Nice article, Is innovation bad for business from a project management perspective? Yes, in my opinion, specifically discussing the implementation stage of gene therapies that cure patients of ailments is not a very financially secure idea from a project management perspective. At this particular point, it is quite possible that in order for the biotech firm to expand their portfolio of therapeutics they will lose money and the availability of test patients by the end of this endeavor. IF the company has secured a particular amount of money that will prevent severe debt or has a steady plan with a specific number of trial patients they will not exceed per year then yes. It is possible. However, at this stage, most investors will seriously weigh the pros and cons of investing in a company without longevity or stability. Now, let me say, it's not impossible, all investors are always looking for the next best medical/science innovation that will make them famous and rich but the firm will have to have enough evidence to prove that the claims they stand behind of their gene therapies cure patients of "certain" chronic ailments. Normally, clinical trials take years to be validated as well as the continued monitoring of the drug once it is put out on the market but most importantly, the available pool of treatable patients decreases with time. In my opinion, innovation is bad for business from the PM perspective. From the article you provided, historical data shows that even if these endeavors start making a profit down the road they lose money and available patients to conduct continued research on. 

Long-term revenue streams in biotech and pharmaceutical industries often depend on chronic disease management rather than one time cures. From a project management perspective, the sustainability of gene therapies hinges on how well companies can adapt their business models to account for this shift in treatment paradigms. One approach companies in these industries can take is offsetting financial risks by incorporating value-based pricing models. Instead of relying on continuous treatment sales, companies can negotiate performance-based reimbursement plans with healthcare providers. If a gene therapy cures a condition, the company could receive staggered payments over time, which leads to greater financial viability. Although it is true that treating chronic diseases has historically been more profitable, innovation is not inherently bad for business. As of right now, there are companies such as Legend Biotech who are creating cures for patients who have run out of treatment options. As biomedical engineers, I think our goal should be to find a complete cure for as many ailments as we can, and worry about the profits later.

Curing patients could be a sustainable business practice, however it does not seem reasonable. With a business model that prioritizes curing patients, a plethora of ethical dilemmas could come into play. By offering life-changing treatments through curing chronic issues, a question comes into play whether companies can be responsible in moving gene therapies from an experimental stage to commercialization. From a perspective project management, regulatory challenges in the long-term are an issue in itself. From a business perspective, would companies be responsible enough to provide a treatment for patients without prioritizing short-term gains, putting the treatment out of financial reach of many patients? As we already see with certain advancements in medicine and treatments for chronic conditions, companies are able and willing to charge exorbitant amounts of money in exchange for their services. While innovation may not be bad for business directly, the long-term ripple effects of the commercialization of gene therapies can lead to ethical issues. A breach in trust with patients and the public can be detrimental to a company. Trust can be lost with the patients if the treatment ends up not being a cure, or if the treatment is too expensive to afford for many. This is most likely one of the reasons no company markets their products as a cure, but rather a treatment. To allow for innovation without doubts for it being bad for business, companies should strive to balance both the economic and ethical responsibilities by providing a reliable treatment for patients, while making sure their expectations are reasonable and ethical.