Replies to post #42535 on Cytogenix (fka CYGX)

[ColdChips]

I'm not there, but it sure as texas heat doesn't seem like these guys put all their attention and focus on science, or maybe even results. I've made my points about what could have been done, now let's see what the year brought.

[marcusaurelius]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Bad management can destroy good science. But, most of the bad management I have seen in biotech centers around two major classes of gross mistake:
1)Taking the science and pushing it out the door before it is truly ready for prime time; when the push is out the door and into the clinic, the result is invariably chaos. There are many ways to kill a biotech company (as Shakespeare, in Richard II, says about kings), and this way is probably the most lethal.
2)Consistently overpromising results, i.e., betting on the come. Then, to make expectations fit reality, the management starts to distort the science. This strategy frequently will work for a while, but over the long term, the result is the same as 1, i.e., RIP.
IMHO, Cytogenix is guilty of neither of these infractions. Certainly, short term disappointments can and will occur; let's get real, there's risk in this here business. But let's not lose track of the big picture, and what, also IMHO, represents substantial recent progress.