we face is a looming imbalance in which demand for new drugs far outstrips supply. Maybe we'll look back and rue the day that short-term financial considerations were given priority over long-term planning -- at least those of us lucky enough still to be alive. |
最新文章