VentureBeat

23andMe held its official launch today, as expected, and in the process managed to address a few of the nagging questions that remained after I reviewed its service over the weekend. “Addressed” is definitely the operative word here, though, because firm answers are still in short supply.

For instance, can personal genomics really make money for a startup like 23andMe? (To recap briefly for those joining the show already in progress, the company will scan your genome from a tube of spit you send in, and then post the results on a personal Web page for you to browse for information on your ancestry and disease risks.) The official answer is that no one knows, in part because the field is still remarkably young — just three days old, actually — and partly because 23andMe founders Linda Avey and Anne Wojcicki decline to outline their thinking in much detail. For instance, when I spoke to the co-founders earlier today, Wojcicki insisted that “it’s really too early to specify how we might monetize and derive value from the information we’re aggregating. We’ve thought about a lot of different ways to monetize it, but we’re not ready to talk about them.”

Since virtually no one sinks $8.9 million (what 23andMe raised in its first round) into a startup that lacks even an inkling of a business plan, however, it seems safe to say that the company is simply being circumspect. Here’s my best shot at connecting the dots.

To put it bluntly, the real money is likely to lie in selling corporations — specifically, drug companies — access to the aggregate genetic information 23andMe amasses from its customers. During a Webcast this morning, and again in our interview, Avey and Wojcicki emphasized 23andMe’s plans to conduct large-scale genetic-association studies using the genetic-data database their customers will essentially create. (Talk about your ultimate user-generated content.)

Both 23andMe founders, of course, stress that the company won’t disclose personal information, but that’s not really the point. If the company succeeds in attracting the hundreds of thousands of customers Avey and Wojcicki talk about drawing, it will be sitting on one of the largest genetic databases on Earth. And there’s no opting out of any research studies 23andMe wants to conduct at that point, either, since the consent forms to which customers must agree specifically commit their genome-scan results to future research. From that form:

23andMe Sponsored Research: We may analyze your genetic and other voluntarily contributed personal information as part of our scientific research with the purpose of advancing the field of genetics; your account information will never be associated with this research. We may also analyze your genetic and other contributed personal information for the purpose of reviewing and improving our services and creating new features and services. We may ask you questions and you may choose to give us information about yourself through surveys or other features on our website. Contributed personal information might include age, sex, geographic ancestry and diseases or conditions you have, or have experienced. It is entirely within your discretion to provide information or answer survey questions.

Collaborative Research: 23andMe may enter into partnerships with other organizations—non-profit and/or commercial—that conduct scientific research. Prior to embarking on any such projects, 23andMe will establish a research advisory committee to guide such collaborations. 23andMe may grant researchers associated with partner organizations access to our database of genetic and other contributed personal information after such organizations agree to maintain confidentiality consistent with our privacy policy. External researchers will have access to your genetic and other contributed personal information but they will not have access to your account information (e.g. contact and payment information).

In the Webcast and in our interview, Avey and Wojcicki tended to stress the prospect of academic studies over commercial research. For instance, 23andMe is in discussions with foundations that support work on Parkinson’s disease and autism, in hopes of first attracting large numbers of patients to the service, and then using their data to pin down how genetic differences play a role in each disease.

Still, neither academics nor disease-focused foundations are likely to provide the level of funding that could turn a company like 23andMe from an intriguing curiosity into a commercial powerhouse. Who does have that kind of moolah? Big Pharma and Big Biotech, of course. Recall, for instance, that 23andMe is backed not only by Google, but also by Genentech.

What’s more, pharma/biotechs stand to gain tremendous “value” from studies that help pinpoint which patients are most likely to respond to a particular drug, and which ones are likeliest to suffer serious side effects. (For instance, consider the Big Pharma personalized-medicine coalition we wrote about here, and think how much easier its job would be if it could tap a gene database like the one 23andMe envisions building.) It’s almost as if 23andMe and the drug industry were made for one another — as, perhaps, they were. (Wojcicki is a former biotech investor for a San Francisco hedge fund.)

This, of course, helps explain why Avey and Wojcicki are cagey about their business plans, because people might be a little reluctant to sign up for a service that’s effectively going to turn over their genomes to help Big Pharma make more money. I’m not saying they’d be correct about that — this sort of database could conceivable yield some major health benefits in the form of better-targeted drugs — just that public perceptions of the drug industry are bad enough that dwelling on such partnerships could put a damper on 23andMe’s plans.

This sort of strategy still isn’t a slam dunk, of course. With two other personal-genomics services in business or near to it (Navigenics and DeCode Genetics’ DecodeMe), competition for pharma deals could be fierce. What’s more, the genetic databases alone aren’t much good for these sorts of association studies, as researchers will also need to know more about individuals’ “environmental” circumstances — which include anything from their age and lifestyle habits to their medical and family history. If no one answers the surveys intended to elicit this information, the studies, and the dollars behind them, will dry up in a hurry.

A few other items that emerged from today’s discussions:

• 23andMe’s basic $999 fee covers use of its genome-analysis tools indefinitely — the company doesn’t plan to hit customers up for an annual subscription fee, unlike rival Navigenics. (Except that 23andMe may eventually launch some sort of advanced service that requires a subscription fee.)
• Avey and Wojcicki argue that charging $999 for their service alone would make 23andMe a going concern. At the same time, though, 23andMe is offering “friends and family” a discount of just 15 percent to get a genome scanned “at cost,” which suggests that the gross margin on that service is really not that great.
• Regarding the medical utility of the 23andMe scan, Avey says the company urges anyone concerned by a disease-related finding should re-confirm it with a standard genetic test.
• Apparently 23andMe customers will also have access to a range of additional information that’s not available on the company’s public site. Pointers to genetic counseling will be located there.
• The company is looking into launching some form of genome-related social networking in the future.

Medical treatment that’s tailored to your individual genetic profile — “personalized medicine,” for short — has been a long, long time in coming, as I’ve noted here and here. Part of the reason, of course, is that personalizing medicine cuts against the economic interests of major players in the medico-industrial complex, particularly the large biotech and pharma companies whose business models have long been based on the prospect of getting as many patients as possible to take large doses of their drugs.

So what to make of yesterday’s news that seven major drugmakers are joining academic researchers to study genetic variations that might make patients more susceptible to side effects? At first glance, some of the coverage suggests that the industry is rethinking its passive-aggressive opposition to personalized medicine, thanks in part to a bit of a nudge from the FDA. Take, for instance, this AP story:

Dubbed the International Severe Adverse Events Consortium, the project will use genetic data to try to design safer drugs and to identify patients at risk of dangerous side effects because of a variation in their genetic makeup.

“This is what personalized medicine is really about, finding out for the individual, not just the general population … what their risks are,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, deputy commissioner for operations at the Food and Drug Administration, which is under growing pressure to ensure drugs are safe. “Up until now we’ve been kind of helpless” in dealing with adverse effects, she said.

Reports of such events are on the rise, jumping 150 percent from 1998 to 2005, a recent study found.

Or this, from the NYT story linked above:

Seven of the largest pharmaceutical companies have formed a group to develop genetic tests to determine which patients would be at risk from dangerous drug side effects.

The new group, the International Serious Adverse Events Consortium, is one of a wave of cooperative research efforts sweeping the drug industry, as companies come under pressure to cut costs and increase their success rates in developing medications. The Food and Drug Administration has encouraged the formation of such groups.

First, this is clearly a worthy effort, no matter how late to the party it might seem. Whatever your feelings about the drug industry, anything that might spare patients from severe drug side effects represents a step forward — not just for those who can avoid dangerous health complications, but also for the people who might be put at risk when a drug that could help them is withdrawn for safety problems that are unlikely to affect them.

Second, though, it’s telling to me that one of the first major industry-wide personalized medicine efforts should focus specifically on rare side effects, since it is exactly these sorts of safety problems that pose the biggest threat to the blockbuster-drug model in the first place, as discussed here. (Put briefly, a blockbuster drug by definition is taken by large numbers of people, for long periods of time, or both, which inevitably increases the chance that safety problems will emerge.) Anything that reduces drug toxicities — specifically serious problems such as heart attacks, stroke or nasty immune reactions — also improves the odds that blockbuster products can stay on the market.

In other words, while it’s great to see the industry tackling its safety problems head-on, this consortium isn’t exactly evidence that Big Pharma (or its Big Biotech counterpart) is any more willing to adopt personalized medicine in a comprehensive way. Sure, maybe we’ll see future consortia start to address the questions of why so many drugs still only seem to work for a fraction of the patients who take them — a step that would, if successful, necessarily result in the narrowing of markets for many of these drugs, even though it would also boost public confidence in drug efficacy. Will biotech/pharma embrace that logic? I’m not holding my breath.

Pharmalot and the WSJ health blog have more.

Between the sweeping job cuts across Big Pharma, falling stock prices, stalled drug approvals, safety problems with drugs like Avandia and an expected avalanche of generic competitors to billion-dollar brand-name drugs, it’s certainly starting to look like the traditional drug industry’s best days are behind it.

In fact, good news is pretty much in short supply no matter where you turn. Consider just this litany from this AP story (courtesy of the Baltimore Sun) I linked to a few days ago:

J&J’s plan to cut up to 4,800 jobs follows news of tens of thousands of job cuts at Pfizer Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., AstraZeneca PLC, Merck & Co. and Schering-Plough Corp.

Pfizer, the world’s biggest drug company, is eliminating 10,000 jobs, 10 percent of its work force. Merck is shedding 7,000 jobs, AstraZeneca is slashing 7,600 positions, Schering-Plough has furloughed about 1,100 manufacturing workers, and Bristol-Myers Squibb will cut an unspecified number of jobs by year’s end.

Now ponder yesterday’s installment from the NYT’s Stephanie Saul:

The nation currently spends $275 billion a year on prescription medicines. But over the next five years, analysts forecast a golden era for generic drugs, as patents begin to expire on brand-name medications with more than $60 billion in combined annual sales. That will open the door to copycats that may be 30 percent to 80 percent cheaper.

Or just look at the NYT’s graph of generic-drug approvals, part of which I’ve reproduced at the left.

It’s hard not to feel just a tingle of Schadenfreude in all of this. Whatever your feelings about the drug industry, there’s no question that it has lectured us for years that high U.S. drug prices and its ceaseless hawking of pills were crucial to sustaining a steady supply of innovative new medicines. It has insisted that ever-rising drug prices make possible the vast sums the industry devotes to R&D every year. And it has steadily and effectively beaten back every consumer measure that might have jeopardized its ability to set high U.S. drug prices, arguing that Medicare price bargaining, legal imported drugs and any federal effort to ensure “reasonable” prices for drugs largely derived from taxpayer-supported research could mean the end of our pharmaceutical Golden Age.

And yet it’s all coming undone anyway, because it turned out that most of the big drug companies weren’t anywhere near as innovative as they claimed. Instead of turning their still-enormous cash flows into ground-breaking new drugs, pharma companies are for the most part stalking the landscape, looking for the next promising biotech drug to snap up — at least when they’re not defending their existing blockbusters against safety problems or firing sales reps who apparently went too far in hawking their drugs.

For a graphic illustration of just how much Big Pharma productivity has suffered over the past decade, consider the graph at left, which is from this Economist piece that argues that the entire industry need to rethink its business model. That seems like a no-brainer to me; as Ogan Gural points out over at Life Sciences Daily, the blockbuster model is “rapidly leading to extinction.”

Among other things, Ogan cleverly notes that all blockbusters have an Achilles’ heel, one that renders the entire model suspect so long as our understanding of human biology and drug side effects remains limited:

[T]he massively indiscriminate target populations and the long-term, chronic administration that makes these blockbusters in the first place also renders them extraordinarily susceptible to safety issues. It boils down to simple statistics: if you give a drug to enough people for a long-enough time, you’re bound to get some safety problems. Hence the solution to the business problem has been for companies (such as Roche acquiring various diagnostics firms) to embrace personalized medicine which also holds the promise (but not the entire key) to solving the safety problem.

Biotech, of course, has been largely spared in this bloodbath — Amgen’s troubles excepted — because the industry’s companies tend to focus on disease “niches” instead of trying to come up with one-size-fits-all drugs. If, in fact, personalized medicine does start to take off — something that’s been a long time in coming — we can probably expect the balance of power to shift even further in biotech’s direction.

Merrill Goozner has some additional thoughts on pharma’s troubles here; he thinks that the dominance of drug companies in our public healthcare discourse is coming to an end as attention shifts to the debate over general healthcare reform.

Two fascinating papers in the open-access journal PLoS Medicine turn a spotlight on the practice of “detailing” — the office visits that drug-industry salespeople use to flatter and manipulate their way into the good graces of the doctors they want to influence.

The first and most eye-opening paper is co-authored by Shahram Ahari, a former Eli Lilly sales rep, and Adriane Fugh-Berman, a Georgetown University professor who researches drug marketing. Together, the two outline a variety of tactics that sales reps use on detail visits to disarm doctors and to indirectly — sometimes all but imperceptibly — nudge them into prescribing their company’s drugs more freely. This is one of those papers that best speaks for itself, so I’ve excerpted some key passages below. For the full effect, though, read the whole paper; Table 1 alone is worth the price of admission.

Good details are dynamic; the best reps tailor their messages constantly according to their client’s reaction. A friendly physician makes the rep’s job easy, because the rep can use the “friendship” to request favors, in the form of prescriptions. Physicians who view the relationship as a straightforward goods-for-prescriptions exchange are dealt with in a businesslike manner. Skeptical doctors who favor evidence over charm are approached respectfully, supplied with reprints from the medical literature, and wooed as teachers. Physicians who refuse to see reps are detailed by proxy; their staff is dined and flattered in hopes that they will act as emissaries for a rep’s messages. (See Table 1 for specific tactics used to manipulate physicians.) [...]

The purpose of supplying drug samples is to gain entry into doctors’ offices, and to habituate physicians to prescribing targeted drugs. Physicians appreciate samples, which can be used to start therapy immediately, test tolerance to a new drug, or reduce the total cost of a prescription. Even physicians who refuse to see drug reps usually want samples (these docs are denigrated as “samplegrabbers”). Patients like samples too; it’s nice to get a little present from the doctor. Samples also double as unacknowledged gifts to physicians and their staff. The convenience of an in-house pharmacy increases loyalty to both the reps and the drugs they represent….

Pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars annually to ensure that physicians most susceptible to marketing prescribe the most expensive, most promoted drugs to the most people possible. The foundation of this influence is a sales force of 100,000 drug reps that
provides rationed doses of samples, gifts, services, and flattery to a subset of physicians. If detailing were an educational service, it would be provided to all physicians, not just those who affect market share…. Physicians are susceptible to corporate influence because they are overworked, overwhelmed with information and paperwork, and feel underappreciated. Cheerful and charming, bearing food and gifts, drug reps provide respite and sympathy; they appreciate how hard doctor’s lives are, and seem only to want to ease their burdens.

The second paper isn’t anywhere near so colorful, but compensates with depth of analysis. A research team at the University of California, San Francisco, studied market-research forms for the anti-seizure drug Neurontin (generically known as gabapentin), which became public as the result of a whistleblower lawsuit against Neurontin’s maker, Pfizer. That lawsuit contended that the former Parke-Davis — later acquired by Pfizer — had violated federal rules by promoting Neurontin outside its FDA-approved uses, and concluded with a $430 million out-of-court settlement.

By studying 116 of the market-research forms filled out by selected doctors following a sales rep visit — here’s an example:

– the researchers built a detailed picture of the way Neurontin detailing worked. In 44 percent of the visits, physicians reported at least one “off-label” message related to Neurontin use in an unapproved fashion — exactly the sort of thing sales reps are forbidden to introduce in such conversations. Almost a full quarter of the visits involved only discussion of unapproved uses of the drug. (The researchers acknowledge that they have no way to know if the sales reps initiated such conversations.) Ultimately, almost half of the doctors involved said they planned to increase their prescription of the drug following the visits, while none reported plans to decrease Neurontin use.

Interestingly enough, former Pfizer exec Peter Rost is now closely tracking what may be a similar scandal related to AstraZeneca’s promotion of its chemotherapy drug Arimidex. The story, which began with the firing of an AstraZeneca regional sales manager who compared doctors’ offices to “a big bucket of money” in an internal newsletter, then mushoomed to include a cabal of alleged whisteblowers and leaked audio recordings — supposedly of AstraZeneca sales-rep training sessions — is detailed at his sometimes quirky blog Question Authority. If you don’t mind working backward, start here and keep scrolling down. Way, way down if you want to get all the way to the beginning — Rost is nothing if not prolific.

A long-awaited struggle over patent reform appears to be upon us, the Washington Post reports today (hat tip to the WSJ’s Health Blog). It pits the tech industry against pharmaceutical/biotech companies over intellectual property protections that, depending on where you stand, are either largely a nuisance or an industry’s lifeblood.

Both the House and Senate are expected to introduce bills today that reflect the tech industry’s long-standing desire to weaken the protection patents offer their holders — over, of course, the vehement objections of pharma/biotech. The main issue separating the two pillars of U.S. high technology: Big tech companies tend to end up as defendants in patent-infringement suits, while big drug companies are more frequently plaintiffs. (The Washington Post’s Alan Sipress didn’t put it that simply, but that’s essentially what’s going on).

Generally speaking, tech companies want a greater ability to challenge the validity of existing patents and relief from what they consider exorbitant damages, such the $1.52 billion Microsoft was ordered to pay Alcatel-Lucent in February for infringing two patents on MP3 digital-music technology. Companies that pop up with such patent claims when a technology is already in widespread use are frequently derided as “patent trolls,” and the tech industry is anxious to limit their ability to block product development or to demand huge damages after the fact.

The pharmaceutical and biotech industries, by contrast, frequently spend years — and sometimes decades — developing drugs that are often protected by a limited number of patents. As a result, drugmakers are far more interested in protecting their investment by using those patents to ward off would-be competitors.

The possibility of patent changes is clearly a big deal for both sides, although I suspect that warding off changes is going to be an uphill battle for the drugmakers, who could even end up longing for a presidential veto. Not only has the drug industry leaned heavily Republican in recent years — hardly an auspicious sign now that Congress is held by Democrats — but criticism that overly strong patents stifle innovation has been growing steadily in recent years, and has even seemed to pique the interest of the Supreme Court. Plus, if things do get down and dirty on Capitol Hill, it probably won’t take long for stories about drug companies’ own abuses of the patent system to begin circulating again, potentially tipping the scales further toward reform.

(Note: This item has been copied over to the Life Sciences page from its original location on the VentureBeat main page. To view it in its original context, with comments, click here.)

A long-awaited struggle over patent reform appears to be upon us, the Washington Post reports today (hat tip to the WSJ’s Health Blog). It pits the tech industry against pharmaceutical/biotech companies over intellectual property protections that, depending on where you stand, are either largely a nuisance or an industry’s lifeblood.

Both the House and Senate are expected to introduce bills today that reflect the tech industry’s long-standing desire to weaken the protection patents offer their holders — over, of course, the vehement objections of pharma/biotech. The main issue separating the two pillars of U.S. high technology: Big tech companies tend to end up as defendants in patent-infringement suits, while big drug companies are more frequently plaintiffs. (The Washington Post’s Alan Sipress didn’t put it that simply, but that’s essentially what’s going on).

Generally speaking, tech companies want a greater ability to challenge the validity of existing patents and relief from what they consider exorbitant damages, such the $1.52 billion Microsoft was ordered to pay Alcatel-Lucent in February for infringing two patents on MP3 digital-music technology. Companies that pop up with such patent claims when a technology is already in widespread use are frequently derided as “patent trolls,” and the tech industry is anxious to limit their ability to block product development or to demand huge damages after the fact.

The pharmaceutical and biotech industries, by contrast, frequently spend years — and sometimes decades — developing drugs that are often protected by a limited number of patents. As a result, drugmakers are far more interested in protecting their investment by using those patents to ward off would-be competitors.

The possibility of patent changes is clearly a big deal for both sides, although I suspect that warding off changes is going to be an uphill battle for the drugmakers, who could even end up longing for a presidential veto. Not only has the drug industry leaned heavily Republican in recent years — hardly an auspicious sign now that Congress is held by Democrats — but criticism that overly strong patents stifle innovation has been growing steadily in recent years, and has even seemed to pique the interest of the Supreme Court. Plus, if things do get down and dirty on Capitol Hill, it probably won’t take long for stories about drug companies’ own abuses of the patent system to begin circulating again, potentially tipping the scales further toward reform.

(Note: This item has been copied over to the Life Sciences page from its original location on the VentureBeat main page. To view it in its original context, with comments, click here.)
For what appears to be the first time, a major drug company has plunked down a significant equity investment in embryonic stem cells.

Earlier today, VentureWire reported (sub required) that Novocell, an early-stage San Diego biotech that aims to treat diabetes with the embryonic cells, is hoping to raise $35 million in a third round of funding. The interesting thing, however, isn’t so much the money as the identity of the lead investor: Johnson & Johnson Development Corp., the venture arm of pharmaceutical giant J&J.

The news grabbed my attention because to date, Big Pharma has shown relatively little interest in the smaller biotechs working on embryonic stem-cell therapeutics, with the standard explanation that the field is too young and in need of some solid clinical success before the big guys can get involved. Political controversy over the destruction of embryos — necessary to derive the stem cells — probably also inclines the naturally cautious pharmas to move even more carefully. (Novacell intends to make new insulin-producing islet cells from embryonic cells, then transplant them into diabetics.)

Here are some snippets from the VentureWire piece:

The funding, which the company revealed in a Form D filing with the Securities and Exchange commission, came into the company last month. Johnson & Johnson Development Corp. led the funding, alongside the participation of Asset Management Partners and Sanderling Venture Partners. [...]

The investment from Johnson & Johnson’s venture capital arm brings the company on as a strategic investor, [Novocell Chief Executive Alan] Lewis said, giving them “a major ownership in the company.”

As it turns out, I’m not aware of any other Big Pharma equity investment or development partnership involving embryonic stem cells. Jennifer Van Brunt, a biotech-data maven and editor of Recombinant Capital’s Signals Magazine, says her databases don’t show any, either. The only remotely similar deal I was able to turn up after some searching was another J&J venture investment in Tengion, a Pennsylvania biotech that wants to grow new organs such as bladders. Tengion’s technology, however, would use a patient’s own stem cells, not ones derived from embryos.

Stem-cell proponents have long complained that Big Pharma and venture capitalists alike have failed to step up to the plate with support for embryonic stem-cell work, effectively slowing scientific and commercial progress in the field. If J&J’s investment is a sign that regenerative medicine is quickening pulses in at the big drug companies, things could get interesting.

Unfortunately, that’s mostly just speculation at this point. A J&J spokesman confirmed the investment, which is part of $20 million Novocell has raised so far in this round, but had no comment about the company’s strategic plans. If anyone knows of other pharmas who have dipped their toes into the embryonic stem-cell field in a similar fashion, I’m all ears. Tell us about it in comments and I’ll update as necessary.

[Editor's note: David Hamilton is a contributing author on VentureBeat. If you have a biotech story tip for him, let us know via the "story tip" link above.]

For what appears to be the first time, a major drug company has plunked down a significant equity investment in embryonic stem cells.

Earlier today, VentureWire reported (sub required) that Novocell, an early-stage San Diego biotech that aims to treat diabetes with the embryonic cells, is hoping to raise $35 million in a third round of funding. The interesting thing, however, isn’t so much the money as the identity of the lead investor: Johnson & Johnson Development Corp., the venture arm of pharmaceutical giant J&J.

The news grabbed my attention because to date, Big Pharma has shown relatively little interest in the smaller biotechs working on embryonic stem-cell therapeutics, with the standard explanation that the field is too young and in need of some solid clinical success before the big guys can get involved. Political controversy over the destruction of embryos — necessary to derive the stem cells — probably also inclines the naturally cautious pharmas to move even more carefully. (Novacell intends to make new insulin-producing islet cells from embryonic cells, then transplant them into diabetics.)

Here are some snippets from the VentureWire piece:

The funding, which the company revealed in a Form D filing with the Securities and Exchange commission, came into the company last month. Johnson & Johnson Development Corp. led the funding, alongside the participation of Asset Management Partners and Sanderling Venture Partners. [...]

The investment from Johnson & Johnson’s venture capital arm brings the company on as a strategic investor, [Novocell Chief Executive Alan] Lewis said, giving them “a major ownership in the company.”

As it turns out, I’m not aware of any other Big Pharma equity investment or development partnership involving embryonic stem cells. Jennifer Van Brunt, a biotech-data maven and editor of Recombinant Capital’s Signals Magazine, says her databases don’t show any, either. The only remotely similar deal I was able to turn up after some searching was another J&J venture investment in Tengion, a Pennsylvania biotech that wants to grow new organs such as bladders. Tengion’s technology, however, would use a patient’s own stem cells, not ones derived from embryos.

Stem-cell proponents have long complained that Big Pharma and venture capitalists alike have failed to step up to the plate with support for embryonic stem-cell work, effectively slowing scientific and commercial progress in the field. If J&J’s investment is a sign that regenerative medicine is quickening pulses in at the big drug companies, things could get interesting.

Unfortunately, that’s mostly just speculation at this point. A J&J spokesman confirmed the investment, which is part of $20 million Novocell has raised so far in this round, but had no comment about the company’s strategic plans. If anyone knows of other pharmas who have dipped their toes into the embryonic stem-cell field in a similar fashion, I’m all ears. Tell us about it in comments and I’ll update as necessary.

[Editor's note: David Hamilton is a contributing author on VentureBeat. If you have a biotech story tip for him, let us know via the "story tip" link above.]