#biomed

Karen Petrou: The Casualties of Slash-and-Burn Regulatory Rewrites

Eliza Allen2025-03-03T10:54:41-05:00March 3rd, 2025|The Vault|

There’s no doubt that many U.S. institutions have grown such long teeth over the years that they bit themselves in the foot. As a result, radical reform challenging conventional wisdom is long overdue. But, there are two ways to do this: the break-first/fix-later approach taken by the Trump Administration in biomedical research and other vital arenas; the other is to think first, then act decisively within the boundaries of current law or the better ones you demand. Radical reform to U.S. biomedical research is already leaving near-term treatments and cures on the cutting-room floor. If slash-and-burn transformation is also applied to financial-services supervision and regulation, systemic-risk guardrails could be unintentionally, but dangerously, dismantled.

The risks to biomedical research are not so much in what the Trump Administration has done, but that it’s more often than not done retroactively regardless of contractual commitments for continuing funding authorized under longstanding appropriations and by frenetic, indiscriminate firings of well-performing staff. You simply can’t suddenly stop a clinical trial without endangering patients and putting treatments years behind, if they continue at all. You also can’t stop basic biomedical research all of a sudden without leaving labs with a lot of mice, dogs, and primates to feed and no money for kibble. It also takes years to train good biomedical researchers; suddenly firing thousands of them endangers this pipeline and, with it, treatments and cures.

Biomedical research and financial-system governance have little in common, but leaving financial policy in tatters will also have unintended consequences …

Karen Petrou: Another SVB Casualty: U.S. Biomedical Research

Eliza Allen2023-03-27T10:27:35-04:00March 27th, 2023|The Vault|

As seems always the case when fear has the banking system in its maw, myths have proliferated that are now also magnified and amplified by viral social media. One such myth about Silicon Valley Bank has it that most of its depositors were high-wealth, high-tech folk whom the government should never bail out. In fact, many depositors had no choice but to park all their funds at SVB, a more-then-dubious practice at the bank that almost brought biomedical research to its knees. Had these depositors been forced to bear losses, treatments and cures for life-threatening and-changing diseases would have stalled, likely for years. We need not only to prevent future researchers from being put at such risk by a single bank, but also to change the biomedical-funding model from one at the mercy of high-cost equity investors to a stable sector for which lower-cost debt is readily at hand for any researcher with demonstrable ability to repay. Think what debt funding did for sustainable energy via green bonds and you’ll see what a like-kind model for “biobonds” could do to speed urgently-needed treatments and cures.

The link between SVB and biomedical research is not the stuff of moral-hazard myth, but rather a complex tale of a specialized institution serving a sector that came to hold unique sway over a vital public good: lengthening life and easing suffering. Providing banking services to venture capital (VC) is a high-risk business unless a financial institution devotes expensive intellectual capital to the sector and …