Biotech panel marks 50th anniversary of DNA double helix discovery by contemplating both the past and the future

By Robert Sanders, Media Relations| 16 October 2003

BERKELEY – This year marks not only the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, but also the 30th
anniversary of genetic engineering and the start of the biotech boom, Nobel laureate James Watson noted in his talk at
an October 11 Berkeley symposium on "The Double Helix and Biotech."

In 1973, Herbert Boyer of UC San Francisco and Stan Cohen of Stanford University discovered enzymes that could cut and
splice DNA, allowing them to add genes from one organism to the cells of another. The technique, called recombinant
DNA, led to the genetic engineering revolution. That, along with the creation of Genentech, Inc., in 1976 by Boyer and
venture capitalist Robert Swanson, spawned a new industry that today includes more than 4,000 companies worldwide.

Today, more than 150 biotech drugs are on the market and nearly 400 more are in the pipeline, noted Shereen El Feki,
international healthcare correspondent for The Economist and moderator of a panel discussion by biotech founders at the
symposium sponsored by UC Berkeley, Genentech and Tularik, Inc. Along with these new drugs, however, has come
controversy around genetic testing, cloning, designer babies and patenting of genes, among other issues.

In an hour of discussion led by El Feki, Boyer, Tularik co-founder and current CEO David Goeddel, Chiron Corp. co-
founder Edward Penhoet and Biogen co-founder Charles Weissmann seemed generally in agreement about the state of their
industry. All unanimously deplored the country's restrictions on stem cell research, which they feel is the future of
the biotech industry.

"This has to be resolved, or U.S. biotech may be played down as a result of the bad policies," Boyer said.

"If we don't do it here," Weissmann agreed, "some others will do it elsewhere."

New proposals by the National Institutes of Health to emphasize "mission-oriented" research also came in for universal
bashing.

"I share concern about a movement, at NIH in particular, for more mission-oriented research," said Penhoet, now senior
director for science and higher education programs at the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. "I think that industry,
with more than 4000 companies, and now all the pharma companies, have done an extraordinary job of extracting all the
value from the basic science that gets conducted in universities, funded by NIH. And the notion that there is a lot of
extremely valuable science left untapped in this country and that needs somehow an outlet different from the biotech
companies, seems to me simply incorrect. Every study that's been done on this shows that this is not the case. "If
anything, one of the biggest concerns is too many companies are starting these days with ideas that are still basically
research ideas and not even ready for commercialization. I think it's a very worrisome trend to see NIH start to worry
about essentially more 'mission-oriented' or disease-curing research."

The panel harkened back 30 years to the climate of biotech's early years. Until Genentech came along, Penhoet said,
"drug development was a stochastic process" of testing many chemicals to see which would work. "That meant, basically,
dumping chemicals on cells and testing them in animals, and if they work, it's great, but very little was known about
the mechanism by which they worked, especially in the cancer field." Now "there is no random screening - all new drug
development is dependent on knowledge" of a target structure, such as an enzyme that needs to be knocked out.

The problem, then as now, is "turning a target into a drug," said Weissmann, head of the Neurogenetics Unit at Imperial
College School of Medicine at St. Mary's Hospital in London, and a professor in the Prion Unit at the Medical Research
Council. Twenty-five years ago, when he co-founded Biogen, the company pinpointed 12 potential drugs, "and all you
would have to do is go out and clone the proteins and you would have a drug. Within a few years these drugs - human
growth hormone, insulin, interferon - had all been done. That was really the easy part." Today, he added, the number of
potential drug targets is in the tens of thousands.

"I think today this is the big problem that faces the industry: you have a lot of targets, but from all those targets
there are relatively few drugs. The first phase was where you shook the tree and the ripe apples fell down. The second
phase is where you have to climb up and pick every apple by hand, and that is a good deal more difficult and
laborious."

Venture capital funding is not as plentiful either. After Goeddel left Genentech to found Tularik with Rober Tjian in
1991, he said, "we felt it was a 20-year venture to build a full fledged pharmaceutical company, from start to highly
profitable products on the market. I see now, venture capitalists are looking for things that are more advanced, maybe
already somehow in the clinic or spun out of another company, as opposed to just the ideas.

"If you can get venture funding and stay private for a while, I still think that's the way to go, because the financial
pressure is probably even greater after you're public. In the current environment there is a lot of very short term
pressure."

"The days in which money could be freely given to an individual with new ideas and new technology are over," Boyer
agreed.

One improvement, however, is that the stigma once attached to academics who worked with biotech companies has gone
away, replaced by the feeling that academia is a natural partner to the biotech industry. This is particularly
important because pharmaceutical companies are a lot less interested today in funding basic research.

"There is a rational, legitimate approach in which academic research and research and development in the corporation
can be very advantageous to both parties, and I think that has proven to be the case," Boyer said. "I think today there
are quite good relations between academia and the R&D components of biotech, and other drug industries as well. It has
evolved, it was a little rocky 25 years ago, but today it's a very synergistic interaction between the two."

Webcast(s) of the event (Requires RealOne Player)

Genentech co-founder Herbert Boyer about the value of collaborations between universities and biotech companies
http://tinyurl.com/rgqt

Tularik CEO David Goeddel about building the company 12 years ago and the financial climate today
http://tinyurl.com/rgqv

Biogen co-founder Charles Weissmann on the business of drug making and why it's harder today
http://tinyurl.com/rgqy

Chiron co-founder Edward Penhoet says some things are easier today for biotech start-ups
http://tinyurl.com/rgr0

Penhoet on NIH plans to make government-funded research more "mission-oriented"
http://tinyurl.com/rgr2

Watch entire 1 hour, 2 minutes biotech panel discussion
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/events/details.html?event_id=100

SOURCE: UC Berkeley (press release), CA
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/16_biotech.shtml

* * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn