Jake - I do not think the board makeup is where it needs to be, in terms of ideal/target for proper skill diversification and more so, independence. I would like to see that evolve to a larger and broader baseline of internal and external entities that bring a balance of self (company) interest and deeper industry acumen.
That said - my interpretation of what drives the current makeup is leaning more towards the choices of a company in accelerated evolution (forced to become grown ups quickly), and not so much a sinister driver (keeping it small and in the family due to the intent to hide or get away with something). I have seen comments on the board that range in both directions, and I subscribe to the 'in the process of getting it' side.
My hope is that within the next few months, and with further evidence of efficacy and synergy with other compounds, this will take care of itself - if not by anything else then more so by a partner or collaborator forcing that outcome.
I do believe that in the long run, it is much better to grow up quickly, lean on the strengths that a well established partner will bring to the table, and kick the development and commercialization of the product to high gear. One thing you learn on the job (bio/pharma) is the value and impact of an organized, effective and scalable capabilities. If you run a perfect company (does not exist...) it would take 5-10 years to develop a commercial side to the house that can handle sales, distribution, lobbying and other activities needed on the front end. No one has that kind of time in this field, and the pace of discover in the Oncology field is touching warp speed. Competition is fierce and so is the likely outcome of knowing/understanding more - which drives novel ways to address what was not previously understood. We can have the unexpected competing product announced this afternoon.
Getting from a great idea and proof of concept to piping 500,000 doses to Oncology clinics in any given geography is not something a small biotech can achieve in a reasonable, or acceptable, time frame. I see a major dicotomy in play, though I do think it will be addressed. A product that has real potential (not perfect cure etc... just good profile that can help prolong and possibly save some lives) in Oncology can have explosive demand once in real play. A small company will crumble under this type of demand profile.
Therefore back to the board question - it would help to evolve and expand it, and partnering to make this viable in terms of sales and market penetration is an existential requirement for this company.
I personally do have many questions (as in 'why' and 'how' certain things are happening in the company) but am generally positive & supportive based on the big-picture indicators. One of the good things about Oncology products is the fact that you can't fake out cancer. You can get lousy results (low powered trials, wrong end points, etc.) but stage III/IV cancers don't respond to wishful thinking, organic foods or other catalysts that can greatly affect pain, mental ilness and other diseases that greatly swing through suggestive powers.
Provided we have sufficiently reliable data (hoping FT through objective view by FDA scientists establishes that) - we are at least past the two most difficult hurdles. Does it have a safety profile, and does it do anything of value.
Now its full steam ahead to make it a 'real' product!
Best,
MH
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
