We tend to think that the science should speak for itself. If...

We tend to think that the science should speak for itself. If the EET and the CPPs were so cutting edge/desirable candidates then Big Pharma would be falling over each other for a piece of the action. Back in the real world I don't know whether it works that way. Big Pharma are by nature Big Organisations with competing parties and departments; the Board is listening to many voices all speaking at once: scientists, accountants and administrators. Often they are also focussed upon the low hanging fruit. What does it take for an idea or technology to get up?

"Big Pharma likes to give up on things quickly.....you need to champion your hits in this business," said BioExec on 15/11/2012.

Its not only important to champion your own hits but its also important to have a champion on the inside within the Big Pharma decision making process.

"Interesting to see the CEO for Janssen's venture 'Centyrex' has moved on in the last few months, to now be "Head of Biologics' at Amgen.....I suspect Hayes was the one who saw the potential in PYC's science," said SoT.

There is no doubt in my mind that the collaboration between Phylogica and Janssen was working towards a successful outcome. The expansion of the collaboration, the validation of the science and the body language all suggested that Janssen would move to license. Most assuredly, however, the science wasn't low hanging fruit but early stage development. And something upset the apple cart!

So what, for whatever reason the answer was still no. But obviously the reason for no is important. If the reason for Janssen's decision was the science then it represents a serious setback. If the reason was internal politics then its everything to play for especially with Genentech in the game. We just need new champions.