Ron Rader

Why Do Pharmas Call Themselves Biotechs?

I fully agree that the terms "biotechnology" and also "biopharmaceutical" are widely misused and abused, often on purpose and by those in the mainstream pharmaceutical industry. See my article, "(Re)Defining Biopharmaceutical," discussing this and its ramifications in Nature Biotechnology (online at www.biopharma.com/biop...). This followed a 2-part series, "What is a Biopharmaceutical?," published in BioExecutive (at www.biopharma.com/BioE... and www.biopharma.com/BioE...). As the subtitle of the Nature Biotech article states, "Vested interests are redefining, rebranding and co-opting what is ‘biopharmaceutical’. This is not just a matter of semantics—the core identity of the biotech industry and its products is at stake." These articles include discussions of how much of the pharmaceutical industry have been seeking to rebrand itself as now being "biotechnology" and "biopharmaceutical," including companies, products and R&D.

Major offenders include PhRMA, which has been claiming it represents "America's biopharmaceutical companies" and in all of its more authoritative sponsored studies of the industry has simply swapped in "biopharmaceutical" for "pharmaceutical;" and now promulgates the notion that the pharmaceutical industry has magically been transformed in recent years by adoption of biotechnology ("convergence"), particularly in R&D, such that the industry has been reborn as the "biopharmaceutical" industry. "Biopharmaceutical" and "biotechnology" evoke much more attractive images than "drug" and "pharmaceutical;" and everyone wants to be perceived as being associated with "bio" rather than the traditional pharmaceutical industry. BIO and others are just as bad, with this camp even further extending "biotechnology" to everything and anything involving the life sciences, particularly if it feels good (evokes positive images of high-tech companies, products and industry). When asked, BIO now even refuses to provide a definition of "biotechnology" (presumably, recognizing that what they promulgate has no basis, other than the widespread abuse/misuse of the term). And of course, 1000s of companies, stock analysts and the general press looking for to hype up their image or stories simply swap in biotech and biopharma terms for pharma/drug-related terms, even when they know this is incorrect. In about the past year, with biosimilars a political topic, PhRMA, BIO and other offenders have toned down their rebranding efforts, but as soon as their hyping on the differences, e.g., complexity and uniqueness of biologics/biopharmaceu... (vs. drugs), is no longer needed for PR and lobbying purposes, I'm confident they will quickly return to their efforts to capture "biotech" and "biopharma" terms to encompass their vested interests, including everything/anything pharmaceutical/drug-re... and everything/anything life sciences-related.

Note, 'biotechnology" involves the manufacture of products by or using living organisms, with this usually involving bioprocessing. "Biopharmaceutical" involves pharmaceuticals (medicinal products) manufactured using biotechnology. Industries are identified/named based on their products, not scientific approaches used in R&D (which is how many rationalize extending "biotech" and "biopharma" terms to most anything life sciences- or pharmaceutical-related). For example, GM, Ford and other automobile manufacturers do a lot of materials science-related research, but no one calls them materials science companies, while pharmaceutical and other companies with absolutely no involvement in biotechnology are commonly referred to and claim to be biopharmaceutical and biotech companies. Small molecule drugs are not biopharmaceuticals! Biotechnology companies are those companies substantially developing, manufacturing and/or marketing biotechnology-manufact... products, and biopharmaceutical companies are those developing, manufacturing and/or marketing biotechnology-manufact... pharmaceuticals.

For those interested in "biopharmaceutical" terminology, definitions and nomenclature, visit biopharmacopeia.com.

Gilead Sciences 'Pushes Out' Amgen As Number 2 Biotech

Note, I do not consider Gilead to be either a biotech or biopharmaceutical company. Biotechnology involves the use of live organisms for the manufacture of inherently biological-type products. Biotech as used here and by many others use is a vague, never defined, metaphor or reference to high-tech life sciences-based companies and research. Small molecule drugs and related R&D are neither biotech nor biopharmaceutical! Along these lines see my two-part series, "What is a Biopharmaceutical?, published in BioProcess International, with links to this at www.biopharmacopeia.co.... And, this is the approach used in my book/database, Biopharmaceutical Products in the U.S. and European Markets (see biopharma.com).

Although it is incredibly common, particularly in the financial community and press, to view biotech as being based on business models (rather than marketed products, which is how industries have always been defined) and/or gee-whiz, that's neat-type views of industry, I have yet to see any usable definition or explanation of how to apply this. Most analysts I've spoken use a completely subjective 'if it seems or can be hyped as high-tech and it involves the life sciences, it's obviously biotech' approach, with just about every pharmaceutical company meeting this criteria. For this reason, just about all financial industry analyses of the biotech and biopharmaceutical industries are useless, if not misleading, including the most well-known and presumed authoritative annual reviews/studies, with criteria unset and varying depending on the year (or is it time of day, mood of the analyst, etc.) and often manipulated to meet the analyst's preconceived, often theme-based, conclusions.

As far as I am aware and I followed Gilead for 15 years, from its very start, as Editor, Antiviral Agents Bulletin, Gilead has no substantive involvement with biotechnology, with its R&D based on medicinal chemistry, and its products being synthetic small molecule drugs. Comparing Gilead to Amgen is like comparing apples and oranges--yes, they are both fruits (and pharmaceutical companies) but these companies' products, the manufacture and underlying nature (biological vs. chemical) of their products, their associated manufacturing infrastructure, the expertise of their staff, etc., are very different.

It would be accurate to say that Gilead has now overtaken Amgen as the largest non-Big Pharma-type pharmaceutical company, or the largest biotech-type company, presuming that one actually defines or makes it clear that biotech in this context involves innovative, entrepreneurial, started-from-scatch, gone from private to public-type companies.