NEWS
WATER QUALITY
Colour- change to detect fluoride
MARIA BURKE
A simple colour-change test to detect fluoride in drinking water could prevent a crippling bone disease in developing countries.
When water passes over certain
minerals, it can dissolve fluoride, which results in elevated levels of fluoride in drinking water sources in parts of East Africa, India, China and North America. High levels can weaken bones, leading to skeletal fluorosis, a disease that causes crippling deformities of the spine and joints, especially in children. Colorimetric fluoride indicators are
often not specific enough, complex to use or do not work in water. Now researchers at the University of Bath, UK, led by Simon Lewis have developed indicators that respond selectively to fluoride at concentrations around the World Health Organization (WHO) limit of 1.5mgL−1
. The indicators comprise a boronate
ester receptor attached to an azulenyl reporter (Chem. Commun., doi: 10.1039/ c7cc07416f). Azulene is a bicyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, notable for its unusually high polarity and deep blue colour. The test changes from purple to blue when levels of fluoride get too high. The indicators work in organic solvent and in aqueous solution, upon addition of surfactants.
‘Whilst a small amount of fluoride
prevents tooth decay, high levels are toxic and can cause crippling deformities that are irreversible,’ Lewis said: ‘Most water quality monitoring systems need a lab and power supply, and a trained operator to work them. What we’ve developed is a molecule that simply changes colour in a few minutes, which can tell you whether the level of fluoride is too high.’ Currently at proof-of-concept
stage, the team aims to develop the technology into a cheap and easy to use disposable test strip – similar to litmus paper. They are also attempting to adapt it to other types of water contaminants, including mercury, lead and cadmium.
BIOTECHNOLOGY EU biotech delivers MARIA BURKE
European biotech companies are significantly outperforming their US peers to deliver greater investment returns, according to a new report that claims ‘to provide a guide to how to build the most effective biotech boards’. Unsurprisingly, US-based companies
fare significantly better on comparisons of average market capitalisation: $3.1bn, compared with $727m, says the report by the RSA Group. But more European companies are in the lead for ‘value creation’. The report calculates the total trailing return (TTR) – the return of a company over a given period – for the EU of 56%, and for the US of 42% averaged over three years. The top three companies by TTR are
Santhera (155%), Tiziana Life Sciences (123%) and Exelixis (63%). Swiss company Santhera focuses on treatments for currently untreatable neuromuscular and neuro-ophthalmological diseases; London-based Tiziana Life Sciences specialises in oncology, inflammatory and immune diseases; and Exelixis in Cambridge, Massachusetts, concentrates on difficult-to-treat cancers. To understand the relationship
between investment performance and company leadership, the report analyses the performance of biotech boards, CEOs and chairs. It compares publicly traded biotech companies on European exchanges with companies on NASDAQ (SMEs only), and identifies the top 20 boards. Of these companies, 11 are based in the US and nine in Europe. The RSA Group has identified six factors
vital to board success: share ownership, over-commitment, succession planning, diversified composition, gender diversity and remuneration. ‘Better leadership planning can help ensure the best return on technology and capital,’ explains RSA executive chairman Nick Stephens. The report finds that companies where
directors own stock outperform their peers. For the top 20 companies in the
EU and the US, board members held a combined average stake worth $19.7m. Large shareholdings are more common in the US where long-term compensation has a more significant weight in the total compensation structure. ‘We believe that the UK biotech industry would substantially benefit from a change in the Corporate Code to allow share-based remuneration for independent non- executive directors, especially for early- phase organisations,’ the report states. Significantly, the report found that US and European boards differ in composition. US boards have an average of eight directors, ranging from five to 11; European companies have six, ranging from four to eight. In terms of gender diversity, the report finds that the top 20 boards have, on average, 16% female directors, and this is higher in Europe (18%) than in the US (11%). Finally, remuneration can have a significant impact on the success of a company. The report finds that better compensated boards produce companies that build more value for their shareholders. The CEOs of the top 20 companies
have a number of traits in common: 60% of them hold PhDs and/or medical degrees, and 40% are scientist-turned- entrepreneur. The scientists of the group are prolific in terms of patents, patent applications and peer-reviewed publications. A fifth of CEOs come from a financial background, and the rest come with experience of the pharma sector. Two of the 20 companies have female CEOs, which is slightly higher than the 8% industry average. The directors of the report’s top 20
companies serve on three boards on average. One third of directors hold just one board position, ‘which allows them to focus both on their commitments and on developing skills to address new business challenges.’ These companies also refresh their boards to a ‘healthy degree’, allowing them to adjust to new market conditions and strategy changes.
8
10 | 2017
SPUTNIK/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
