阿斯利康-辉瑞合并交易有没有科研价值

    辉瑞（Pfizer）拟与阿斯利康（AstraZeneca）合并（注：根据最新消息，阿斯利康已经拒绝了辉瑞提高出价之后的收购要约。）到底是为了避税并削减成本，还是为了促进互补性研究？也许两者兼而有之。

    目前为止人们主要关注的是该交易的财务影响，但是科研方面值得进一步关注。上周二，辉瑞公司首席执行官伊恩•里德在英国国会工商专责委员会的听证会上表示，两家公司“在心血管、代谢和肿瘤领域拥有互补的信息组合。”

    总部位于阿姆斯特丹的 The ANT Works是一家研发分析初创公司，这家公司从互动的视角来分析了这两家公司的科研情况（基于专利申请），以便评估里德的说法。The ANT Works分析了57.000多份专利文件，包括1994年至2012年期间在美国、欧盟和日本的专利申请和授权专利。它向《财富》杂志独家提供了自己分析得出的交互式图像，展示了这两家公司明显重叠的领域（这将导致两家公司裁员）以及各自独特的优势。

    数据得出的主要结论是，辉瑞公司目前在研究领域处于主导地位，约80％的已注册专利与研究领域相关，而阿斯利康只有20％。The ANT Works首席战略官托马斯•格尼表示，这也意味着重叠程度最大的治疗领域（如心血管、神经科学和心脏病学）将是阿斯利康最有可能裁员的领域。他说：“从科学的角度来看，如果进行合并，很可能是阿斯利康削减研究人员。”这也是阿斯利康到目前为止一直反对交易的主要原因（另一个原因是嫌要约价格太低）。阿斯利康首席执行官帕斯卡尔•索利奥特与两位首席科研人员也出席了听证会并表达意见。

    但图形也显示了阿斯利康将为辉瑞公司带来的潜在全新药物，这也确实证实了里德的说法。这笔交易已经引发了大量的争议，不过用数据说话总比只谈政治要好。（财富中文网）

    Is the proposed merger of Pfizer and AstraZeneca a tax dodge, a cost-cutting cornucopia, or the ultimate in complementary research? It may well end up being all of the above.

    But since most of the attention thus far has been on the financial implications of the deal, it's worth taking a closer look at Pfizer CEO Ian Read's claim, made on Tuesday in a hearing before Britain's Business Select Committee, that the two companies have "complementary portfolios of information in cardiovascular, metabolic and oncology."

    Amsterdam-based The ANT Works, an R&D analytics startup, has put together an interactive visual look at both companies' research--based on patent filings--as a means by which to assess Read's claim. The ANT Works analyzed over 57.000 patent documents, which include patent applications and granted patents in the US, EU and Japan between 1994-2012. Provided exclusively to Fortune, the interactive map shows where there are clear overlaps--which it is fair to say will lend themselves to job cuts--and where each company has unique strengths.

    The main conclusion of the data is that Pfizer is by far the dominant player when it comes to research, with roughly 80% of the registered patents connected to research areas compared with AstraZeneca's 20%. That also implies that the therapeutic areas with the greatest overlap, such as cardiovascular, neurosciences, and cardiology will be most likely to be cut at AstraZeneca, says Thomas Gurney, CSO at The ANT Works. "If you look at this from the science perspective, he says, "if there is a merger, most likely the AstraZeneca scientists will lose." That's a big part of the reason why AstraZeneca is resisting so far (in addition to its assertion that the offer itself is too low). Indeed, AstraZeneca head Pascal Soriot showed up at the hearings with two of his head scientists in tow to make a point.

    But the graphic also shows areas where AstraZeneca offers access to a potential brand new pipeline for Pfizer, giving some credence to Read's claims as well. There's enough here for ammunition on either side—but it's nice to have data rather than simply politics in the mix.