By Alissa Poh

(Oct. 9) Jon Lester’s gem of a pitching performance in the Boston Red Sox’s opening playoff victory against the Los Angeles Angels had more than just baseball fans abuzz. It even proved topical at a life sciences forum the following morning, organized by the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. 

“We appreciate every bit of progress in cancer research that allows our hometown pitcher to pitch a winning game,” said Deborah Dunsire, president of Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company, acknowledging Lester’s battle with lymphoma just two years ago in her keynote speech at the forum. “This field will continue to be central to Millennium’s ongoing mission, as we grow and evolve.” 

Dunsire managed Millennium’s $8 billion sale – Massachusetts’ largest ever for a biotech – to Takeda, in May. Two months later, the FDA approved Millennium’s signature drug, Velcade, shown in clinical trials to be highly effective against multiple myeloma. So for Dunsire, the last six months have been busy, to say the least. 

During the forum, Dunsire provided an overview of Millennium’s acquisition by Takeda, describing the latter’s vision of building global leadership in the field of cancer research, which eventually brought them to Millennium’s door. “It wasn’t in our business plan to be acquired; we were very comfortable with our own growth track,” she remarked. But Takeda made an offer compelling enough that Dunsire and the rest of Millennium’s board reconsidered. 

“Takeda requested that we be the global center of oncology development, which will allow us to take our cancer drugs worldwide – something we couldn’t do as a smaller biotech,” said Dunsire. The newly-evolved company is singularly devoted to cancer research; Velcade aside, 11 of Takeda’s molecules have been added to the five already in Millennium’s pipeline. 

Still, when you merge a small, relatively young US biotech with Japan’s 227-year-old pharmaceutical powerhouse, there are bound to be some hiccups along the way, which Dunsire fully acknowledged. “Let me not be Pollyanna and say that all of this is easy,” she said wryly. “We’ll have to work very hard at maintaining that entrepreneurial spirit – Millennium’s hallmark – marrying it in the right way with Takeda’s resources and stability.” 

Dunsire spent the remainder of the forum addressing questions from the floor, some of which are highlighted below. 

What are you going to do about the absence of your own equity, particularly in a marketplace where you have independent biotechs to compete with?

We did some survey work with our employees and found that, at the most senior level, they did focus on how their progress would [now] be measured, as well as the ownership state. At middle and more junior levels, however, people were more interested in career growth and stability. Our sales force has increased by almost 50 percent, and we’re getting more applications. We also helped design a long-term incentive plan from Takeda, with an equity component, which they never had before for their US employees. It’s not a complete solution, but when you look around at all that has happened in just the last few weeks, stability is certainly going up as a parameter for feeling good about one’s job, and we’re able to offer that. 

Do you have additional collaborations planned with other US-based pharmas?

That depends on the size [of the collaboration]. We’ll absolutely be reaching out within the oncology field to smaller, innovative companies, to supplement our pipeline. Would we partner our programs with, say, Novartis, or GSK? That doesn’t seem likely. 

How do you see the new US administration in 2009 affecting the legislative/regulatory environments of your business? 

We’ll need to ensure that both candidates, in these last weeks, understand the consequences of policy decisions on things like importation, patent reform – all central to continued innovation on our part. We’ll have to work with the legislators to help them understand our industry and its needs, its value. 

On the regulatory side, we do see an FDA under fire. The fact of the matter is that medicine isn’t something you can take for granted without including some risk – you are, after all, putting chemicals in your body. Yet we want to dial risk down to zero, and the FDA is bearing the brunt of that, which they’re not staffed for. So I think we’d be strong advocates for increased appropriations for the FDA. They need to be able to do their job well; they need a Commissioner, who will require strength to manage the regulation of, really, a third of our economy. 

How could mandated disclosure of clinical trial information be catastrophic not only to your industry from an innovation standpoint but also to the patient population?

One would think that in and of itself, a physician having their name associated with work in pharma shouldn’t be treated any differently. But in an environment where there’s a lot of rhetoric around the negative potential of such interactions – as if any physician associated with industry is somehow bought and paid for – these doctors are going to step back, if they’re being asked by their patients whether their judgment is independent. So clinical trials won’t be able to be done in the same way, in some of our finest institutions – these [trials] could go elsewhere, to other states. It’s one of the more chilling effects of transparency legislation. How we manage the interfaces will be very important in ensuring that the flow of scientific thought and innovation isn’t impeded. 

In a small biotech people are empowered and can move rapidly, whereas big pharma is perceived as being very hierarchical – especially the Japanese. How are you maintaining an innovative atmosphere, so your staff don’t seek opportunities with smaller biotechs that could offer more excitement? 

A central word in how you phrased the question was ‘perception.’ It’s an issue that I’m spending most of my time and volume on. No matter who you are in this room, you came up with a picture based on just two facts – Japanese company, 227 years old. Yet in sealing our deal with Takeda, they completed initial diligence in just three weeks..! Since then, we’ve had a couple of big decisions – literally tens to a hundred million dollars’ worth – that we’d been preparing for months, but had to finalize through Takeda’s approval system, on pretty short time frames. One was done in three days, the other in two. There’s always a natural tendency, in a large-to-small marriage, for people in the large company to think you should use their processes. What I have is the value, as president, to be able to say no – we’re doing oncology and you’ve asked us to do it our way. But we’re working on not just saying no; rather, on saying how. There is a great deal of respect on both sides. 

Is the structure you’re adopting more Genentech-Roche in style? Or is there more integration to run programs across the different sides?

It’s a combination of both. Millennium isn’t an independent entity like Genentech, and it isn’t going to be spun out. Genentech was really focused on the US market -- we’re accountable for the global success of our products, and the decision-making strategy is also centered here. 

How have you approached cultural differences in this merger?

One of the most important ingredients is affording the other party the recognition of best intention, rather than assuming that just because something doesn’t get done the way you’re used to, there’s poor intent behind it. Also, companies that are great for a long time don’t have to do the same thing forever; they understand really well that they have to evolve, to maintain greatness. We’ve focused on preserving what’s absolutely core – our flexible, quick culture – while driving change throughout the rest of the company. Culture is driven by leadership behavior, in my opinion – the discipline of the leadership team, in its interactions, is critical. The people at Takeda have patience and a vision, a real trust placed in us as they acknowledge what we can do for them. Folks at Millennium have shown true open-mindedness and a real curiosity to learn new things. We’re going to have to be very persistent in working through many issues yet, but with such attitudes on both sides, we’ll do it.