A policy approved by The University of Akron last summer – before the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act took effect – required criminal background checks for nearly all prospective employees, including the possible collection of DNA samples. The policy was retracted following a public outcry, but it left uncertainty about how GINA applies to employers. Shawneequa Callier, a post doctoral fellow at the Center for Genetic Research, Ethics, and Law in the Bioethics Department at Case Western Reserve University co-authored an essay on the controversy in the latest Hastings Center Report. We spoke to Callier about the UA case, how it played out against the implementation of GINA and why enforcement of the new law can be problematic.
Read More
Initial Public Offerings
- Ironwood Tests It Mettle
Company’s offering sets the mood for biotech IPOs. Read More
Biofuels
- Sweet Venture
Shell-Cosan enter $12 billion venture to ramp up production and distribution. Read More
Genetics
- Unlocking the Genetics of Child Killers
Top pediatric hospital teams up with leading genomics center for $65 million. Read More
Autism
- Another Autism Link
Study confirms link between older moms and the disorder. Read More
Regulatory
- Budget Boost
Obama's fiscal 2011 budget calls for more money for NIH, FDA. Read More - With Healthcare Reform Uncertain, BIO's Policy Fights Remain
Podcast: February 1, 2010 Read More
Obesity
- When Less Means More
New research finds some morbidly obese people are missing genes. Read More
Trials and Tribulations
- GSK to Slash 4,000 Jobs
The weekly round-up of failed trials, missed targets and other business mishaps. Read More
Deals
- Biotech has its first IPO this year
Capital markets slide and dealmaking crosses borders. Read More
Drug Development
- Novo Hopes for a Diabetes Blockbuster
Danish pharma secures approval for Victoza. Read More
- The Burrill Report (February 8, 2010): Why GINA Can Be Problematic in the Workplace
Listen to the latest edition from The Journal of Life Sciences. Browse all podcasts
ONLINE POLL
February 05, 2010
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, the first biotech IPO of 2010, debuted. Do you think Ironwood will
Jim Greenwood, president and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, discusses the uncertainty surrounding healthcare reform, what it means for such issues as follow-on biologics, and what the industry’s policy agenda looks like for 2010.
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals became the first biotech to go public in 2010. The company had hoped to raise upwards of $270 million through the sale of 16.7 million shares in the range of $14 to $16 a share. In the end, however, it priced its shares at $11.25 raising just $187.5 million. While this was a significant price cut, it managed to get its IPO done.
.jpg)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
- Biotechnology Group Objects to U.S. Stance on Gene Patents
Bloomberg - Ironwood Cuts IPO by 30% in Biggest Reduction of 2010
Bloomberg - More than half of Americans use Internet for health
Reuters - House to vote on health insurers antitrust law
Reuters - TV Ad Spending On Health Care Slows From $1M Per Day To $1M In A Week
Talking Points Memo - Extra Money for Science in Obama’s Budget
The New York Times - Hospital Mergers Loom as U.S. Overhaul Fails Centers
Bloomberg - Medical journal retracts autism paper 12 years on
Reuters - A Lasting Gift to Medicine That Wasn’t Really a Gift
The New York Times - The Miracle of Vitamin D: Sound Science, or Hype?
The New York Times