Heard in Brussels

For real innovation, the pieces of the puzzle have to fit
Enlarge image

For real innovation, the pieces of the puzzle have to fit

15.05.2012 - I co-chaired a session at the Commission’s ‘Innovation in Healthcare’ conference recently, and learned a very interesting lesson there that is overwhelmingly obvious, yet overlooked in our continuing mission to become one Europe.

The session looked at how business skills are developed in the EU – what we have, what we need and how we get it. I expected specific skills to be targeted as missing and needing to be developed. Wrong. The overwhelming conclusion from our panel of EC, pharma, university and SME geniuses was that Europe pretty much has all the skills that it needs, but each expert is kept in his or her own little world, creating exceptional skills within a very narrow space.

The researcher pushed to publish, the SME that must meet the next milestone, the clinician locked into the healthcare system, the pharma guy stuck in an antique drug-discovery process … the list is long. For the last 25 years, training has been poured into a multitude of areas to ensure that the researcher becomes an entrepreneur, an SME CEO knows everything about FDA approval, and TTOs are gurus of industry development. It hasn’t really worked. Applying a thin layer of knowledge does not guarantee absorption. Why should a researcher, measured by publication success, also become an expert on commercial implications and plan research now for exploitation in 10 years time? 

The blindingly obvious conclusion from the panel was not to train people a bit harder, but physically to get them into other worlds and bring other worlds to them. Entrepreneurs in residence at universities, academic researchers placed in SMEs and pharma, clinicians on the boards of companies, pharma people in universities and SMEs. It’s not going to happen on its own, and it hasn’t yet – so we need to make it happen. Horizon 2020 should make staff exchanges bet-
ween partners in collaborative projects compulsory, up numbers of industry-academia research fellowships, increase pharma staff working in small company partners – there is loads we could do.

It’s not going to cost more money. The price is instead in the mindset. Europe talks the talk, but does it really walk the walk on direct integration of different worlds in the healthcare chain? People are so insulated in their own worlds, and the disruptive technology/attitudes of people from other worlds are not welcome. However, the evidence from the panel and audience confirmed direct integration as the most effective way to bring new skills and knowledge into each step of the chain. 

So Europe – are you listening? Stop fretting about growing new skills through the age-old training and ‘have an MBA’ culture to create your vision of the perfect business mind, and start moving existing skills about between different bits of the healthcare sector. They don't bite, and it might prove the only effective way to help them integrate.

http://www.european-biotechnology-news.com/people/heard-in-brussels/2012/for-real-innovation-the-pieces-of-the-puzzle-have-to-fit-kopie-1.html

16.12.2015 People do plenty of moaning about the European Parliament, so let’s look at something good that it did in October, when it rejected an EC proposal for national GMO bans.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

This isn't cultivation of GMOs – countries already have the right to ban those on pretty much any grounds, science and evidence having been chucked out the window along with rational thought. This is the right of countries to restrict or prohibit the sale and use of EU-approved GMO food or feed.

There are two key issues; firstly that European agriculture is hugely dependent on protein supplies from GM sources and secondly, you are effectively breaking up the European freedom to trade, which is the foundation upon which the European Union was created.

The first issue interests me most, as it highlights how little people understand about the global and complex nature of the food and feed chain and how much biotech drives food and feed production globally. Agriculture is fiercely cost-driven. Why do you think farmers spend half their time lamenting in Brussels? Big players in the food and feed chain are ruthless and the difference between earning enough to live and going bust is a cent on a litre of milk. To create your agricultural products, you need to be as competitive as possible and where animals are involved, this means buying in high quality feed at the lowest possible price. Europe does not produce enough protein to deliver its animal feed, and global production is dominated by GMOs. They allow cheaper and more efficient production of protein, so even if Europe did grow its own, it couldn't outcompete the GM-derived feeds on price because it starts from a more expensive production system.

Agricultural economists (and supermarkets) know what would happen to national production if a country could not use imported GM-derived animal feeds, cost of production would rocket and supermarkets would simply buy from the abundant supply of cheaper producers elsewhere. The public generally likes to buy cheap and the supermarkets will make sure they have plenty of that, whether your milk, cheese and pork (plus ingredients in any processed food) is from down the road or from China.

The Parliament overwhelmingly rejected the proposal based on the fact that it is almost unworkable from an implementation perspective and undermines European free trade, rather than for the catastrophic effect that it would have on any country fool enough to actually ban GM products, but we should take the result with a sigh of relief whatever the reason. It might look like a rural idyll as you watch cows grazing contentedly in the middle distance but it is a small window into an intensive global industry reliant on biotechnology-derived products and one that will happily buy its products elsewhere if the price is right.

27.10.2015 A little bird tells me that the European Commission is moving towards a decision on whether various technologies involved in development of novel plant strains will fall under the terms of current GMO legislation.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

Boring, I hear you groan, waiting for the usual headlines of new monster foods and other Triffid-like crops but this is an interesting case and will have consequences for countries where GMO crops are banned (are you listening, Scotland?)

GM legislation is strongly based on technologies and processes that define the resulting organism, with the requirement that the resulting plants can be identified as modified at molecular level. The technologies under question now include cisgenesis, to give one example, where DNA is introduced from the same species. This, and other methods under consideration, challenge GM legislation as it cannot exclude the possibility that such mutations may naturally occur and the methods used do not allow the identification of a modified plant, as there is no foreign DNA and no markers by which to determine modification.

These are not funky new techniques, they have been around for a number of years, but now they are coming to fruition, with novel patents and companies driving the need for legislative clarification. The decision either way from the EC will have research and economic consequences for European governments. If such methods are exempted from GM legislation (and there seem to be national level arguments for this floating about) – it will allow EU countries to stick to existing bans whilst continuing the development of crop breeding research and industry. If they are included in the legislation, they narrow the playing field for European research within plant-based agriculture as it removes additional techniques for use in the lab. With research grants closely linked to exploitation potential, who is going to fund a project where the results can only bring economic benefit to another country? 

And this is where I get back to Scotland, which recently announced its intention to ban the production of GM crops. Scotland has a huge economic reliance on agriculture and a long history of excellent agricultural research and commercial production. The ban on GM crop production will already impact Scotland’s research base and reputation. If the techniques under review by the EC are also included in GM legislation, this deals a double whammy to the sector, removing a further set of skills and economic tools from one of the pillars of the Scottish economy. What started as a rather pointless and populist policy statement may have economic consequences far beyond an easy headline. It also demonstrates the importance of careful consideration around seemingly small changes to EC legislation that could rapidly force the evolution of science at the national level, a genetic modification that will more likely spawn a shrimp than a monster.

10.07.2015 European Biotechnology Network had the good fortune to moderate the 8th Berlin Conference on IP in Life Science, which this year had a focus on natural products. “That will be interesting,” I thought to myself, thinking about the world of complex structures and challenging development pathways.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

“Interesting” soon paled into insignificance as I fell headlong into the tiger trap that is the Nagoya Protocol, coming soon folks to a country near you.

For those of you uninitiated in such matters, the Nagoya Protocol is a global programme with the extremely relevant intention to regulate access to genetic resources and ensure the sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation. Europe, as we recall, knows a thing or two about ‘accessing’ resources from countries beyond its immediate vicinity without the express written consent of their owners and Nagoya is a worthy platform to prevent sticky-fingered organisations from literally vacuuming up local resources and knowhow without a) the locals’ consent and b) full engagement financially and culturally.

A lot of paperwork

This all sounds great and, as usual, the liberation of keen regulators around the world has ensured that it is now massively complicated and is already protecting local resources by ensuring that nobody can be bothered to fill in all the forms to pick a plant or sample the water. This learned column however wants to focus on what happens when Nagoya arrives in Europe, which it will do in October, and has to be implemented.

And when I say implemented, I mean into all legal systems, and Europe has many more of those than a simple headcount of countries. Spain is my favourite example, where Nagoya will be implemented by each of the 17 autonomous communities. So, sampling natural resources in Spain (including those found in marine ecosystems) could involve discussions with ALL the regions in which your bacteria, nematode or plant can be cultivated, and that is a lot of paperwork in a wide variety of dialects.

Europe is woefully underprepared for the level of stringency required by Nagoya, most countries aren’t ready for October because they didn’t pay attention when they should have, which will result in the usual amusing quagmire that Europe is good at creating. If this sounds flippant, perhaps it is, but this column comes in the light of the fact that research into, and commercialisation of natural products has collapsed in the years that have seen increasing regulation on access, with, I recall, a reduction of the big companies active in natural products declining from 13 to 3 (don’t quote me on that exact number but it is close).

The irony is that you only have to step outside your back door to find sufficient genetic resources to last a lifetime of natural product research. You don’t have to go to anywhere exotic (and fill in lots of forms) and European implementation of Nagoya will probably ensure that we all look closer to home in the future.

17.03.2015 You would have to be blind, deaf and living in a hole for the last twenty years to not know that Europe struggles with the whole GMO thing.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

Despite a mountain of scientific evidence behind the safe cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops, the PR bomb dropped by Monsanto all those years ago changed Europe forever, resulting in one of the few areas where a belief in witchcraft seems to carry more weight than scientific evidence.

And the European Parliament has recently achieved the questionable triumph of ensuring that superstition at national level can override scientific review at European level. In November, it backed a plan to allow nations to ban GM crops on their soil, even if they are given approval to be grown in the European Union. This of course means that Europe can proudly approve crops and claim to be at the forefront of food production, while individual countries can proudly tell their voters that they continue to ban the evil that is GM and keep their children safe.

I am no fan of multi-national company shenanigans in their corporate dealings and they can indeed do a professional job in looking shifty, but why not address the company problems directly rather than punishing the science? The problem in preventing cultivation of GM crops, and also preventing their import, goes far beyond the claimed negative environmental impact.

The European agricultural system is incredibly important in food security, cultural identity and also gives us the landscape that we know so well today. It is under immense pressure to produce food at lower costs and with reduced pollution, while maintaining the incredibly high food standards rightly required for consumers (all of which GM technology enables). If you prevent European farmers from raising crops (and animals fed on those crops) with the same resources available to every other farmer in the world, then they will not be able to compete in a very global market. European citizens already use and consume products from genetically modified plants, created outside Europe, and if they make their farmers operate with one arm tied behind their backs, they can expect to eat and use a lot more, because there will be far fewer farmers in Europe.

It comes back to science (as usual) and the big picture behind Europe continuing to resist GM technology within its own agricultural system, despite the fact that it is happy to eat the products. GM crops allow more efficient production, and that means fewer resources required in today's intensive agricultural systems. The environmental impact of farming is immense, whatever the production system, so anything that can reduce inputs required is good for everybody. It is a huge pity that national governments have spoken with a false voice through the European Parliament and put short term votes over the long term positive impact of biotechnology on European agriculture, environment and economy.

25.06.2015 European Biotechnology Network had the good fortune to moderate the 8th Berlin Conference on IP in Life Science, which this year had a focus on natural products. “That will be interesting,” I thought to myself, thinking about the world of complex structures and challenging development pathways. “Interesting” soon paled into insignificance as I fell headlong into the tiger trap that is the Nagoya Protocol, coming soon folks to a country near you.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

For those of you uninitiated in such matters, the Nagoya Protocol is a global programme with the extremely relevant intention to regulate access to genetic resources and ensure the sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation. Europe, as we recall, knows a thing or two about ‘accessing’ resources from countries beyond its immediate vicinity without the express written consent of their owners and Nagoya is a worthy platform to prevent sticky-fingered organisations from literally vacuuming up local resources and knowhow without a) the locals’ consent and b) full engagement financially and culturally.

This all sounds great and, as usual, the liberation of keen regulators around the world has ensured that it is now massively complicated and is already protecting local resources by ensuring that nobody can be bothered to fill in all the forms to pick a plant or sample the water (see p. 52). This learned column however wants to focus on what happens when Nagoya arrives in Europe, which it will do in October and has to be implemented.

And when I say implemented, I mean into all legal systems, and Europe has many more of those than a simple headcount of countries. Spain is my favourite example, where Nagoya will be implemented by each of the 17 autonomous communities. So, sampling natural resources in Spain (including those found in marine ecosystems) could involve discussions with ALL the regions in which your bacteria, nematode or plant can be cultivated, and that is a lot of paperwork in a wide variety of dialects.

Europe is woefully underprepared for the level of stringency required by Nagoya, most countries aren’t ready for October because they didn’t pay attention when they should have, which will result in the usual amusing quagmire that Europe is good at creating. If this sounds flippant, perhaps it is, but this column comes in the light of the fact that research into, and commercialisation of natural products has collapsed in the years that have seen increasing regulation on access, with, I recall, a reduction of the big companies active in natural products declining from 13 to 3 (don’t quote me on that exact number but it is close).

The irony is that you only have to step outside your back door to find sufficient genetic resources to last a lifetime of natural product research. You don’t have to go to anywhere exotic (and fill in lots of forms) and European implementation of Nagoya will probably ensure that we all look closer to home in the future.

23.12.2014 We have a new set of European Commissioners, and I thought that in this issue, it would be very nice to have a look at one of them through the lens of biotechnology. Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation Carlos Moedas is our man, and a quick look at his bio shows that he combines origins in engineering with a career in banking and real estate. You may interpret that as you will in terms of usefulness to the world of science.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

I was going to give a detailed analysis of Jean-Claude’s invitation letter to Carlos, but to be honest, it was so full of titles like ‘Commissioner in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (yes, my friends that is a job) – that I thought we would just write our own letter of appointment to Mr. Moedas so that he knows what he needs to do. Here goes …

Dear Carlos,

You’re becoming a Commissioner in the new EC at a particularly challenging time for the European Union. As well as doing all the standard stuff – such as liking Europe, looking smart on the television and not fiddling expenses – we, the scientific community, would very much like you to prioritise the following activities in your portfolio:

1. Linking together research and infrastructure planning and funding at the European, national and regional levels, so that the next scientific breakthrough can be developed quickly to market/field or patient, rather than floating about until somebody from the US or China decides they will do it instead and the European taxpayer subsidises profits somewhere else and then has to buy the final product.

2. Making the best use of Europe’s brains by opening up the often clogged scientific pipeline between school, university and the wide world of biotech, and ensuring that talents are not lost for any reason throughout careers.

3. Empowering SMEs further to drive innovation into commercial reality, plus recognising where the skills and financial gaps are and plugging them.

4. Stop asking nicely for private investment in science and incentivise it to be an integral part of investment portfolios.

5. Ensure that when you spend public money on science, you spend wisely, spend big and spend consistently – big words and small money do not deliver crops, medicine or energy.

6. Join it all up. In a complex and fast-changing world, the bottlenecks often have little to do with the science and everything to do with a lack of money, regulatory barriers, access to downstream partners and getting the right skills at the right time.

To help you fulfil your responsibilities, the whole scientific community in Europe will guide you on your way. You are just about to find out what a passionate sector you serve. We look forward to working with you on the next step needed by Europe’s scientific community.

Yours sincerely

All of Us

Well, that should do it.


28.10.2014 This summer saw the first deadline for the new SME Instrument, and the evaluation feedback from the European Commission could be a wake-up call for small companies across Europe.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

The funding programme aims to accelerate SME development and help them bridge the financial valley of death. With up to €5m in funding available and no need for the usual EU consortium, this is a tempting opportunity.

Plenty of SMEs applied, and a select few made it into the €50,000 feasibility stage. However plenty did not and there was some strong feedback from the European Commission on why not, which was unusually direct ("just trying their luck, it's not a lottery"). This could be seen as a critical review of European SMEs in general, as Europe still strives to make viable business from science.

One of the key feedbacks was that SMEs focused too much on the science and not enough on the business, and we have all been around long enough in this sector to know that this is the case in many small companies. Fresh-faced from the lab and secure in the knowledge that their science is amazing, there is often much less attention paid to how you are actually going to sell that science, when it will earn its money, and who will pay for it. And this despite original business plans so big they could stop an elephant. This aspect was further reinforced by evaluator feedback on a lack of knowledge about competitors and just proposing a scientific idea without a pathway mapped out for its commercialisation.

The proposal guide-
lines were clear – they asked for specific business information. And applicants would have been wise to recognise the significance of what was requested. The bigger question is, does this reflect the business capability of European biotech SMEs? In building original business plans to gain seed funding, SME founders frequently get professional support, particularly first time CEOs, but are they actually able to implement a plan and turn it into reality? Or do they revert to being awestruck by the science itself, pointing and exclaiming “just look at that, who wouldn’t buy that?” Has the European SME sector managed to mature from its early days in the 1990s, when it really started to blossom as a business platform and suck up money? These are questions that may not bring comfortable thought processes to many, myself included. 

However, the SME Instrument, inspired by the SBIR programme in the US, could be a critical tool in forcing the business evolution of SMEs, particularly those piloted by CEOs new to the game. Nothing focuses the mind like chasing money, and if the SME Instrument makes people actually implement the business behind science, then the SMEs that triumph in the much sought-after project applications can only help Europe in its quest for business maturity.

26.06.2014 The launch of Horizon2020 and close of the first deadlines in February has shown the appetite of Europe’s researchers from industry and academia for funding.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

A huge number of applications were received, particularly for the two-stage applications, where success rates are as low as 4% for some topics. And pass rates could remain low even at Stage 2.

A silver lining

This is scary news at first glance, but we have to look at it in multiple ways. First, these were the first deadlines after a break between FP7 and H2020, so people had been waiting awhile for the Framework carousel to start turning again. Second, the two-stage application process opens the door to a huge number of speculative attempts at Stage 1, where the application is short. In some ways it’s annoying to think a half-developed idea could beat a carefully crafted effort. Indeed, exactly that has happened to enough EBN Member proposals.

Feeding the European fire

When you look at the big picture, however, you have to feel positive. Horizon 2020 is highly focussed on exploitation and raised impact. If evaluators are spoiled for choice with proposals that can deliver economic returns from biotech, then we can’t complain too much. Goodness knows Europe needs to deliver money back into the system from maturing biotechnology. I’m not talking about the kind of money that comes from the acquisition of an SME for a fraction of the public money that has been poured into making it ripe for purchase, but the genuine maturation of value within Europe. These short Stage 1 proposals also enable people new to EC funding to dip a toe in the water. Much better a failed Stage 1 proposal that gets you thinking about working in partnership and moving your technology forward than no effort at all because a full proposal was too difficult. Failed Stage 1 proposals need to keep their chins up – after all, you’ve started a journey, found some new friends and there are many adventures that beckon.

From small beginnings

The big question coming up is how the new SME Instrument performs. Part of me trembles at the thought of how many applications are cooking and how many will be disappointed. The rest of me is excited – at last, something to drive SMEs forward, masters of their own destiny! We’re cautiously circling the first deadlines in June, and I would imagine that the EC is also waiting with terror in its heart so see what the application process yields, and whether they’ll have to get extra USB sticks out of the cupboard to store all the applications. If you feel any tremors in cyberspace on June 25, you will know the SME Instrument has delivered a bouncing big baby into the nervous arms of its midwife.

20.05.2014 There are sinister moves in the world of data protection, and I need to mobilise you – my crack squad of guerrilla scientists. The EC is showing its ugly face, and it’s going to impact you.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

A new data protection regulation is being pushed through by the Commission, and it isn’t fighting fair. This is a regulation, not a directive like the one it replaces, and will be implemented word for word into national law, overwriting years of carefully developed legislation that protects consumers and science.

The regulation frankly sucks, and could have been written by a bunch of monkeys with typewriters. It potentially restricts access to data on a huge scale for research, and displays a profound lack of legal clarity or understanding of data use in science. It is so badly written that it will create legal uncertainty around any research carried out using pseudonimised or sensitive data, threatening products or processes from such research – a real killer for investment and exploitation. It will affect all research, so don’t feel smug if you are reading this from a university.

The ’ugly face’ is the strange situation where amendments from worried national governments appear to be sliding out of text prepared by the European Commission, which is very kindly helping out the current Presidency with some extra admin ’support’. Parliament is also confusing the scandal of data access by government security agencies with the use of data in research, and will vote through a draconian regulation that does nothing to stop the NSA reading your email and everything to stop you using data derived from patients, biobanks, etc.

Many governments oppose this, but run the risk of generating headlines about failing to protect their citizens. As we are close to elections, there is an almost tragic resignation to the fact that this regulation will come into effect, and efforts are being aimed at damage limitation rather than creating something genuinely useful. It is like replacing a brain surgeon with a child holding a blunt spoon. It didn’t always go right before, but it sure as hell is going to go wrong now.

This is a ridiculous and dangerous situation. European Commission, please listen to national concerns and improve this regulation. Make it legally strong, bring in specific, more sophisticated reference to the use of data in science, and listen to the countries that have spent years developing exactly this kind of legislation – they know what they are talking about. You are supposed to serve Europe, not impose your own underdeveloped opinions through a misuse of process.

And you, my fearless warriors, contact your MEP, your national government and your newspapers and tell them what this regulation will do to science in Europe. Make them bold enough to do something about it while they still can. If not, then the last one out of the lab should turn out the lights.

As we all know, the European Commission is under intense pressure to reduce costs and shed the image of being a gravy train. This is a favourite topic at the national level in the ongoing fight against the reign of terror from Brussels.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

The irony is that the era of eye­watering salaries and mansions on leafy avenues actually ended some time ago. While there are still plenty of Commission people who live very well ­– courtesy of getting their feet under the table back in the old days – many new staff face short contracts, lower wages and substantially less sexy perks. I am all for the European Commission employing people on a realistic level (i.e. like the rest of us), but I am having problems with additional changes in structure that somebody thought was an 'efficiency'.

One cut too many?

The EC is a huge funding body, driving innovation and industrial development across Europe. To do that, it needs passionate and motivated staff who are integrated into the heart of the scientific process. Based on what I have seen myself and heard from plenty of others, the increased use of external agencies to administer project funding isn’t serving collaborative research well. Sure, the agencies come cheaper and let the EC talk about reducing costs, but the direct result is that you get people paid to administer – not to add value to – world­class research collaborations.

Another irony is that there is a queue of people 10km long wanting to work for the Commission, and it includes talented scientists and project managers. So why make them just administer project reports? Managing collaborative research is really hard, we all know that, so why not invest a bit more to ensure that it actually works? These guys would work on the same salaries as you pay external staff. In fact, I bet that those external staff would jump at the chance to stretch their brains beyond correctly completed personnel tables.

Investing in results

The fact is that the European Commission will always take the heat for national issues. It is a useful whipping boy on any aspect of money because its budgets are so huge, and it always looks shifty because its answers are necessarily complicated. The Commission is not going to win any debates at national level, regardless of how much it cuts budgets, so it should stand up and say that it is proud to have skilled Project Officers working as partners with the projects that it funds. Then those projects have the maximum chance of delivering the results that they were funded to achieve, while the Directorates delivering the funding can also see the fruits of their labour and assess the effectiveness of their policies.

1/4Nächste Seite

Whitepaper

Current issue

All issues

Product of the week

Products

Job Advert

Researchers

As a company at the leading edge of genomics, the focus at Illumina is research and development. We take our employees seriously. From colleagues to career path to meeting professional goals, we help you find opportunities to grow your career. more...

Video

All videos

Stock list

All quotes

TOP

  • EVOCUTIS (UK)0.08 GBP14.29%
  • SERODUS (N)2.60 NOK4.00%
  • SUMMIT (UK)4.03 GBP3.87%

FLOP

  • SWEDISH ORPHAN BIOVITRUM (S)12.45 USD-23.38%
  • BIOTIE THERAPEUTICS (FI)0.14 EUR-22.22%
  • DIAMYD MEDICAL -B- (S)4.30 SEK-12.24%

TOP

  • VERONA PHARMA (UK)3.35 GBP26.4%
  • IXICO (UK)34.00 GBP15.3%
  • WILEX (D)1.95 EUR14.7%

FLOP

  • BIONOR PHARMA (N)0.86 NOK-44.9%
  • PROTHENA PLC (IE)31.71 USD-41.1%
  • PLETHORA (UK)2.62 GBP-36.4%

TOP

  • KARO BIO (S)26.00 SEK3614.3%
  • CHRONTECH PHARMA (S)0.34 SEK3300.0%
  • NICOX (F)7.00 EUR253.5%

FLOP

  • NEUROVIVE PHARMACEUTICAL AB (S)8.70 SEK-85.7%
  • BIOTEST (D)13.24 EUR-85.6%
  • EVOCUTIS (UK)0.08 GBP-71.4%

No liability assumed, Date: 08.02.2016

Events

All Events