Biotech Values

[AlpineBV_Miller]

re: ASCO

The actual story at ASCO is worse than that.

In 2003, under pressure from reporters, ASCO released all the abstracts online simultaneously (like ASH does now). Members howled because it removed their ability to sell their abstract books to Wall Street. The very next year ASCO went back to selectively releasing the abstract books. ASCO releases abstracts early to members only, not all attendees of the meeting. ASCO staff has absolutely no good reason for this delineation.

The real problem is one of disclosure for the biotech companies. Even though the ASCO process results in a clear violation of Reg. FD, they cannot do anything about it. If they fulfill their duty under Reg. FD, ASCO pulls their abstracts (this happens every year to about a dozen abstracts). ASCO has a long memory about this sort of thing and one violation interferes with the ability to get an abstract accepted -- or, more accurately, to have an abstract be given a prominent oral presentation. If an abstract is pulled in this manner, you also piss off your investigator and lose the primary way for an oncology company to publicize its products.

There is an obvious double standard in that big pharma and big biotech will often flout these rules with no push back from ASCO. Since biotech companies cannot afford to take action unilaterally, an equitable solution can only come from the SEC.

The SEC's stand to this point is that Reg. FD does not apply to ASCO. Their conversations with ASCO have led them to believe investigators (also not subject to Reg. FD) are the ones submitting these data. Although that is technically true, investigators are under contract with the companies. Therefore, the SEC's initial stand is they have no jurisdiction.

We're working on that because the practice certainly circumvents the spirit of Reg. FD and clearly harms biotech investors without the money (or the defective honesty gene) to buy ASCO abstract books from ASCO members.