The release of the Q2 2004 issue marks yet another mile-stone for LabToWallStreet. Looking around us, we are launching into an exciting time for the biotech industry. A spate of product approvals and many promising late stage candidates have bolstered a sense of opti­mism for the industry’s finan­cial prospects that is reiterated by an opening of the public mar­kets (albeit with dynamics dif­ferent from any IPO window in the past) and a realignment of private valuations. Looking at us, we too are celebrating much progress. Consistent with our goal to continuously improve our efforts to provide a vehicle for unity of the New York State biotech industry, we continue to partner with quality organiza­tions such as the Westchester Venture Group. We launched a new and improved website www.labtowallstreet.com and we are proud to announce a graphic design partnership with Andrew Cialone/(e.g.) Studio at Holtzman Communications.

  We chose to focus on licensing for this issue because it embodies pro­cedures and concepts essential to the develop­ment of any biotechnology or life scienceenterprise. In its most simple consideration, the term evokes thoughts of negotiation and deal-making, but licensing is actually a “catchall” term refer-ring to a variety of business practices affecting companies quite differently and requiring vastly different skill sets. A most simple breakdown of the discipline would be to analyze the licensure of Technology (procedures, platforms, and/or techniques) and Products (pre-clinical hits/leads, early stage clinical candidates, late stage clinical candidates). It is inter­esting to note that regardless of the analysis, the most obvious unifying element is that all forms of licensing involve the transfer of value embodied in intellectual property, and that intellectual property is not only the driver of the industry, but also quite difficult to value. Therefore, the procedures of licensing are essential, yet eso­teric in that a command of sci­entific knowledge and business skills are required to be effec­tive. Thus it is not surprisingthat very few companies and institutions “get it right”, as evi­denced by recurrent studies of inefficient deal-making and sac­rificed value at multiple stages.

Despite optimism within the USA biotech industry, effective and productive licensing remains a central challenge. It is no secret that Big Pharma is starv­ing for novel compounds; Pfizer’s publicly announced intent to become more acquisi­tive to fill pipeline holes (week of 26 April) is likely to be a trend evidenced by many of its peers trying to satisfy investors whose eyes are on the P/E mul­tiples of DNA and AMGN or perhaps other industries. However, mid- to late-stage product deals are few and far between. Meanwhile, according to studies reported in the New York Times on 3 May 2004, the USA is rapidly losing its long held leadership position within academic science. This may translate into greater difficulty accessing valuable early-stage technologies, not to mention a greater share of profit potential realized outside the USA. Within our area of focus, New York State and New York City, licensing and the procedures of technology transfer are a fore-most challenge. Our goal is to enhance visibility of the issues on a local, national, and inter-national level, as well as to stim­ulate discussion regarding essen­tial yet challenging aspect to our industry. Thus we hope you enjoy the content of this issue.

- PAGE 3 -