Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Comparing Long-Term Value Creation After Biotech And Non-Biotech Ipos, 1997–2016, Ekaterina Galkina Cleary, Laura M. Mcnamee, Skyler De Boer, Jeremy Holden, Liam Fitzgerald, Fred D. Ledley Jan 2021

Comparing Long-Term Value Creation After Biotech And Non-Biotech Ipos, 1997–2016, Ekaterina Galkina Cleary, Laura M. Mcnamee, Skyler De Boer, Jeremy Holden, Liam Fitzgerald, Fred D. Ledley

Natural & Applied Sciences Faculty Publications

We compared the financial performance of 319 BIOTECH companies focused on developing therapeutics with IPOs from 1997–2016, to that of paired, non-biotech CONTROL companies with concurrent IPO dates. BIOTECH companies had a distinctly different financial structure with high R&D expense, little revenue, and negative profits (losses), but a similar duration of listing on public markets and frequency of acquisitions. Through 2016, BIOTECH and CONTROL companies had equivalent growth in market cap and shareholder value (> $100 billion), but BIOTECH companies had lower net value creation ($93 billion vs $411 billion). Both cohorts exhibited a high-risk/high reward pattern of return, with …


Late-Stage Product Development And Approvals By Biotechnology Companies After Initial Public Offering, 1997-2016, Laura M. M. Mcnamee, Ekaterina Galkina Cleary, Sunyi Zhang, Usama Salim, Fred D. Ledley Jan 2021

Late-Stage Product Development And Approvals By Biotechnology Companies After Initial Public Offering, 1997-2016, Laura M. M. Mcnamee, Ekaterina Galkina Cleary, Sunyi Zhang, Usama Salim, Fred D. Ledley

Natural & Applied Sciences Faculty Publications

Purpose: This work describes the late-stage product portfolios of the biotechnology companies that completed initial public offerings (IPOs) from 1997 to 2016. We asked whether these emerging companies continue to develop innovative, biologic products and produce the innovation promised by the early biotechnology industry.

Methods: We identified therapeutic products that reached Phase III development from 1997 to 2016, the characteristics of the products, the dates of the initiation of Phase III and product approval, proxy indicators of the innovativeness of each product, and the contribution of each biotechnology company. Companies were characterized by IPO window and clinical status of the …


Biotech: Not Just For Geeks, Fred D. Ledley Nov 2019

Biotech: Not Just For Geeks, Fred D. Ledley

Science and Industry

Business students get high marks for scientific literacy


Statement Before The House Of Representatives Subcommittee On Health Of The Committee On Energy And Commerce, Fred D. Ledley Jun 2014

Statement Before The House Of Representatives Subcommittee On Health Of The Committee On Energy And Commerce, Fred D. Ledley

Natural & Applied Sciences Faculty Publications

Statement of Fred David Ledley, M.D.
Director, Center for Integration of Science and Industry
Professor, Natural and Applied Sciences and Management
Bentley University, Waltham, MA

Before the House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Health of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce

Hearing: 21st Century Cures: Examining the Role of Incentives in Advancing Treatments and Cures for Patients

June 11, 2014


How To Lie With (Fda) Statistics, Fred D. Ledley May 2014

How To Lie With (Fda) Statistics, Fred D. Ledley

Natural & Applied Sciences Faculty Publications

The FDA approved 27 new drugs in 2013. Is this a downward trend? Is it an upward trend? Does it suggest that the pharmaceutical industry is failing, or that genomics is finally paying dividends? We revisit Darrell Huff’s 1954 classic How to Lie with Statistics for insights into these pressing questions.


Could Human Genome Sciences Have Become Standard Oil?, Fred D. Ledley Jan 2013

Could Human Genome Sciences Have Become Standard Oil?, Fred D. Ledley

Natural & Applied Sciences Faculty Publications

Human Genome Sciences (HGS) was not a company with normal ambitions. At its inception, HGS aspired to dominate not only the field of genomic science, but also emerging markets for regenerative medicines designed to meet the needs of ageing populations. Fred Ledley asks whether HGS could have become the Standard Oil of our generation.