this is just a debate over words, if they got a few encouraging results to add to the clinical data and managed to convince a journal to publish it, then it would sell itself to anyone who was skimming through pubmed. But they need to generate the "advertisement" ( the paper) to get the science to "sell itself."
So, yes, they don't need to push or politically "sell" it but they do need to market it and make the interesting feaures known. If it was understood they wouldn't need science but if they could isolate/publish a few unknowns they could probably attract collaborations. I get the feeling this may be embarassing to some non-science managers( "What, admit that our product and understanding are imperfect?").
The gene expression results from DC's or NK's as a function of time correlated with improved survival you would think would be interesting. I've never priced large quantities of AFFX arrays but compared to making cartoons it may be worth some time.