<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How Big a Deal is Roche and Alnylam&#8217;s Big Deal?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2007/07/09/how-big-a-deal-is-roche-and-alnylams-big-deal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2007/07/09/how-big-a-deal-is-roche-and-alnylams-big-deal/</link>
	<description>Business + Technology in the Exponential Economy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:30:41 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous Xconomist</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2007/07/09/how-big-a-deal-is-roche-and-alnylams-big-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous Xconomist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/2007/07/09/how-big-a-deal-is-roche-and-alnylams-big-deal/#comment-47</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s interesting that the pharma companies wait and then prefer to overpay significantly for overhyped technology that is (while very important as a research tool) a) still unproven from a therapeutic perspective, b)still can&#039;t be delivered systemically, and c) has a complex IP landscape.  Furthermore, how can a $300M+ upfront pricetag be justified for a non-exclusive license to technology that multiple companies claim to own?  Excellent selling skills on the part of John Maraganore and Alnylam and great for early stage technology but really makes one question what these pharma companies are thinking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s interesting that the pharma companies wait and then prefer to overpay significantly for overhyped technology that is (while very important as a research tool) a) still unproven from a therapeutic perspective, b)still can&#8217;t be delivered systemically, and c) has a complex IP landscape.  Furthermore, how can a $300M+ upfront pricetag be justified for a non-exclusive license to technology that multiple companies claim to own?  Excellent selling skills on the part of John Maraganore and Alnylam and great for early stage technology but really makes one question what these pharma companies are thinking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mike kharas</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2007/07/09/how-big-a-deal-is-roche-and-alnylams-big-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>mike kharas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:25:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/2007/07/09/how-big-a-deal-is-roche-and-alnylams-big-deal/#comment-44</guid>
		<description>There is a lot of hype about RNAi but it also has the potential to really speed up drug discovery.  Instead of making knockouts in animal models you can quickly screen for relevant genes by using shRNA libraries.  It is unclear what the medical benefits will be and if the deal is worth it for big pharma. RNAi field is only getting larger and they should stay competitive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a lot of hype about RNAi but it also has the potential to really speed up drug discovery.  Instead of making knockouts in animal models you can quickly screen for relevant genes by using shRNA libraries.  It is unclear what the medical benefits will be and if the deal is worth it for big pharma. RNAi field is only getting larger and they should stay competitive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
