i'm admittedly basing my thoughts on very little DD but i was curious why INO had success securing BP partners AZN/Medimmune, Roche (granted it was dropped) and NCI for it's electroporation based therapies while ONCS has been on it's own so far. i doubt it is because INO develops its EP-tech in-house while ONCS outsources EP-tech while focusing on its gene therapy. is it because INO's indications suited BP better while ONCS's indication is a hard-sell or because ONCS's trials are not late stage enough? i doubt both. apologies if my ruminations stem from bad info/assumptions i have made. thanks for all your posts.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
