Worldwide - PDF document

1 Steve Liebich, Founder | | Bab
Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 1 Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute Whitepaper Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 2 Overview Science reported that North America consists of more than 1,280 biotechnology companies with a market cap exceeding $200 billion (per year) in 2018. This fact is responsible for the direct employment of over 1.4 million Americans and an additional indirect 6.6 million workplaces, according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization. In China, the bioscience industry has been acclaimed as one of the seven most critical commercial enterprises according to BioSpectrum. In 2010, the United States spent $2.6 trillion on health care, which accounts for 17.9% of the nation’s GDP. When it comes to success, the key factor in determining Big Pharma’s revenue is how many patents t hey hold. However, as presented by a 2011 Harvard Business Review , many patents issued by biotech companies produce nothing as these companies, “rarely have the resources to fight back.” In addition to this, biotech companies and academic institutions are in a state of schism by trying to respond to the same question with two different answers. This discrepancy has generated more setbacks on both ends than helped achieve their common goal. These discrepancies require a new perspective and approach in order to facilitate the true age of human progress. This perspective and approach are addressed here by a newl

2 y proposed business model, never seen b
y proposed business model, never seen before with a radical yet safe design sure to advance the field bioscience. Crunching Biotech Sector Numbers Biotechnology has experienced rapid growth in the market for the last 10 years. In fact, as of December 31, 2013, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index had noted its best performance within last 10 years 1 . Moreover, the NASDAQ Biotech Index outperforms all remain ing securities listed on the S&P 500 Healthcare Index - an American stock market index having common stock listed on the NYSE, NASDAQ, or the Cboe BZX Exchange. Looking further, the promising environment for biotechnology and Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 3 pharmacology is a global phenomenon; often securing not only stable financial situation but also socially. Biotechnology stocks are amongst the largest in the American market and the four biggest firms find themselves in the NASDAQ Composite (representatio n of all stocks traded on the NASDAQ) 2 : • Gilead (8 th place) • Amgen (11 th place) • Celgene (13 th place) • Biogen (14 th place) This should not come as a surprise that as many as four biotech companies place in the top 20 NASDAQ Composite. Moreover, in 2013, 38 biotech companies went public with the initial public offerings (IPOs) and 36 of them were listed on the NASDAQ. As of December 31, the average price change of their stocks had raised to +43%. Overall, in years 2011 - 2013, the NASDAQ index noted an unbelievable +144.23% growth in performance. Each of the listed companies has its

3 own specific niche in the biotech field.
own specific niche in the biotech field. Some of the niches, or rather disciplines, are dive rgent, mixed and non - uniform. Despite their convergent niches, they are all detailed in the Supplemental Materials field. The chart below indicates what biomedical niches were most popular among the 38 IPOs from 2013 3 . Considering the data presented, it is clear that IPOs from 2013 were interested in new oncology treatments joined by immunooncology. Unfortunately, most biotech companies from the R& D sector focus on very specific themes in which they dedicate all of their research and resources to this specific theme. In academia, limitations on funds and the amount of researchers co - working on a single project force cuts in research. One might expec t a more integrated or at least a broadened scope of studies taken by a giant Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 4 biotech company that has the funds to afford such a stance. However, the trend is the opposite. Does the situation change among the largest players in biotech? The answer is short: No. The distribution of main research interest among the top 10 biotech companies (securities) as of the end of 2018 resembles the distribution observed for the IPOs. The primary focus is oncology and new drugs development for common cancer types. Even though both charts (IPOs and the top 10 securities) do not directly reflect the detailed situation of the market, they provide inferences into the current biotech market situation. Most likely, the funding s pent on one research project in such a

4 company delivers a better and affordab
company delivers a better and affordable outcome. However, two questions must be asked: Is this an outcome of higher quality? Is the amount of money efficient when compared to the amount of research that could be done if a broader stance was adopted? These observations can be partially explained when addressed to the bigger picture of the key players: Biotech and Big Pharma are focused on developing generic drugs and manufacturing the ones that already exist. Cambridge Antibody Technology, set here as an example, was co - founded in 1989 by David Chiswell and Greg Winter. The two generated the now - up - to - date antibody production protocols used for treatment of multiple disorders, including plethora types of cancer. In 2006, ACT was acquired by AstraZeneca, multinational pharmaceuti cal company, in order to become its R&D arm. Until now, few changes have been applied in the antibodies production within the company; not to mention a lack of new inventions. Nevertheless, the money side of the biotech business is extremely successful. Wi thin the R&D industry, the ratio of expenditure to total revenue is an indicator of a Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 5 company’s healthy progress. By using a parallel figure in the chemistry industry, this ratio is approximately 5%. For the pharmaceutical indu stry and biotechnology industry, it is equal to 13% and 40 - 50% 4 respectively. Biotech firms entering the public market are occurring worldwide. In China, there is a break through with 93 companies going public with initial offerings at total $16 billion in 2

5 017. The Chinese genome sequencing comp
017. The Chinese genome sequencing company, GBI, experienced a surge in its share price from CNY20 to CNY250, leading the way for other Chinese biotech companies 5 . The biotech business in UK experienced their biggest revenues in 2010; reporting a tremendous 84.3% average increase. According to London Stock Exchange Group, biotech drives the UK economy due to its importance in developing new treatment methods for diseases that take the lives of thousands every year 6 . Biotechnology in other Eur opean countries shines even brighter. According to Carsten Borring, head of listings and capital markets of NASDAQ in Copenhagen, NASDAQ Nordic is one of the Europe’s biggest pivots with over 1,000 biotech firms listed. The Nordic countries are an extremel y growing focal point of healthcare sector in modern Europe 7 . Poland is another attractive hub for biotechnology; especially when focusing on bioengineering field. Foreign and domestic investors are eager to contribute money to Polish biotech startups because of the country’s highly qualified researchers and competit ive labor cost 8 . According to FDI Intelligence, Poland ranked 5 th in the world list of Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 6 attractiveness to foreign investors in 2010; placing her behind such competitive regions as the USA (38 investments), China (27), and the UK (22). However, the main funding sources still come from governmental supplies and European Union funds. Moreover, most research centers belong to national facilities and not to the pri

6 vate sector. This, in turn, balks the c
vate sector. This, in turn, balks the creative drive of most Polish bio tech companies. Crunching Academic Institutions Numbers This lack of creativity and ingenuity is buffered by academic institutions. According to the NCBI, academic institutions hold 39% of DNA patents and 3% of all general patents. The remaining 61% of DNA patents belong to a diversified and spread net of biotech companies. The genetic testing market is worth of $5 billion yearly and is expected to increase to $25 billion by 2021. Patent issuing, though not the strongest market succe ss indicator, shows reliably how scientific progress is done in both academia and R&D industry. According to a research paper from 2006, the patents distribution for academia and the R&D industry are similar in both cases, but innovation and ingenui ty is questioned more in regard to the industry patent politics 9 . According to the NSF Report from 2018, most patented innovations are not commercialized and while non - patented innovations are. However, one observation is critical in the understanding of the R&D market in developed markets. Scientific peer review is the best established medium of judging the credibility of findings and/or hypotheses. Therefore, scientific employees working in the industry are motivated to publish their work with the same determination as their academia - Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 7 related colleagues. Common motives for publishing one’s work include taking a researcher position in the field, exposing problem - solvi ng caveats, and p

7 romoting scientific credibility. Clariv
romoting scientific credibility. Clarivate Analytics published their fifth list of the Global Highly Cited Researchers in 2018 10 . Those scientists are ranked in the top 1% (by citations) for their field. 4,058 researchers are listed as the Highly Cited Researchers (HCR) in the 21 Essential Science Indicator (ESI) fields; among whom 17 are Nobel laureates and 56 potential Nobel Prize recipients. The HCR represents more than 60 nations, with over 80% belonging to the top 10 countries and as m any as 70% are affiliated with only five nations. The U.S. alone is represented by 2,639 researchers, the UK supports 546, and China is coming close with 482 scientists listed on the third place of the list. Nations represented by 40% or more of the 2,000 HCRs in the cross - field category (having an impact in more than one field) are from Sweden (53%), Austria (53%), Singapore (47%), Denmark (47%), China (43%) and South Korea (42%). None of the Top 10 HCR listed institutions are industry. Based on the numbe rs presented so far, young and promising graduates all over the world from the life science fields are split on the question on which path to take; industry or academia? Should they follow their intrinsic voice of self - fulfillment and follow the academic roots in order to become recognized and widely respected as a professional? Or should they listen to the money talk and aim at industry? According to Nature, the number of academic researchers in the U.S. rose by 150% between 2000 and 2012 11 . On the other hand, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the biotech sector is expected to increase employment by 13% by 2022

8 . So, like in osmosis, the gradient of
. So, like in osmosis, the gradient of solutes changes on two sides of the barricade. According to The Scientist, the American, Canadian , and European scientists are paid approx. 30% more in the industry than in academia 12 . Surprisingly, women professors made only 88% of their male colleagues’ income. According to the report, academic professors are more devoted to their scientific work th an in the private industry. This is Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 8 partially because of lesser pressure from the directory and partially to the limited funds which make the researchers find alternative and often intriguing ways to complete their studies. Therefore, flexibility has strong incentives compared to corporate r estraints. Also, more academic researchers are more devoted due to “credit policy”: If you do not sponsor a study or you are not chief executive of a project, your name will never appear on the product’s label. For more valuable opinions on the industry - ac ademia question, you are kindly referred to this website . R&D Industry vs Acad emic Institutions: The Game of Big Disparities Patents are the bone of contention between industry and academia. Similarly, the progress and development of new technologies and innovative solutions for modern healthcare sector are unevenly distributed. Total revenue favors industry (the big biotech companies and Big Pharma) over government - and academia - related institutions. It seems like the major relevant factor contributing to the differences is money. Approximately 60% of R& D stud

9 ies are carried out by the industrial s
ies are carried out by the industrial sector, whereas academia and government are left with 20% and 10%, respectively 13 . In 2018, the NIH (National Institutes of Health) granted 57,721 awards to academia for the total amount of $28,319,914,865 . In comparison, the total investment (mostly private) in R&D of the top 2500 biotech companies amounted to over $820 billion in 2017 14 . U.S. companies (778) accounted for 37% of the total R&D investment while European (577) companies comprised 27% . Japan (339) and China (438) accounted for 14% and 10% respectively. This discrepancy is a result of the methods used for funding. Academic institutions are funded mainly by governments, non - profit organizations, and individual sponsors. R&D companies (in cluding biotech and pharma) raise their money through government programs (mainly granted to start - ups) and equity investments. Different policies of the two environments also account for the huge Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 9 financial gap. There are law - dependent and institution restrained rules by which most academic institutions must adhere to in order to secure their still unsatisfactory funding. This is largely not a problem in the industrial sector. researchers at Utah University with help of sc ientists from then - young genomic company, Myriad Genetics. It is still unsure how exactly the company was involved in the process of the genes isolation, but Myriad Genetics sought patent protection against On the other hand, competency of researchers

10 and their freedom in develo
and their freedom in developing new projects, hypotheses and methodologies favor academia. The “freedom” part plays a pivotal role in every scientific study by reducing redundant pressure on its conductors and providing them with proper environmental stability. These things cannot be said about industry, in which researchers must answer to several key individuals with stake in the research. The reason why people employed in the industrial sector usually stay in the industry is the money, self - actualization through teamwork success, and the lesser amount of time necessary to accomplish a task. The industry - academia dilemma is best understood with examples. The two genes now known to be highly correlated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in women, BRCA1 and BRCA2, were isolated in 1994 by “unauthorized use of the gene”. This gave the company a monopoly on testing genetic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in women with hereditary susceptibility. Over the n ext 25 years, Myriad Genetics focused mainly on breast cancer with some exceptional studies directed toward other types of human cancer, but also providing the world with a fully sequenced genome of rice. This is not much. But there is a reason why time is the greatest resource thief among biotech companies. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, it takes about 10 years and $1.8 billion to bring a new drug to the world market 15 . ‘Typically, less than 1% of the compounds examined in the pre - cl inical period make it into human testing. Only 20% of the com

11 pounds entering clinical trials survive
pounds entering clinical trials survive the development process and gain the Food and Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 10 Drug Administration’s approval.’ This clarifies everything. If you find one good a nd effective therapeutic, you can earn millions and millions of dollars by selling it under different brand names, with some slight modifications and sometimes none at all. This also raises some ethical questions which will likely not be answered in the fo reseeable future. However, what if a new system was conceived? What if there was a concept – a new and bright idea – that would take the best of both worlds? What if this idea revolutionized the whole world by making the whole system easier and more approac hable? In other words: What do people do when systems go down, fall short of them and fail the people? The people abandon the systems and establish their own more functional and less disappointing systems. The whole scientific world under one name made fro m science, by people, and for people. Please, meet Babu ™ . Babu ™ . The Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute The Biotechnology sector of R&D has its advantages and flaws. The academic world can be proud of its game - changing scientists and intellect ual resources, but also deals with obstacles that it cannot overcome. Biotech and Big Pharma mostly represent the vertical business model by specializing in a concrete niche and providing a consistent product. This enables these companies to generate profi ts from several levels of the production model; which consists particularly of proc

12 essing and delivery, rarely of novel de
essing and delivery, rarely of novel development. In contrast to the vertical mode, its counterpart – the horizontal business model, or platform model – maintains a company’ s uniqueness by providing the market with an indispensable product. This model is very common in IT biotech enterprises. Eventually, all Big Pharma key players incorporate their own Fully Integrated Pharmaceutical Company (FIPCO) business model. You design , develop, produce, maintain and deliver a drug. And nobody ever has come up with a different approach. Nobody has ever thought of the bright side of academia and integrating it with the Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 11 exceptional business models of the R& D companies in order to secure a safer future for the humanity and help millions of people in a very short span of time. This is where Babu ™ takes on and presents the new, bright future of the entire world to humanity that deserves the progress we have bee n promised for so long. Companies with financial resources bring biotechnology for a larger scale, but they are limited to only narrow spectra of interests. On the other hand, the cutting edge research is found at universities and international scientific institutes. However, financial restraints, dependence on the governmental subsidies, political lobbying, and ethical policies often stall scientific progress by months and years. If humans want to live longer, healthier and better, we need to have somethin g long - lasting, healthier and better. We need to have an apparatus that works efficiently, wisely, and properly. Ba

13 bu ™ is the answer: W orldwide I n
bu ™ is the answer: W orldwide I ndependent B iotechnology I nstitute. • Worldwide : All of the biggest American biotech companies, including Big Pharma, relay on the intellectual force provided by the bright minds coming from each corner of the world. Normally, this would imply a huge obstacle: securing a place to live, relocation, negotiations of the employment terms to name a few. Babu ™ is aw are that bright and fruitful minds live in every corner of the world, but instead of building a gigantic facility, spending millions of dollars into maintenance, and depending on researchers who might or might not relocate themselves and their families in order to work for a company, Babu ™ sets a new course in the industry. Labs, not entire facilities, must be built there, where researchers are. Babu ™ brings the world together under one name, but for the common goal shared by all humans: live longer, health ier, and better. The whole world unites in the name of scientific progress that comes to people. Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 12 • Independent : Fully reinforced by private financial resources, making it autonomous to governments and lobbying cells. No governmen tal policy must have its influence on the internal politics courses set by those who lead Babu ™ . This secures an independent funding which will be concentrated on projects developed, maintained and directed by Babu ™ . • Biotechnology : Babu ™ is dedicated sole ly to three main pillars of its activity: o Biogerontology o Regenerative Medicine

14 o Developmental Biology Why? The
o Developmental Biology Why? These Three Pillars guide Babu ™ towards the goal of achieving longer, healthier and better lives. Biogerontology considers the cellular senescence and ageing processes that we not only want to stop, but also reverse. This is already possible now, but money and politics make it harder than it should be. Regenerative medicine is still in its infancy, but the potential exceeds our wildest dreams. Heart, kidney, arteries, pancreas and liver developed in labs from stem cells and the newest technological progress in biology. This is not a fantasy anymore – this is a reality and this is happening right now. Developmental bi ology must answer one simple question: Where do we come from? What Babu ™ means by that is the processes responsible for a human embryo development and their holistic understanding in order to prevent congenital disorders, but not to manipulate the processes! This is the caveat that puts Babu ™ outside the group. We do not play with Nature in regard to the means of manipulating it or correcting what does not belong to humans. No non - approved genetic engineering or other ethicall y inconsistent dilemmas have no home at Babu ™ ! We want people to live longer, healthier and better – not different. Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 13 • Institute: One adage speaks out for Babu ™ : To accelerate three generations of scientific work in one decade . Th is can be done only with a collaborative work of scientists doing science for themselves and for humanity – not for money and not f

15 or governments. Babu ™ is not anoth
or governments. Babu ™ is not another biotech company, but primarily a scientific institute with the financial and directive resources of private companies. Researchers will work in labs built by Babu ™ all over the world. They will be financed by Babu ™ money, given as much as they need to finish their work. They will have as much freedom as in any other academic facility. Papers will be published, every scientific work documented, presented to people at every stage of its inception, tested before clinical trials even more intensively than ever. But this is a teamwork that will drive it all. We all are scientists and we all want to live longer, healthier and better. What about the internal decision - making organ? A chosen group of scientists coming from different specialties, but mostly representing the Three Pillars, will decide on projects selection, scientific aspects of the p rojects and credibility and intellectual capacity of the projects’ main PIs. All internal affairs, specific directive liabilities, communication between laboratories, financial distribution and other financial operations will be carried out by professional business - educated staff representing the internal affairs management. Dependence of the two divisions will be held to some extent, but only the Scientific Advisory Board will be responsible for projects selection and their evaluation. This will guarantee the independence and freedom of the institute from others, including the internal management. This is the essence of independence within Babu ™ . Even though the Three Pillars set the goal of Babu ™ , the Institute has no scien

16 tific limits. Neurological disorders, a
tific limits. Neurological disorders, autoimmune diseases, cancer treatments, nutritional healthcare – anything that has a potential to Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 14 save people’s lives may be accepted and incorporated by Babu ™ . The Institute is the dream of every scientist, businessman and especially, every human in the world. Our main goal is to make the dream come true. Babu ™ starts here. Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 15 References and Supplemental Material 1 1 https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/A_Closer_Look_Biotech_020614.pdf 2 https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/NBI_Research.pdf 3 https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/A_Closer_L ook_Biotech_020614.pdf 4 https://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/patents_biotech_fulltext.html 5 https://pharmaintelligence.informa.com/resources/product - content/hong - kong - takes - on - nasdaq - for - china - biotech - ipos 6 https://www.lseg.com/resources/2013 - 14/1000 - companies - inspire - britain/biotech - healthcare 7 https://nordiclifescience.org/nordic - capital - landscape/ 8 https://www.paih.gov.pl/sectors/biotechnology 9 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222151043_Academic_Versus_Industry_Patenting_An_In - Depth_Analysis_of_What_Determines_Patent_Value 10 https://clarivate.com/blog/news/global - highly - cited - researchers - 2018 - list - reveals - influential - scientific - researchers - and - their - institutions/ 11 https://www.nature.com/n ews/2011/110420/full/472276a.html 12 https://www.the - sci

17 entist.com/features/2014 - life - scienc
entist.com/features/2014 - life - sciences - salary - survey - 36509 13 https://www.oecd - ilibrary.org/science - and - technology/oecd - science - technology - and - industry - scoreboard - 2015_sti_scoreboard - 2015 - en 14 https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm#tab3 15 https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/patents - and - biotechnology Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 16 TABLE 1. SYMBOL COMPANY NAME IPO PRICE ($) PERFORMANCE (%) MAIN FOCUS LPDX LIPOSCIENCE, INC. 9.00 - 53 IT STML STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC. 10.00 96 O KBIO HUMANIGEN, INC. 8.00 - 45 I&O TTPH TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 7.00 93 I/A ENTA ENANTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 14.00 95 I/V&LD CMRX CHIMERIX, INC. 14.00 8 I/V INSY INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC 8.00 384 AN/OP RCPT RECEPTOS, INC. 14.00 107 IT AMBI AMBIT BIOSCIENCES CORP. 8.00 21 I,O&In PTLA PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 14.50 78 H KMDA KAMADA LTD. 9.25 61 H&P EPZM EPIZYME, INC. 15.00 39 O BLUE BLUEBIRD BIO, INC. 17.00 23 G&O PTCT PTC THERAPEUTICS, INC. 15.00 13 G ESPR ESPERION THERAPEUTICS, INC. 14.00 - 2 L RNA PROSENSA HOLDINGS B.V. 13.00 - 64 G OMED ONCOMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 17.00 74 O AGIO AGIOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 18.00 33 G&O HTBX HEAT BIOLOGICS, INC. 10.00 - 29 I&O ICEL CELLULAR DYNAMICS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 12.00 38 C ONTX ONCONOVA THERAPEUTICS, INC. 15.00 - 23 O CNAT CONATUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 11.00 - 41 LD XON INTREXON CORP.

18 16.00 49 IT SPHS SOPHIRIS BIO,
16.00 49 IT SPHS SOPHIRIS BIO, INC. 5.00 - 26 U RGDO REGADO BIOSCIENCES, INC. 4.00 19 H FPRX FIVE PRIME THERAPEUTICS, INC. 13.00 29 O XLRN ACCELERON PHARMA, INC. 15.00 164 G BIND BIND THERAPEUTICS, INC. 15.00 1 O OPHT IVERIC BIO, INC. 22.00 47 ARD FMI FOUNDATION MEDICINE, INC. 18.00 32 IT ENZY ENZYMOTEC LTD. 14.00 93 N FATE FATE THERAPEUTICS, INC. 6.00 5 I&O MGNX MACROGENICS, INC. 16.00 71 I&O KPTI KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS, INC. 16.00 43 O EVGN EVOGENE LTD. 14.75 33 Others XNCR XENCOR INC. 5.50 66 I&O KIN KINDRED BIOSCIENCES, INC. 7.00 60 Others TLOG TETRALOGIC PHARMACEUTICALS CORP. 7.00 36 I&O Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 17 Table 1. 38 Biotech IPOs listed on NASDAQ, as of December 31, 2013. IT – software, algorithms, new technology; O – oncology therapeutics; I&O – immunology and oncology; I/A – Infectious diseases/antibiotics development; I/V – viral infections; LD - liver diseases; AN/OP – analgesics and opioids; I – immunology and antibodies production; H – hematological disorders; P – pulmonology disorders; G – rare genetic disorders; L – lipid metabolism disorders; C – cell culture production and manufacturing; U – urological disorders; ARD – age - related diseases; N – nutritional products PICTURE 1. PI

19 CTURE 2. I&O 38 IPOs f
CTURE 2. I&O 38 IPOs from 2013 Among 38 IPOs from 2013 I/A I/V Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 18 TABLE 2. SYMBOL COMPANY NAME REVENUE (as of 05/14/19) MARKET CAP CELG CELGENE CORP 15.75 66.6 GILD GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. 22.32 83.31 AMGN AMGEN 23.75 103.15 VRTX VERTEX PHARMACEUTIC 3.91 42.82 BIIB BIOGEN, INC. CMN 13.81 45.29 ILMN ILLUMINA, INC. 3.40 44.93 ALXN ALEXION PHARMACEUTIC, INC. 4.34 28.87 REGN REGENERON PHARMACEUTIC, INC. 6.91 33.5 INCY INCYTE CORP 2.00 16.46 BMRN BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTIC 1.52 14.59 PICTURE 3. Top 10 Securities (by weight) of 2018 Steve Liebich, Founder | | Babu ™ Worldwide Independent Biotechnology Institute 19 PICTURE 4. TABLE 3. HCRs by Countries/Regions HCRs by Institutions 1. United States 2639 Harvard University, USA 186 2. United Kingdom 546 National Institutes of Health 148 3. Mainland China 482 Stanford University, USA 100 4. Germany 356 Chinese Academy of Sciences, China 99 5. Australia 245 Max Planck Society, Germany 76 6. The Netherlands 189 University of California Berkely, USA 64 7. Canada 166 University of Oxford, UK 59 8. France 157 University of Cambridge, UK 53 9. Switzerland 133 Washington University in St Louis, USA 51 10. Spain 115 University of California Los Angeles, USA 47