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.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
