Category Archives: Biotechnology

Favorable Media Coverage Likely to Affect Puma Biotechnology (PBYI) Share Price The Cerbat Gem Puma Biotechnology logo Headlines about Puma Biotechnology (NYSE:PBYI) have been trending positive recently, according to AlphaOne. AlphaOne, a service of Accern, identifies negative and positive press coverage by monitoring more than twenty ...

See the article here:
Favorable Media Coverage Likely to Affect Puma Biotechnology (PBYI) Share Price - The Cerbat Gem

Bargain hunters looking for stocks under $5 with potential upside might want to take a look at shares of Prana Biotechnology Limited (NASDAQ:PRAN). As of a recent trade, the stock is valued around $2.82 and has moved -0.84% in the most recent trading session.

Most investors are likely looking for that next stock that is ready to take off running. Maybe the focus is on finding a stock that has recently taken a turn for the worse for no real apparent reason. As we all know, as quickly as a stock can drop in price, it can bounce back just as fast.

Although the popular stocks that receive a high level of media coverage tend to recover quicker after a sell-off, there may be plenty of under the radar stocks that are ripe for buying. Scoping out these potential market gems may help repair a portfolio that has taken a hit for any number of reasons.

Is Prana Biotechnology Limited Ready to Move higher? Sign Up For Breaking Alerts on this Stock Before the Crowd.

The average investor might not have the time to monitor every single tick of a given stock, but taking a look at historical performance may help provide some valuable insight on where the stock may be trending in the future. Over the past week, Prana Biotechnology Limited (NASDAQ:PRAN) has performed -1.05%. For the past month, shares are 29.22%. Over the last quarter, shares have performed 9.27%. Looking back further, Prana Biotechnology Limited stock has been -11.84% over the last six months, and 73.62% since the start of the calendar year. For the past full year, shares are -22.47%.

There is rarely any substitute for diligent research, especially when it pertains to the equity markets. No matter what strategy an investor employs, keeping abreast of current market happenings is of the utmost importance. Everyone wants to see their stock picks soar, but the stark reality is that during a market wide sell-off, this may not be the case. Recently, shares of Prana Biotechnology Limited (NASDAQ:PRAN)have been seen trading -15.02% away from the 200-day moving average and 13.61% off the 50-day moving average. The stock is currently trading -57.90% away from the 52-week high and separated 85.28% from the 52-week low. Prana Biotechnology Limiteds RSI is presently sitting at 52.76.

New investors may sometimes be working with limited capital. Choosing which stocks to own can be a tough decision. Individuals may be deciding on whether to buy 10 shares of a stock trading at $100 as opposed to purchasing 100 shares of a stock trading at $10. We have recently been focusing on stocks that are trading under the $10 price level. We are constantly monitoring technical and fundamental factors that may lead to breakouts for these relatively cheap (in terms of price) stocks.

Go here to see the original:
At the Focal Point, Checking in on Prana Biotechnology Limited (NASDAQ:PRAN) - Morgan Research

OTTAWA, Ontario--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

BioTalent Canada announced today that its animated short, Expanding Accessibility in Biotechnology, has won the Platinum Award for Motion Graphics Information at the 2017 Hermes Creative Awards, an international competition overseen by the Association of Marketing and Communications Professionals (AMCP). The award showcases the talent and creativity of marketing and communications professionals, many of whom have contributed to public service or charitable organizations.

This Smart News Release features multimedia. View the full release here: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170420005937/en/

Expanding Accessibility in Biotechnology was created as part of BioTalent Canadas Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) employer-awareness campaign, launched in 2016 and funded in part through the Government of Ontarios EnAbling Change Program. The campaign aims to reach and educate bio-economy employers on compliance with the new AODA accessibility standards.

As a national non-profit HR association for the Canadian biotechnology industry, BioTalent Canada works to ensure that the bio-economy has access to the talent it needs. According to research by the organization, only 7.6% of bio-economy companies had persons with disabilities on staff.

BioTalent Canadas animation seeks to increase awareness among employers on the importance of persons with disabilities as a strategically valuable labour market for Canadas biotechnology sector. Developed by eSolutions Group, the animation addresses the importance of creating an inclusive and diverse workforce, which in turn strengthens an organizations innovation.

Canadians with disabilities represent a valuable labour market, one which is under-represented in the bio-economy, says Rob Henderson, BioTalent Canadas President and CEO. It is encouraging to see an animation focused on the benefits of diversity win this award and get showcased at an international level.

Along with the animated short, BioTalent Canada is hosting events across Ontario to educate and train employers on AODAs accessibility standards and what they need to do to comply. The next event will be taking place on April 25th, in the heart of the City of Mississaugas life sciences core.

For more information on the Expanding Accessibility in Biotechnology event in Mississauga, or to register, visit BioTalent Canadas event page.

About BioTalent Canada

BioTalent Canada is the HR partner of Canadas bio-economy. As an HR expert and national non-profit organization, BioTalent Canada focuses on building partnerships and skills for Canadas bio-economy to ensure the industry has access to job-ready people. Through projects, research and product development BioTalent Canada connects employers with job seekers, delivers human resource information and skills development tools so the industry can focus on strengthening Canadas biotech business. For more information, please visit biotalent.ca.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170420005937/en/

MULTIMEDIA AVAILABLE:http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170420005937/en/

Read the original post:
BioTalent Canada's Animation to Promote Accessibility in ... - Yahoo Finance

Biotechnology is the application of scientific and engineering principles to the processing of materials by biological agents to provide goods and services.[1] From its inception, biotechnology has maintained a close relationship with society. Although now most often associated with the development of drugs, historically biotechnology has been principally associated with food, addressing such issues as malnutrition and famine. The history of biotechnology begins with zymotechnology, which commenced with a focus on brewing techniques for beer. By World War I, however, zymotechnology would expand to tackle larger industrial issues, and the potential of industrial fermentation gave rise to biotechnology. However, both the single-cell protein and gasohol projects failed to progress due to varying issues including public resistance, a changing economic scene, and shifts in political power.

Yet the formation of a new field, genetic engineering, would soon bring biotechnology to the forefront of science in society, and the intimate relationship between the scientific community, the public, and the government would ensue. These debates gained exposure in 1975 at the Asilomar Conference, where Joshua Lederberg was the most outspoken supporter for this emerging field in biotechnology. By as early as 1978, with the development of synthetic human insulin, Lederberg's claims would prove valid, and the biotechnology industry grew rapidly. Each new scientific advance became a media event designed to capture public support, and by the 1980s, biotechnology grew into a promising real industry. In 1988, only five proteins from genetically engineered cells had been approved as drugs by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but this number would skyrocket to over 125 by the end of the 1990s.

The field of genetic engineering remains a heated topic of discussion in today's society with the advent of gene therapy, stem cell research, cloning, and genetically modified food. While it seems only natural nowadays to link pharmaceutical drugs as solutions to health and societal problems, this relationship of biotechnology serving social needs began centuries ago.

Biotechnology arose from the field of zymotechnology or zymurgy, which began as a search for a better understanding of industrial fermentation, particularly beer. Beer was an important industrial, and not just social, commodity. In late 19th-century Germany, brewing contributed as much to the gross national product as steel, and taxes on alcohol proved to be significant sources of revenue to the government.[2] In the 1860s, institutes and remunerative consultancies were dedicated to the technology of brewing. The most famous was the private Carlsberg Institute, founded in 1875, which employed Emil Christian Hansen, who pioneered the pure yeast process for the reliable production of consistent beer. Less well known were private consultancies that advised the brewing industry. One of these, the Zymotechnic Institute, was established in Chicago by the German-born chemist John Ewald Siebel.

The heyday and expansion of zymotechnology came in World War I in response to industrial needs to support the war. Max Delbrck grew yeast on an immense scale during the war to meet 60 percent of Germany's animal feed needs.[2] Compounds of another fermentation product, lactic acid, made up for a lack of hydraulic fluid, glycerol. On the Allied side the Russian chemist Chaim Weizmann used starch to eliminate Britain's shortage of acetone, a key raw material for cordite, by fermenting maize to acetone.[3] The industrial potential of fermentation was outgrowing its traditional home in brewing, and "zymotechnology" soon gave way to "biotechnology."

With food shortages spreading and resources fading, some dreamed of a new industrial solution. The Hungarian Kroly Ereky coined the word "biotechnology" in Hungary during 1919 to describe a technology based on converting raw materials into a more useful product. He built a slaughterhouse for a thousand pigs and also a fattening farm with space for 50,000 pigs, raising over 100,000 pigs a year. The enterprise was enormous, becoming one of the largest and most profitable meat and fat operations in the world. In a book entitled Biotechnologie, Ereky further developed a theme that would be reiterated through the 20th century: biotechnology could provide solutions to societal crises, such as food and energy shortages. For Ereky, the term "biotechnologie" indicated the process by which raw materials could be biologically upgraded into socially useful products.[4]

This catchword spread quickly after the First World War, as "biotechnology" entered German dictionaries and was taken up abroad by business-hungry private consultancies as far away as the United States. In Chicago, for example, the coming of prohibition at the end of World War I encouraged biological industries to create opportunities for new fermentation products, in particular a market for nonalcoholic drinks. Emil Siebel, the son of the founder of the Zymotechnic Institute, broke away from his father's company to establish his own called the "Bureau of Biotechnology," which specifically offered expertise in fermented nonalcoholic drinks.[1]

The belief that the needs of an industrial society could be met by fermenting agricultural waste was an important ingredient of the "chemurgic movement."[4] Fermentation-based processes generated products of ever-growing utility. In the 1940s, penicillin was the most dramatic. While it was discovered in England, it was produced industrially in the U.S. using a deep fermentation process originally developed in Peoria, Illinois.[5] The enormous profits and the public expectations penicillin engendered caused a radical shift in the standing of the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors used the phrase "miracle drug", and the historian of its wartime use, David Adams, has suggested that to the public penicillin represented the perfect health that went together with the car and the dream house of wartime American advertising.[2] Beginning in the 1950s, fermentation technology also became advanced enough to produce steroids on industrially significant scales.[6] Of particular importance was the improved semisynthesis of cortisone which simplified the old 31 step synthesis to 11 steps.[7] This advance was estimated to reduce the cost of the drug by 70%, making the medicine inexpensive and available.[8] Today biotechnology still plays a central role in the production of these compounds and likely will for years to come.[9][10]

Even greater expectations of biotechnology were raised during the 1960s by a process that grew single-cell protein. When the so-called protein gap threatened world hunger, producing food locally by growing it from waste seemed to offer a solution. It was the possibilities of growing microorganisms on oil that captured the imagination of scientists, policy makers, and commerce.[1] Major companies such as British Petroleum (BP) staked their futures on it. In 1962, BP built a pilot plant at Cap de Lavera in Southern France to publicize its product, Toprina.[1] Initial research work at Lavera was done by Alfred Champagnat,[11] In 1963, construction started on BP's second pilot plant at Grangemouth Oil Refinery in Britain.[11]

As there was no well-accepted term to describe the new foods, in 1966 the term "single-cell protein" (SCP) was coined at MIT to provide an acceptable and exciting new title, avoiding the unpleasant connotations of microbial or bacterial.[1]

The "food from oil" idea became quite popular by the 1970s, when facilities for growing yeast fed by n-paraffins were built in a number of countries. The Soviets were particularly enthusiastic, opening large "BVK" (belkovo-vitaminny kontsentrat, i.e., "protein-vitamin concentrate") plants next to their oil refineries in Kstovo (1973) [12][13] and Kirishi (1974).[citation needed]

By the late 1970s, however, the cultural climate had completely changed, as the growth in SCP interest had taken place against a shifting economic and cultural scene (136). First, the price of oil rose catastrophically in 1974, so that its cost per barrel was five times greater than it had been two years earlier. Second, despite continuing hunger around the world, anticipated demand also began to shift from humans to animals. The program had begun with the vision of growing food for Third World people, yet the product was instead launched as an animal food for the developed world. The rapidly rising demand for animal feed made that market appear economically more attractive. The ultimate downfall of the SCP project, however, came from public resistance.[1]

This was particularly vocal in Japan, where production came closest to fruition. For all their enthusiasm for innovation and traditional interest in microbiologically produced foods, the Japanese were the first to ban the production of single-cell proteins. The Japanese ultimately were unable to separate the idea of their new "natural" foods from the far from natural connotation of oil.[1] These arguments were made against a background of suspicion of heavy industry in which anxiety over minute traces of petroleum was expressed. Thus, public resistance to an unnatural product led to the end of the SCP project as an attempt to solve world hunger.

Also, in 1989 in the USSR, the public environmental concerns made the government decide to close down (or convert to different technologies) all 8 paraffin-fed-yeast plants that the Soviet Ministry of Microbiological Industry had by that time.[citation needed]

In the late 1970s, biotechnology offered another possible solution to a societal crisis. The escalation in the price of oil in 1974 increased the cost of the Western world's energy tenfold.[1] In response, the U.S. government promoted the production of gasohol, gasoline with 10 percent alcohol added, as an answer to the energy crisis.[2] In 1979, when the Soviet Union sent troops to Afghanistan, the Carter administration cut off its supplies to agricultural produce in retaliation, creating a surplus of agriculture in the U.S. As a result, fermenting the agricultural surpluses to synthesize fuel seemed to be an economical solution to the shortage of oil threatened by the Iran-Iraq war. Before the new direction could be taken, however, the political wind changed again: the Reagan administration came to power in January 1981 and, with the declining oil prices of the 1980s, ended support for the gasohol industry before it was born.[1]

Biotechnology seemed to be the solution for major social problems, including world hunger and energy crises. In the 1960s, radical measures would be needed to meet world starvation, and biotechnology seemed to provide an answer. However, the solutions proved to be too expensive and socially unacceptable, and solving world hunger through SCP food was dismissed. In the 1970s, the food crisis was succeeded by the energy crisis, and here too, biotechnology seemed to provide an answer. But once again, costs proved prohibitive as oil prices slumped in the 1980s. Thus, in practice, the implications of biotechnology were not fully realized in these situations. But this would soon change with the rise of genetic engineering.

The origins of biotechnology culminated with the birth of genetic engineering. There were two key events that have come to be seen as scientific breakthroughs beginning the era that would unite genetics with biotechnology. One was the 1953 discovery of the structure of DNA, by Watson and Crick, and the other was the 1973 discovery by Cohen and Boyer of a recombinant DNA technique by which a section of DNA was cut from the plasmid of an E. coli bacterium and transferred into the DNA of another.[14] This approach could, in principle, enable bacteria to adopt the genes and produce proteins of other organisms, including humans. Popularly referred to as "genetic engineering," it came to be defined as the basis of new biotechnology.

Genetic engineering proved to be a topic that thrust biotechnology into the public scene, and the interaction between scientists, politicians, and the public defined the work that was accomplished in this area. Technical developments during this time were revolutionary and at times frightening. In December 1967, the first heart transplant by Christian Barnard reminded the public that the physical identity of a person was becoming increasingly problematic. While poetic imagination had always seen the heart at the center of the soul, now there was the prospect of individuals being defined by other people's hearts.[1] During the same month, Arthur Kornberg announced that he had managed to biochemically replicate a viral gene. "Life had been synthesized," said the head of the National Institutes of Health.[1] Genetic engineering was now on the scientific agenda, as it was becoming possible to identify genetic characteristics with diseases such as beta thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia.

Responses to scientific achievements were colored by cultural skepticism. Scientists and their expertise were looked upon with suspicion. In 1968, an immensely popular work, The Biological Time Bomb, was written by the British journalist Gordon Rattray Taylor. The author's preface saw Kornberg's discovery of replicating a viral gene as a route to lethal doomsday bugs. The publisher's blurb for the book warned that within ten years, "You may marry a semi-artificial man or womanchoose your children's sextune out painchange your memoriesand live to be 150 if the scientific revolution doesnt destroy us first."[1] The book ended with a chapter called "The Future If Any." While it is rare for current science to be represented in the movies, in this period of "Star Trek", science fiction and science fact seemed to be converging. "Cloning" became a popular word in the media. Woody Allen satirized the cloning of a person from a nose in his 1973 movie Sleeper, and cloning Adolf Hitler from surviving cells was the theme of the 1976 novel by Ira Levin, The Boys from Brazil.[1]

In response to these public concerns, scientists, industry, and governments increasingly linked the power of recombinant DNA to the immensely practical functions that biotechnology promised. One of the key scientific figures that attempted to highlight the promising aspects of genetic engineering was Joshua Lederberg, a Stanford professor and Nobel laureate. While in the 1960s "genetic engineering" described eugenics and work involving the manipulation of the human genome, Lederberg stressed research that would involve microbes instead.[1] Lederberg emphasized the importance of focusing on curing living people. Lederberg's 1963 paper, "Biological Future of Man" suggested that, while molecular biology might one day make it possible to change the human genotype, "what we have overlooked is euphenics, the engineering of human development."[1] Lederberg constructed the word "euphenics" to emphasize changing the phenotype after conception rather than the genotype which would affect future generations.

With the discovery of recombinant DNA by Cohen and Boyer in 1973, the idea that genetic engineering would have major human and societal consequences was born. In July 1974, a group of eminent molecular biologists headed by Paul Berg wrote to Science suggesting that the consequences of this work were so potentially destructive that there should be a pause until its implications had been thought through.[1] This suggestion was explored at a meeting in February 1975 at California's Monterey Peninsula, forever immortalized by the location, Asilomar. Its historic outcome was an unprecedented call for a halt in research until it could be regulated in such a way that the public need not be anxious, and it led to a 16-month moratorium until National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines were established.

Joshua Lederberg was the leading exception in emphasizing, as he had for years, the potential benefits. At Asilomar, in an atmosphere favoring control and regulation, he circulated a paper countering the pessimism and fears of misuses with the benefits conferred by successful use. He described "an early chance for a technology of untold importance for diagnostic and therapeutic medicine: the ready production of an unlimited variety of human proteins. Analogous applications may be foreseen in fermentation process for cheaply manufacturing essential nutrients, and in the improvement of microbes for the production of antibiotics and of special industrial chemicals."[1] In June 1976, the 16-month moratorium on research expired with the Director's Advisory Committee (DAC) publication of the NIH guidelines of good practice. They defined the risks of certain kinds of experiments and the appropriate physical conditions for their pursuit, as well as a list of things too dangerous to perform at all. Moreover, modified organisms were not to be tested outside the confines of a laboratory or allowed into the environment.[14]

Atypical as Lederberg was at Asilomar, his optimistic vision of genetic engineering would soon lead to the development of the biotechnology industry. Over the next two years, as public concern over the dangers of recombinant DNA research grew, so too did interest in its technical and practical applications. Curing genetic diseases remained in the realms of science fiction, but it appeared that producing human simple proteins could be good business. Insulin, one of the smaller, best characterized and understood proteins, had been used in treating type 1 diabetes for a half century. It had been extracted from animals in a chemically slightly different form from the human product. Yet, if one could produce synthetic human insulin, one could meet an existing demand with a product whose approval would be relatively easy to obtain from regulators. In the period 1975 to 1977, synthetic "human" insulin represented the aspirations for new products that could be made with the new biotechnology. Microbial production of synthetic human insulin was finally announced in September 1978 and was produced by a startup company, Genentech.[15] Although that company did not commercialize the product themselves, instead, it licensed the production method to Eli Lilly and Company. 1978 also saw the first application for a patent on a gene, the gene which produces human growth hormone, by the University of California, thus introducing the legal principle that genes could be patented. Since that filing, almost 20% of the more than 20,000 genes in the human DNA have been patented.[citation needed]

The radical shift in the connotation of "genetic engineering" from an emphasis on the inherited characteristics of people to the commercial production of proteins and therapeutic drugs was nurtured by Joshua Lederberg. His broad concerns since the 1960s had been stimulated by enthusiasm for science and its potential medical benefits. Countering calls for strict regulation, he expressed a vision of potential utility. Against a belief that new techniques would entail unmentionable and uncontrollable consequences for humanity and the environment, a growing consensus on the economic value of recombinant DNA emerged.[citation needed]

With ancestral roots in industrial microbiology that date back centuries, the new biotechnology industry grew rapidly beginning in the mid-1970s. Each new scientific advance became a media event designed to capture investment confidence and public support.[15] Although market expectations and social benefits of new products were frequently overstated, many people were prepared to see genetic engineering as the next great advance in technological progress. By the 1980s, biotechnology characterized a nascent real industry, providing titles for emerging trade organizations such as the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).

The main focus of attention after insulin were the potential profit makers in the pharmaceutical industry: human growth hormone and what promised to be a miraculous cure for viral diseases, interferon. Cancer was a central target in the 1970s because increasingly the disease was linked to viruses.[14] By 1980, a new company, Biogen, had produced interferon through recombinant DNA. The emergence of interferon and the possibility of curing cancer raised money in the community for research and increased the enthusiasm of an otherwise uncertain and tentative society. Moreover, to the 1970s plight of cancer was added AIDS in the 1980s, offering an enormous potential market for a successful therapy, and more immediately, a market for diagnostic tests based on monoclonal antibodies.[16] By 1988, only five proteins from genetically engineered cells had been approved as drugs by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA): synthetic insulin, human growth hormone, hepatitis B vaccine, alpha-interferon, and tissue plasminogen activator (TPa), for lysis of blood clots. By the end of the 1990s, however, 125 more genetically engineered drugs would be approved.[16]

Genetic engineering also reached the agricultural front as well. There was tremendous progress since the market introduction of the genetically engineered Flavr Savr tomato in 1994.[16] Ernst and Young reported that in 1998, 30% of the U.S. soybean crop was expected to be from genetically engineered seeds. In 1998, about 30% of the US cotton and corn crops were also expected to be products of genetic engineering.[16]

Genetic engineering in biotechnology stimulated hopes for both therapeutic proteins, drugs and biological organisms themselves, such as seeds, pesticides, engineered yeasts, and modified human cells for treating genetic diseases. From the perspective of its commercial promoters, scientific breakthroughs, industrial commitment, and official support were finally coming together, and biotechnology became a normal part of business. No longer were the proponents for the economic and technological significance of biotechnology the iconoclasts.[1] Their message had finally become accepted and incorporated into the policies of governments and industry.

According to Burrill and Company, an industry investment bank, over $350 billion has been invested in biotech since the emergence of the industry, and global revenues rose from $23 billion in 2000 to more than $50 billion in 2005. The greatest growth has been in Latin America but all regions of the world have shown strong growth trends. By 2007 and into 2008, though, a downturn in the fortunes of biotech emerged, at least in the United Kingdom, as the result of declining investment in the face of failure of biotech pipelines to deliver and a consequent downturn in return on investment.[17]

Continued here:
History of biotechnology - Wikipedia

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) today announced education program session titles and speakers for the 2017 BIO World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology. The education program features seven diverse content tracks with speakers from around the world over three days of the conference. The worlds largest industrial biotechnology and partnering event will be held July 23-26, 2017 at the Palais des congrs de Montral in Montral, Qubec, Canada.

Brent Erickson, executive vice president of BIOs Industrial & Environmental Section, stated, BIOs 2017 World Congress will feature the most diverse group of speakers and presenters in the conferences history, with scientists and executives from start-up companies, investors from the finance sector, consumer product manufacturers and government officials from across Canada, Europe, the United States and Asia. The education program and partnering system provide a unique forum for conference attendees to share the latest advances in renewable chemicals, synthetic biology, enzymes, food ingredients, fragrances, flavors, cosmetics, biofuels and biorefineries, agricultural crops and biobased materials.

Sessions featuring Renewable Chemicals and Biobased Materials include:

A Revolution in Biobased Products and Packaging Wed. July 26, 11:45 am

Renewable Chemicals and Thermoplastics for Performance Materials Mon. July 24, 10:30 AM

Scaling Novel and Innovative Processes for Commercialization Mon. July 24, 1:45 PM

Meeting Brand Owner and Retailer Demand for Green Chemicals, Materials, and Products Wed. July 26, 10:30 AM

Industrial Synergies and the Circular Economy Wed. July 26, 10:30 AM

All programs at the 2017 BIO World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology are open to members of the media. Complimentary media registration is available to editors and reporters working full time for print, broadcast or web publications with valid press credentials.

For more information on the conference please visit https://www.bio.org/events/bio-world-congress. For assistance, please contact worldcongress@bio.org.

About BIO

BIO is the world's largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. BIO also produces the BIO International Convention, the worlds largest gathering of the biotechnology industry, along with industry-leading investor and partnering meetings held around the world. BIOtechNOW is BIO's blog chronicling innovations transforming our world and the BIO Newsletter is the organizations bi-weekly email newsletter. Subscribe to the BIO Newsletter.

Upcoming BIO Events

BIO International Convention June 19-22, 2017 San Diego, Calif.

BIO World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology July 23-26, 2017 Montreal, Canada

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170420005149/en/

Original post:
BIO Announces Educational Sessions for 2017 BIO World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology - Yahoo Finance

Wall Street research analysts offer views on future stock movement ofPuma Biotechnology Inc (NYSE:PBYI). These opinions are based on extensive research and broad knowledge of the company. Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters have set a consensus target price of $68.67 on shares. Target prices may vary from one analyst to another due to the various ways they may proceed to calculate future price targets.

Analysts and investors may use different metrics in order to calculate a price target projection. A very common metric used is the price to earnins ratio of a company. This calculation comes from dividing the current share price by the projected earnings per share. At the time of writing, Puma Biotechnology Inc (NYSE:PBYI) has a P/E Ratio of N/A. Investors may also examine a companys PEG or price to earnings growth ratio. The PEG ratio represents the ratio of the price to earnings to the anticipated future growth rate of the company. A company with a PEG Ratio below one may be seen as undervalued while a PEG Ratio above one may signal that the company is overvalued. A PEG Ratio close to one may be considered to be fair value. Currently, the stock has a PEG Ratio of 0.01.

Lets take a quick look at stock performance. Puma Biotechnology Inc (NYSE:PBYI) shares are currently trading $0.30 away from the 50-day moving average of $38.35 and $-0.91 away from the 200-day moving average of $39.56. Shares are currently trading -47.25% away from the 52-week high price of 73.27 and +95.80% off the 52-week low of 19.74. Keeping an eye on the stock price relative to moving averages and yearly highs/lows may help evaluate future stock value.

By

Read more here:
Stock Chatter: Puma Biotechnology Inc (NYSE:PBYI) Price Target Update - Rockville Register

NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwired - April 19, 2017) - Planda Biotechnology (PLPL) recently presented investors with its outlook for 2017 and a number of milestones that the company plans to accomplish in 2017. Planda's plans are certainly aggressive and representative of the new Chief Operating Officer (COO) -- someone we feel is ideally suited to move the company forward. It didn't take long at all for the new COO, Callum Cottrell-Duffield, to put his stamp on the company's future.

Three weeks ago Planda named Callum Cottrell-Duffield as its new COO, a role that will have him running the day-to-day operations of the company. In the time since being named COO, he has put together a plan to not only get Planda back on track, but to also move it aggressively into the future. With Planda shifting from purely a research and development biotechnology company to a company that is more focused on operations and sales, Callum Cottrell-Duffield is the ideal person to run Planda's day-to-day activity.

After all, he has been there from the beginning where he helped to prepare the company's 8,000-acre tea estate to grow, harvest and produce Planda's signature product, the highly bioavailable Phytofare Catechin Complex. Last year when that signature product was available for mass production and ready to market on a much broader scale, it was Callum Cottrell-Duffield who led the company's sales and marketing team. He has traveled throughout Africa, the United States, Europe, Asia and South America to tell the Planda story, and he has become the face of the company to the industry and to the large buyers who are either current clients or interested in developing a relationship with Planda worldwide.

In the company's latest news release, the COO highlighted several areas where he expects to see improvement and areas where Planda can realize growth. Among those items, Callum Cottrell-Duffield said that he (i) has placed getting the company "current" with its SEC filings at the top of his agenda, (ii) expects to increase production and to continue growing sales with Planda's existing customers as well as gaining traction in the market, which should lead to the addition of new customers all in an effort to make Planda cash flow positive and profitable by the end of 2017, (iii) recently signed a financing agreement that will provide the necessary capital to see the company through until it becomes cash flow positive.

With the appointment of Callum Cottrell-Duffield to COO, the company's CEO, Roger Baylis-Duffield, can now focus his efforts as a scientist on spearheading the company's clinical trials and developing new products for Planda to market. In the company's research and development efforts, the CEO will be busy with a number of major studies this year.

According to the COO, Planda's work in the clinic will include:

Additionally, Planda has granted a research license to Protext Mobility to develop pharmaceutical applications involving Phytofare. Protext will be conducting a human study using Phytofare to regulate glucose levels in Type 2 diabetics as well as, taking over the research to establish a platform for producing non-psychoactive Cannabis. Planda states that the plan for Protext is to produce a Phytofare complex containing bioavailable cannabinoids, cannabinoid acids, and polyphenols that will be formulated into an oral delivery system.

Needless to say, with success in these studies, these are all areas where Planda could develop much-needed products that could, in turn, drastically improve the company's bottom line. For a full look into the COO's agenda for 2017, read Planda's latest news release here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/plandai-biotechnology-chief-operating-officer-162043100.html

About Stock Market Media Group

Stock Market Media Group is a Content Development IR firm offering a platform for corporate stories to unfold in the media with research reports, corporate videos, CEO interviews and feature news articles.

We may from time to time include our own opinions about our featured companies, their businesses, markets and opportunities. Any opinions we may offer are solely our own, and are made in reliance upon our rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and are provided solely for the general opinionated discussion of our readers and viewers. Our opinions should not be considered to be complete, precise, accurate, or current investment advice, or construed or interpreted as research. Any investment decisions you may make concerning any company are solely your responsibility based on your own due diligence. Our publications are provided only as an informational aid. We encourage you to invest carefully and read the investor information available at the web site of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission at: http://www.sec.gov. We also recommend as a general rule, that before investing in any securities you consult with a professional financial planner or advisor, and you should conduct a complete and independent investigation before investing in any security after prudent consideration of all pertinent risks.

Read More

We are not a registered broker, dealer, analyst, or adviser. We hold no investment licenses and may not sell, offer to sell or offer to buy any security. Our publications are not a recommendation to buy or sell a security.

Section 17(b) of the 1933 Securities and Exchange Act requires publishers who distribute information about publicly traded securities for compensation, to disclose who paid them, the amount, and the type of payment. In order to be in full compliance with the Securities Act of 1933, Section 17(b), we are disclosing that SMMG is compensated $5,000 per month by Plandai Biotechnology for content development. Neither SMMG nor anyone associated with it owns shares in PLPL.

For more information: http://www.stockmarketmediagroup.com.

Read more from the original source:
Plandai Biotechnology Sets Aggressive Agenda for 2017 - Yahoo Finance

Market Summary Follow

Puma Biotechnology Inc is a A biopharmaceutical company

PBYI - Market Data & News

PBYI - Stock Valuation Report

Puma Biotechnology Inc (PBYI) had a rough trading day for Tuesday April 18 as shares tumbled 6.94%, or a loss of $-2.75 per share, to close at $36.85. After opening the day at $39.90, shares of Puma Biotechnology Inc traded as high as $40.55 and as low as $35.85. Volume was 2.06 million shares over 12,951 trades, against an average daily volume of 910,555 shares and a total float of 36.95 million.

As a result of the decline, Puma Biotechnology Inc now has a market cap of $1.36 billion. In the last year, shares of Puma Biotechnology Inc have traded between a range of $73.27 and $19.74, and its 50-day SMA is currently $37.71 and 200-day SMA is $42.98.

For a complete fundamental analysis of Puma Biotechnology Inc, check out Equities.coms Stock Valuation Analysis report for PBYI.

Want to invest with the experts? Subscribe to Equities Premium newsletters today! Visit http://www.equitiespremium.com/ to learn more about Guild Investments Market Commentary and Adam Sarhans Find Leading Stocks today.

Puma Biotechnology Inc is a biopharmaceutical company. It is engaged in the acquisition, development and commercialization of products to enhance cancer care.

Puma Biotechnology Inc is based out of Los Angeles, CA and has some 160 employees. Its CEO is Alan H. Auerbach.

Puma Biotechnology Inc is a component of the Russell 2000. The Russell 2000 is one of the leading indices tracking small-cap companies in the United States. It's maintained by Russell Investments, an industry leader in creating and maintaining indices, and consists of the smallest 2000 stocks from the broader Russell 3000 index.

Russell's indices differ from traditional indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) or S&P 500, whose members are selected by committee, because they base membership entirely on an objective, rules based methodology. The 3,000 largest companies by market cap make up the Russell 3000, with the 2,000 smaller companies making up the Russell 2000. It's a simple approach that gives a broad, unbiased look at the small-cap market as a whole.

To get more information on Puma Biotechnology Inc and to follow the companys latest updates, you can visit the companys profile page here: PBYIs Profile. For more news on the financial markets and emerging growth companies, be sure to visit Equities.coms Newsdesk. Also, dont forget to sign-up for our daily email newsletter to ensure you dont miss out on any of our best stories.

All data provided by QuoteMedia and was accurate as of 4:30PM ET.

DISCLOSURE: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors, and do not represent the views of equities.com. Readers should not consider statements made by the author as formal recommendations and should consult their financial advisor before making any investment decisions. To read our full disclosure, please go to: http://www.equities.com/disclaimer

Follow this link:
Puma Biotechnology Inc (PBYI) Plunges 6.94% on April 18 - Equities.com

[Editors note:Tom Frieden served seven and a half years as director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He talks about health challenges facing the nation, as well as memorable moments from his tenure.]

What immediate health issues are facing the Trump administration?

Tom Frieden: Zika is not over. It is likely to spread in Latin America and the Caribbean for months and years to come, and we still dont fully understand the range of birth defects it causes. Antibiotic resistance in the U.S. is something that threatens to undermine modern medicineAnd we are always concerned about an influenza epidemic.

How prepared is the CDC to deal with these problems?

Its a big problem that when there is an emerging threat, we are not able to surge or work as rapidly as we should, as a result of a lack of additional funding and legislative authority. When there is an earthquake, the Federal Emergency Management Agency doesnt have to go to Congress and say, Will you give us money for this? But the CDC doesA blind spot anywhere puts any of us at risk.

What do you consider unfinished business or a regret?

I hoped that we would be over the finish line on polio [eradication] by now[But] we have further to go.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:Is the U.S. Ready for Future Disease Threats?

For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia

Originally posted here:
Does the US have the biotechnology and other tools to deal with the next wave of diseases? - Genetic Literacy Project

Photo: Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Glamour

Two years after the $9 billion start-up unicorn Theranos crumbled, Silicon Valley still appears to be struggling to learn its lesson when it comes to health and medical start-ups. Improbable-sounding companies continue to turn up with tens of millions of dollars in funding, no published research to back them up, and nothing but criticism from scientists. Last week, BuzzFeed News examined a new set of start-ups promising to detect cancer early via a simple blood test Freenome, Grail, and Guardant and found them on paths dangerously similar to the one Theranos was on just a few years ago. A year ago, Freenome promised to publish about its product in a scientific journal very soon to Fast Company, and still hasnt. Cancer researchers told BuzzFeed very plainly that such a simple test would be miraculous but seemed improbably advanced beyond our current technology, which was also the case with Theranoss miniature blood tests and Freenome made its lofty promises only months after Theranos started to fall apart. Like a Kickstarter project well over its anticipated delivery date, one begins to wonder if it was all fake.

Silicon Valley has a kind of blind spot when it comes to biotechnology, health-related start-ups, and other medical pursuits. The Theranos hype train was only stopped when The Wall Street Journal surfaced evidence that Theranos had misrepresented how far along it was in its research process to its investors, passing off mediocre test results as much more conclusive than they were. Venture-capital firms insist that the standard that needs to be met for investment is much higher for medical start-ups, which must prove that their technology works with data, not just a pitch. And yet somehow, when these start-ups finally surface to public consciousness, they dont appear to pass even the most basic smell test with literally any experienced researcher in the field.

There are some confounding factors to take into account: venture capitalists invest in ambitious businesses and expect a high failure rate; health start-up failures are highly visible in part because biotechnology businesses are more unusual, and because they tend to be involved with actual life-or-death human experiences. No one really cares about another Uber-alike (just as no one really cared about Uber until it had established itself) but almost everyone has a personal relationship with cancer, and everyone wants a solution to it as soon as possible.

But the fact that we all have bodies, and all need doctors may also be why Silicon Valley seems unable to avoid dabbling in medical technology. The intersection of future tech and health has become crowded with some of the countrys richest hobbyists. They love biohacking (theres even a subscription box). They believe, almost to a man, that the singularity is a question of not if, but when. Elon Musk is very seriously investing in arming biological humans against computers; Peter Thiel takes human growth hormone, a popular practice among transhumanists, and has expressed interested in getting blood transfusions from young people as a way of reversing aging (to his credit, there is some published scientific evidence this might actually work, however fundamentally sinister it sounds). Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Sean Parker, and Martine Rothblatt have all sincerely expressed interests in similar pursuits. They often seem less concerned with protecting humanity than their own consciousnesses, designing brain-machine interfaces that will both preserve their own copious knowledge reserves and merge them with the larger internet, turning each tech CEO, investor, and founder into an army of IBM Watsons, but smarter.

There is a pervasive sense in Silicon Valley, bolstered by ten years of world-conquering success, that any sufficiently intelligent, sufficiently driven person can will what they want. The only thing slowing the unrelenting forward march of medical tech is funding. Solutions are an inevitability, and the realities of the human body are simply a set of inefficiencies that can, with enough time and attention, be brought to heel. The culture of Silicon Valley meritocracy affords its practitioners cynicism when confronted with realities other than their own: If you were dumb enough to trust new tech, or too poor to have more options, you deserve what you had coming.

Health tech is certainly valuable and ripe for profit. Machines and medical tests used in hospitals for treatment and diagnosis are wildly expensive, but their cost is determined both by demand (high; no one wants to die, and enough people have insurance) and research (expensive, very costly to get right and get through all the hoops of being brought to market). For further evidence, look at the pharmaceutical industry. Investors who sense a rich potential for profit if only they can insert themselves at the right place in the process are not wrong, in that sense.

But the move fast and break things mantra that has helped Silicon Valley disrupt countless industries over the last two decades is more dangerous when applied to medical science. The roadblocks that health tech companies run into are not qualitatively different from the ones that all tech companies run into. But when Uber or Airbnb run afoul of their respective laws, the result is abstracted lost money out of someones pocket the government, independent contractors, independent businesses, other segments of the market. When Airbnb keeps viable apartments off the market so they can be rented short-term to its users, the money can theoretically be remanded if someone determines that Airbnb is doing something wrong. The things being broken by the current generation of unicorns are regulatory regimes. (Valuable, useful regulatory regimes, to be sure.) The things being broken by health start-ups are laws of science and ironclad guidelines for research. When a health start-up moves fast and breaks things, it can directly result in the death, dismemberment, and injury of real people. You cant un-kill someone who died thanks to a bad diagnosis (at least, theres no start-up hawking that yet).

Theres always room to be wrong in business. But theres less of that room when it comes to medical treatment. That it appears all the same to even the highest-profile venture capitalists actually turns out to make a lot of sense.

The Snapchat 101: The Best, Coolest, Smartest, Weirdest Accounts on the Hottest Social Network on Your Phone

F**k.

The News Feeds enormous audience wont solve its waning relevance.

If Snapchat wants to be the Apple of augmented reality, Facebook is more than happy to be its Microsoft.

We give it three months before Facebook rips off the idea.

Move fast and break things doesnt work when those things are research procedures, laws of science, and human bodies.

A day in the life of YouTubes reigning teen queen.

Cabana lets you watch videos with your friends in real time.

You may be able to give a five-star review, and tip a dollar or two, at the end of an Uber ride in the near future.

Cant keep a good content farm down.

F**k.

How Robert Taylor, who passed away Thursday at the age of 85, essentially created the internet as we know it.

It is kind of contagious, the optimism. I guess it just becomes a part of you.

Add a little pinch of electoral participation.

As YouTube becomes big business for families willing to film everything, are the kids adequately protected?

This is bad news for a lot of PC owners.

Some assembly required.

Everything you need to make the best slime at home.

Lemme up there to hang out with these good boys.

True art takes courage.

When product placement goes wrong.

Follow this link:
Why Silicon Valley Keeps Getting Biotechnology Wrong - New York Magazine