realistic expectations, page-16

Neo - Clinical trials are like most things in life...if they're worth doing, they're worth doing properly.

Most of the time there is "precedent" for the short-cut (cost controlled) trial. The problem is though, that nuances of the precedent that were important in garnering approval are missing (or do not apply) to the prospective trial. Management necessarily be aware of the differences, and the CRO just wants a buck, so a half baked trial is better than none. Better still for the CRO, a full trial might follow if the data are good.

US investors tend to be much (MUCH) more aware of the importance of rigorous trial design than Aust. investors. I once worked with a gun US biotech investor and now carry an ingrained skepticism of weak design, not because they always fail at registration, but because they often do.

This is all IMHO.