Biotech firms given draft code
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE UK'S biotechnology industry was yesterday presented with a draft code of best practice to which it is expected to subscribe from the end of October.
However, the code, prepared by the BioIndustry Association, does not oblige companies to disclose more information about their drugs than do existing London Stock Exchange rules. "We are setting out principles, not rules," said Robert Mansfield, chairman of the BIA.
"The interpretation that we are going to bring a big whip to the industry is wrong." The code requires biotechs to publish information about their drugs that may be price sensitive only at an "appropriate" time, and to the London Stock Exchange in the first instance.
Mr Mansfield said that meant there would be less disclosure of information. "We want to stop leaks to lawyers and bankers," he said. "It would be sensible for companies to remain silent whilst in communication with regulators." The BIA said it was shareholders' responsibility to ensure that biotech companies comply with the code. Last month the London Stock Exchange censured British Biotech for issuing misleading announcements on the prospects of one of its drugs whilst it was still seeking regulatory approval. The scandal might not have happened if the code had existed in 1997 and shareholders had enforced it, Mr Mansfield said.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments