Take the 2012 Neuroscience IgNobel. It went to a team of scientists “for demonstrating that brain researchers, by using complicated instruments and simple statistics, can see meaningful brain activity anywhere.”

The winning study illustrated that using modern measurement methods, which can collect massive amounts of data, without updating statistical methods accordingly will almost inevitably lead to false positives. In their study, the winning team demonstrated statistically significant brain activity in fMRI measurements of an Atlantic salmon that was asked to judge people’s emotional state from a series of photographs. A dead Atlantic Salmon.

The work has deep implications for how to do statistical analyses of brain imaging studies. But it is hysterically funny on its surface. Personally, it also reminded me of an episode during graduate school when I walked into my institute’s neural prosthesis research lab to find some of my fellow graduate students busily inserting a cochlear implant into a watermelon.

They did then put said watermelon (which was standing in for a patient head due to its similar size and water content) into our fMRI scanner, but only to see how the scanner and implant affected each other. In retrospect, of course, they should have played the watermelon some tones while they were at it to see whether it could categorize them. Who knew?

Looking at this year’s prizes, though, I think another group of neuroscientists was robbed. The recent paper demonstrating that decision-making in drugged monkeys can be improved through a cortical prosthesis , titled “Facilitation and restoration of cognitive function in primate prefrontal cortex by a neuroprosthesis that utilizes minicolumn-specific neural firing” is surely worth some sort of prize.

Engineering, Biology and Neuroscience are all possibilities for which category of IgNobel this work merits. But I would personally favor the IgNobel Peace Prize.

There are certainly plenty of drug users that could do with some improved decision-making, for the benefit of all of society. But why stop there? The possibilities if this were to be routinely implanted in political officeholders boggle the mind.

And just imagine if the prosthetics team started collaborating with this year’s Neuroscience winners! Or with my erstwhile colleagues at the Leibniz Institute! “Facilitation and restoration of cognitive function in the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon / in the common watermelon Citrullus lanatis by a neuroprosthesis that uses minicolumn-specific neural firing” ‑ I would write a story about that for sure.

Unless, of course, the statistics were fishy.

Editor’s note: What’s your favorite IgNobel? Cast your vote here: www.bioworld.com (See the poll at the bottom right corner).

Given Icahn’s personal track record in the sector over the past few years – ImClone Systems Inc., MedImmune Inc. and Genzyme Corp. all landed acquisitions, though he was unsuccessful in facilitating a sale of Biogen Idec Inc. – Amylin’s days as an independent firm could be numbered.

Certainly there are arguments in favor of Amylin’s sale, most notably last year’s exit of exenatide partner Eli Lilly and Co., which left the company pitting its modest sales force against larger and more established teams from competing firms Novo Nordisk A/S and Sanofi SA. A big pharma acquirer also could help grow the markets for Byetta and recently approved Bydureon faster than Amylin on its own, and even get metreleptin, under review for lipodystrophy, off to a strong launch.

I can’t help but wonder, though, whether selling a biotech like Amylin – one which has a growing revenue stream from marketed products, with more to come – is really the best thing for the industry. Sure, investors such as Icahn will pocket substantial profits, some of which might actually go back into earlier-stage drug development ventures. But are those near-term profits worth eliminating the chance to build long-term shareholder value?

And, on a perhaps admittedly idealistic note, shouldn’t it be acceptable to ask investors for a little more patience, given the time frames in biotech – where it takes more than a decade to get from discovery to market – as well as the industry’s spirit of risk, innovation and entrepreneurship? After all, biotech is tackling complex biological discoveries, not building the proverbial better mouse traps.

There’s already talk of the U.S. life sciences industry facing a decline – government funding and venture capital have been trending downward – compared to other regions and emerging markets. It seems a no-brainer that the sector would be in a better position to thrive if more firms are allowed the time to truly build shareholder value. But that won’t happen if Icahn and his ilk keep trading that long-term value for cash to pad their already immense bank accounts.

Will Icahn’s involvement in Amylin end up in the company’s sale? Check out BioWorld’s informal poll at www.bioworld.com

1. How to contact us. Our direct phone numbers are on page two of BioWorld Today or here. Aside from the DC and science beats mentioned in Tip #4, we don’t specialize, so you can reach out to any of us. If you know your news is not cover-worthy (i.e. a patent, a personnel appointment, fast track or orphan drug designation, an early stage trial initiation, etc.), send it to newsdesk@bioworld.com. We check the newsdesk email all day, every day. It’s a good idea to cc newsdesk on any pitches in case the reporter you are targeting is out of the office.
2. When we bite, reel us in. We don’t have a lot of time between when we assign stories at 10 a.m. EST and when they are due at 4:30 p.m. EST. If we contact you (PR firm) looking for an interview, please let us know right away that you got the message and are working on it. Otherwise we might think you’re out of the office and just contact your client directly, and if we can’t reach them, we might kill the story. Along these lines, if you’re going to issue a press release, make sure you have a spokesperson available. If the CEO will be on a plane all day, line up someone else who can talk to media.
3. A note on going off the record. PR firms generally advise clients that there is no such thing as off the record. I did it when I was in PR, but as a reporter, I can tell you that’s definitely not true. At BioWorld, we depend on industry relationships, and we aren’t going to jeopardize those by printing something said off the record. Off-the-record conversations help us gather background information, and they help you build the relationship and keep us educated about your company. But remember that it’s vital to clarify the status of the discussion up front, not a day later.
4. More on embargoes. I mentioned embargoes in Tip #3, but I want to mention them again because they are so critical to how BioWorld operates. We always honor embargoes. If you can tell us about your news a few days ahead of time, we can get a jump-start on our background research. Also, since our publication comes out late in the evening, some companies will work with us ahead of time and then let us publish the story the night before their press release crosses the wire, so folks wake up and see the press release and the BioWorld cover story on the same day. Offering us that kind of arrangement always gives your newsworthiness a boost.
5. About clarifications and corrections. We want to be accurate, so don’t hesitate to ask for a correction if something is factually incorrect. But please don’t ask for a correction because we called your trial results “mixed” instead of “stunningly positive” when you missed three out of four endpoints. (Yes, this has happened).