Pharma’s Cutting Edge

Read this follow-up story from the Seattle Times. Here’s the orginal piece. Also see a recent story from Business Week on the same topic. For the record…I run [Editor’s note:  I ceased this activity entirely soon after this piece ran] a company that is considered one of these “matchmakers,” although we operate on a much smaller level than Gerson Lehrman or some of the others and focus on the industry side rather than the clinical researcher side (in industry, obtaining and revealing competitor information is a sanctioned function known as “competitive intelligence”). Do some investors try to get genuinely inside information from experts? I have no doubt after speaking with many investors and researchers that some do. Analysts and investors are under tremendous pressure to perform, and the best way to perform is to have an undeniable information advantage. That said, I believe that most investors act ethically and avoid asking insiders questions that will compromise their confidentiality agreements with industry sponsors. Clinical investigators must be very circumspect when speaking with investors. Every time I have spoken with a clinical investigator on behalf of an investor, I’ve cautioned her not to reveal any confidential information. Every time. I believe that most clinical researchers do not even realize that they could be considered insiders by the SEC and pay severe penalties for disclosing confidential information to investors. Surely, however, all investigators read their contracts and understand that they must not breach sponsor confidentiality. Sponsors should do more to remind investigators of their obligations; usually they do nothing more than deliver the contract. Investors should never tempt investigators to breach confidentiality. It’s illegal and unethical. Let’s hope that this spotlight on the “big boys” of expert access will end the improper behavior.