> seemed to have a short-term view of everything (we were going to "flip" the company to a large pharma), > which caused a lot of bad decisions to be made. Un

> seemed to have a short-term view of everything (we were going to "flip" the company to a large pharma), > which caused a lot of bad decisions to be made. Unfortunately, if they were trying to flip the company; then they may have made the 'right' (from the perspective of payoff) call. I can imagine under some models, that if you are 86% confident that it won't work, and only 14% confident that it will work; then the millions wasted may have been easily justified by the potential payoff if it was in the $100 million dollar range. Normally, we wouldn't bat an eye at such a decision; but the ugly part here is the high risk exposed to the people participating in the study :(. However, even that, a similar utilitarian calculus can be done to justify it. bleh. Remind me not to be a Pharma CEO, it sounds like an all around unpleasant job if you aren't a complete sociopath.