The DNA inside each cell of our body consists of approximately 20,000 protein-coding genes, which accounts for only 1-2% of the entire human genome. From this same DNA come tens of millions of RNA molecules, the fundamental coding sequences for protein synthesis and the regulation of cellular functions. This creates the image that the human cell is simply a bag of RNA, an abstraction that highlights the relative abundance of RNA in cells and its crucial role in understanding health and disease.

Although there is hope that biotech markets are improving, the life science sector still feels like it’s very much in the doldrums. Biotech is traditionally the canary in the coal mine for economic downturns and often the last to recover. Nevertheless, the industry is not going anywhere and there are many reasons to be optimistic about its long-term potential.

The DNA inside each cell of our body consists of approximately 20,000 protein-coding genes, which accounts for only 1-2% of the entire human genome. From this same DNA come tens of millions of RNA molecules, the fundamental coding sequences for protein synthesis and the regulation of cellular functions. This creates the image that the human cell is simply a bag of RNA, an abstraction that highlights the relative abundance of RNA in cells and its crucial role in understanding health and disease.

In a 2006 Harvard Business Review article, Gary Pisano contended that the biotech industry struggled to establish itself as a genuine, value-generating business sector. Despite attracting more than $300 billion in capital, and the extraordinary commercial success of companies such as Amgen and Genentech, most biotechnology firms had earned no profit.

Illumina (Nasdaq: ILMN) announced on Monday that it plans to spin off cancer detection subsidiary GRAIL, which is expected to trade on the Nasdaq under the ticker GRAL following a share distribution to Illumina shareholders.

In a 2006 Harvard Business Review article, Gary Pisano contended that the biotech industry struggled to establish itself as a genuine, value-generating business sector. Despite attracting more than $300 billion in capital, and the extraordinary commercial success of companies such as Amgen and Genentech, most biotechnology firms had earned no profit.

The United States spends more on research and development (R&D) than any other country, but that fact tells only half the tale. R&D spending growth has slowed in the U.S. while surging in other countries. China saw a 7.9% year- over-year increase in R&D spending from 2016 to 2017, according to the Organisation for Economic

Reprint: R0610H In 1976, Genentech, the first biotechnology company, was founded by a young venture capitalist and a university professor to exploit recombinant DNA technology. Thirty years and more than $300 billion in investments later, only a handful of biotech firms have matched Genentech’s success or even shown a profit. No avalanche of new drugs has hit the market, and the long-awaited breakthrough in R&D productivity has yet to materialize. This disappointing performance raises a question: Can organizations motivated by the need to make profits and please shareholders successfully conduct basic scientific research as a core activity? The question has largely been ignored, despite intense debate over whether business’s invasion of basic science—long the domain of universities and nonprofit research institutions—is limiting access to discoveries, thereby slowing advances in science. Biotech has not lived up to its promise, says the author, because its anatomy, which has worked well in other high-tech sectors, can’t handle the fundamental challenges facing drug R&D: profound, persistent uncertainty and high risks rooted in the limited knowledge of human biology; the need for the diverse disciplines involved in drug discovery to work together in an integrated fashion; and barriers to learning, including tacit knowledge and murky intellectual property rights, which can slow the pace of scientific advance. A more suitable anatomy would include increased vertical integration; a smaller number of closer, longer collaborations; an emphasis by universities on sharing rather than patenting scientific discoveries; more cross-disciplinary academic research; and more federal and private funding for translational research, which bridges basic and applied science. With such modifications, science can be a business.

The history of modern biotechnology began around four decades ago, with the invention of genetic engineering and the foundatio of Genentech.

Live feed, from a waterhole in the heart of Namibia Complementing the magnificence of the Namib Desert’s never-ending red sand dunes, Namibia Cam’s waterhole...

Patients with localized prostate cancer have a good chance of survival, but mortality rates among those with advanced, metastatic forms of the condition remain high. Until now, the precise mechanism b...

Billy McFarland has officially announced Fyre Festival II, with tickets beginning at $499: 'It has been the absolute wildest journey to get here.'

Traditional sailboats can only sail with the wind behind them. But modern sailboats have sail designs that enable them to sail in any direction regardless of...