今年早些时候，医药巨头辉瑞（Pfizer）宣布将研发支出削减三分之一，其股价当天随之上涨超过了5%。两天之后，默沙东公司（Merck）反其道而行之，宣布将继续保持先前的研发投入水平，不过其股价随后却应声下跌将近3%。投资者向医药巨头们传达了一个明确信息：不要再投入巨资用于新药研发，即便公司正在失去旧有药品的专利保护，面临所谓的专利悬崖困境。从私营企业购买现成药方要便宜得多。

    非常不幸，这种观点真是鼠目寸光。它仅仅着眼于眼前利益，却忽略了企业的长期发展。这反映了华尔街对人民健康的漠视，即便这种健康仅仅是字面上的。

    目前有很多新创企业可供医药巨头收购。但这种情况不会持续太久。看看医药领域的风投情况就知道了，因为它正是推动新药开发的资金引擎。高层数据显示，大量风投资金正流入医药领域，然而其中大部分都流向了风投不会置之不理的成熟企业。初期新创企业的日子则要难熬得多，2011年前三个季度，获得风投的新创医药企业的数量比去年同期减少了17%。

    而且，许多风投公司也“正式”结束了和新创医药企业的蜜月期。风投公司Scale Venture Partners有着16年的历史，最初是美国银行（Bank of America）的内部风险集团，它于近日宣布停止所有生命科学领域的投资。拥有43年历史的摩根泰勒（Morgenthaler）近来也表示，今后只会投资于技术公司（其医疗保健团队将尝试募集一支独立基金）。总体而言，一项针对美国风投协会（National Venture Capital Association，NVCA）成员公司的调查指出，41%的受访者计划在未来三年削减对医药行业的投资。预计削减幅度最大的将是心血管和糖尿病治疗领域。

    为何会出现这样的局面？绝大部分风投公司认为问题的根源在于美国食品及药品管理局（FDA）的指导和透明度不断下降，导致医药公司和投资者很难预测未来成本。凯特•米切尔是Scale Venture Partners的联合创始人，还曾担任过美国风投协会主席。他指出：“现在通过美国食品及药品管理局审批的时间要比原来长得多，我们甚至还要花更多时间才能弄清楚FDA的想法。Prestwick Pharmaceuticals是我们投资的公司之一，我们原以为它已经进入了‘快速通道’（fast track），但仍然又过了三年，它才通过了国家食品及药品管理局的审批。我们真是沮丧透顶，这意味着我们必须投入更多资金来维持公司运作。”

    与此同时，软件等非健康领域的资本密集度正在下降，而商业化速度则在加快。因此， “全能型”风投公司很难抗拒抛弃或弱化医药领域投资的诱惑。

    这种状况令人不安。医药巨头正屈服于华尔街最原始的本能，而没有展示企业的社会责任感。就让别人来收拾烂摊子吧。上帝保佑我将来得的病有现成的药可以治就好。风投公司至少有一个可行的生存战略，而且我同意美国食品及药物管理局应该先管好自己。然而，与此同时，风投界却忽视了近来的研究。研究显示，过去十年来，美国风投公司在生命科学领域的投资事实回报要优于在软件领域的投资。相比支持一家尚无成果的医药新创企业，在两年内投资然后转手一家移动应用公司可能让人感觉更有把握，但后者未见得是更佳的长期投资对象。

    我们面对的是日益逼近的失衡，对新药的需求远远超过了供给。或许有一天我们回眸往事会无比后悔，当初不该将财务方面的短期考量置于长期规划之上——至少我们中有幸活下来的人会这么想。

    译者：项航

    Earlier this year, drug giant Pfizer (PFE) announced plans to slash spending on research and development by a third. Its shares closed that day up more than 5%. Two days later rival Merck (MRK) went the other way, saying it would maintain existing R&D levels. Its shares fell by nearly 3%. Investors had sent Big Pharma a very clear message: Stop spending so much money to create new drugs, even if you're losing exclusivity on your older drugs through the so-called patent cliff. It's cheaper to just buy developed molecules from private startups.

    Unfortunately, such sentiments elevate short-term dollars while ignoring long-term sense. They're reflective of Wall Street's callous indifference toward America's health, even when that health is literal.

    Right now Big Pharma has plenty of startups to acquire. But that wealth of opportunity won't last much longer. Just take a look at venture capital investment in pharma, since it's the financial engine that drives new drug development. High-level data indicate plenty of venture dollars are flowing into the sector, but the vast majority is going to mature companies that VCs won't let wither on the vine. Early-stage startups are having a much tougher go of it, with 17% fewer raising venture capital during the first three quarters of 2011 than during the same period in 2010.

    Moreover, a number of veteran VC firms are formally ending their pursuit of pharma startups. Scale Venture Partners, which began life 16 years ago as Bank of America's (BAC) in-house venture group, recently stopped making any life sciences investments in new companies. And Morgenthaler, a 43-year-old firm, recently said it will invest only in tech companies going forward (its health care team will try to raise an independent fund). Overall, a recent National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) members' survey found that 41% of respondents plan to decrease their number of pharma investments over the next three years. The therapeutic areas expected to be cut deepest are cardiovascular and diabetes.

    Why? Most VCs point their fingers at decreased guidance and transparency from the FDA, which makes it difficult for both companies and their investors to understand future costs. "It just takes a lot longer now to get approval than it used to, or to even know what the FDA is thinking," says Kate Mitchell, co-founder of Scale Venture Partners and former chair of the NVCA. "One of our companies, Prestwick Pharmaceuticals, supposedly was put on a 'fast track,' but it still took another three years before receiving FDA approval. It's incredibly frustrating and means we need to invest more to keep the companies running."

    At the same time, non-health-care sectors like software have become less capital-intensive and quicker to commercialize. So if you're a "generalist" VC firm, the temptation to abandon or de-emphasize pharma is hard to resist.

    It's an unsettling state of affairs. Big Pharma is succumbing to Wall Street's worst instincts rather than demonstrating corporate and civic responsibility. Just let the next guy handle the fallout, and pray there's an existing cure for what eventually ails me. VCs at least have a viable survival strategy, and I agree that the FDA needs to get its house in order. At the same time, however, VCs are ignoring recent research showing that their investments in life sciences actually outperformed those in software companies in the U.S. over the past decade. It might feel better to fund and flip a mobile app firm in 24 months than to back an unproven pharma startup, but that doesn't necessarily make it the smarter long-term investment.

    What we face is a looming imbalance in which demand for new drugs far outstrips supply. Maybe we'll look back and rue the day that short-term financial considerations were given priority over long-term planning -- at least those of us lucky enough still to be alive.