Talk:Emergent BioSolutions

In the AfD linked above, the following news sources were found [1] [2] [3]. If someone could make these references, that'd be great. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Emergent logo s1 rgb.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Crap Daveychops (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

{{Request edit}} To whom it may concern: I am writing here on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions (EBS), the subject of this article. They would like to see it better organized and updated, and have asked me to represent them. In so doing, I have researched and written a proposed replacement draft, which is available here: User:Stellatarum/Emergent_BioSolutions

The problem with the current version should be apparent. Chiefly, the article is almost entirely unsupported by citations and the few references used now are not true third-party citations. Furthermore, the article is not very well organized. For example, the entire body of the article is listed under "History", and includes some details that aren't really germane to an encyclopedia entry about the company.

My draft aims to address these issues, and give a more accurate picture of the company. The new draft contains 26 citations, from general press and industry journal sources, is more logically organized, and is roughly the same length. I'll note here that if you see a turn of phrase that sounds odd, it's likely because EBS is mindful of FDA regulations regarding their view of what constitutes promotional product information and we want to follow those. For example, in order to make certain statements I would be obliged to include FDA-required "small print" which I'm well aware Wikipedia does not wish to include. I hope this isn't a problem; if another editor makes changes later on with Wikipedia guidelines in mind, I won't object. I just can't be the one to do that.

So I invite all constructive comments, and if you agree this draft is better than the current one, please feel free to move it over, or give me the OK to do so. Thank you. --Stellatarum (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nice article, it is definitely an improvement. I'll copy it over if you would like. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

•   Done Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Alpha Quadrant! I appreciate you taking the time to review and copy it over. --Stellatarum (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{Request edit}}

Hello, I would like to ask on behalf of the company that the article be updated to reflect the announcement that Fuad El-Hibri has retired as the head of the company. While the transition has been planned since December, it becomes official this weekend, and has already been the subject of third-party news coverage.

There are two specific updates that are needed:

• The infobox needs to state that Daniel J. Abdun-Nabi is now the CEO & president.
• The "Overview" section should note El-Hibri's retirement as CEO and his continuing role as executive chairman of Emergent BioSolutions' board of directors.

Both changes can be cited to The Washington Post's Capital Business Blog, Washington Business Journal and Gazette.Net.

The wording I would propose for the "Overview" section is:

Fuad El-Hibri, the former CEO of Emergent BioSolutions^[1] led the company since its founding as BioPort Inc.^[2][3] until his retirement on April 1, 2012.^[4][5] He continues to serve as the executive chairman of Emergent BioSolutions’ board of directors.^[6]

If you agree to these changes, please can you update the article. Thank you.

--Stellatarum (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Done--ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Ukexpat! Your assistance with these updates is appreciated. --Stellatarum (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions, I would like to ask for an update to this article to reflect the company's partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I have written a proposed draft for a new subsection, to add under "History":

===Government partnership===

In June 2012, Emergent, along with Novartis and the Texas A&M University System, was selected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as one of the three Centers for Innovation in Advanced Development and Manufacturing. The public-private partnership granted Emergent $163 million over eight years to assist in the development of countermeasures for health, nuclear and radiological epidemics. ^[1][2]

If this draft looks to be ok, please can you move it into the article. Thank you. --Stellatarum (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done--ukexpat (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. See discussion.

The lead section is a bit outdated, and doesn't reflect Emergent's current activities, particularly regarding its government partnerships. I would suggest changing this portion:

multinational specialty [[biopharmaceutical]] company headquartered in [[Rockville, Maryland]]. Emergent develops [[vaccine]]s and [[Therapy|therapeutics]] targeting infectious diseases, oncology and autoimmune disorders

It would be more accurate as follows:

multinational specialty [[biopharmaceutical]] company headquartered in [[Rockville, Maryland]]. Emergent offers [[vaccine]]s, [[Therapy|therapeutics]] and specialized products to [[Health care provider|healthcare provider]]s and governments to address medical needs and emerging health threats.

Specialty pharmaceutical company is not a marketing term but an industry sector, as this Research and Markets report shows, and the term is applied to other firms on Wikipedia. The phrase is similar to how Emergent describes itself in press releases, though the wording is necessarily specific, and non-promotional. I am open to alternative wording or quotation marks if others deem it necessary. Stellatarum (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• The Research and markets shows that the term exists and has some significance, but does not verify that Emergent falls in this category. Can you provide a credible, independent secondary source that specifically refers to Emergent as being a "specialty" company? (not a press release or press release reposting) CorporateM (Talk) 16:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello CorporateM, I certainly can. While not a long article, this AP report carried by Businessweek states that EBS "provides specialty pharmaceutical products such as the anthrax vaccine." This language is different from how EBS uses the term but is still accurate. Does this help? Stellatarum (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, giving this a closer lookover. develops - > offers is not an improvement and I see no reason to add "specialized products" when it already says "specialty biopharma..." Adding information about the target market, such as "healthcare providers and government" could be encyclopedic, if it differs somehow from the obvious and the secondary source offers some detailed analysis, but we wouldn't add it to the lead. "to address medical needs" is benefits-oriented language, which is always promotional. I believe the current text is better on all counts and this is not an improvement. I don't think this is a matter of being "outdated" or more "accurate" as is positioned in the request, but when the two versions are compared, it is mostly related to adding positioning aligned with corporate messaging. If something is factually incorrect or outdated, I would encourage you to point out the actual error. CorporateM (Talk) 17:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

CorporateM, I am unhappy that you have deemed my request "misleading" when I am trying to operate in good faith with Wikipedia rules, and frustrated that you mark my request as fulfilled after each reply, closing off discussion so quickly. I must also disagree with several assertions you have made, but one stands out: you say I see no reason to add "specialized products" when it already says "specialty biopharma...". This article does not presently refer to EBS as a "specialty biopharmaceutical company". This in fact is one of my requested changes, and I have provided a third-party source (Associated Press republished by Bloomberg Businessweek) to verify it. Within the medical industry it is very important to carefully describe what a business does and does not do (the FDA rules are very strict) and that is what my request intends to address, since EBS has recently changed its focus. This is not about corporate messaging but ensuring that this article does not mislead as to EBS's current business model. If you are able to make this change, please do and we may consider the other changes. If you do not have time to help, I will try to find an editor with more time and attention. Stellatarum (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here is the blurb provided for the company by the Wall Street Journal:

We can't take their prose for reasons of copyright, but in my opinion their capsule is more informative and sounds better than our current lead section. They don't say the company is 'multinational'. They also separate Biodefense and Biosciences which is helpful. Otherwise making an anthrax vaccine and creating anticancer drugs might appear to be unrelated activities. Emergent is mentioned a lot in Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed and perhaps a way can be found to integrate a few things from that article to help our readers understand the company. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello EdJohnston, thank you for commenting here. The WSJ profile uses an older version of Emergent's language. The current one is found on the company website and reads as follows:

As a global specialty pharmaceutical company, Emergent offers specialized products to healthcare providers and governments to address medical needs and emerging health threats.

In the thread I began above I sought to combine the current wording with the updates about what is new. I too was uncertain about how to phrase it. One possibility I raised was simply quoting what EBS describes itself as, this would be the most accurate thing and avoid copyright issues. Would this be an acceptable solution to you? Stellatarum (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Companies often describe themselves with a lot of buzzwords and not a way that is most informative for our readers. Readers may be curious about several questions that the article doesn't answer:

1. Vaccines used to be a terrible business, at least in the US, due to legal liability. Has something changed? How has Emergent managed to be successful?
2. Emergent has been expanding in the vaccine domain, even buying up UK companies with similar business. Have they found the secret formula? Have they been able to overcome technical obstacles which others could not?
3. BioPort started out by taking over a project of the Michigan Department of Health. Is anything publicly known about how that came about? Did the Michigan scientists wind up working for Emergent? Did those scientists all relocate?
4. The original anthrax vaccine (Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed) has been criticized. Is Emergent keenly interested in a successor vaccine?
5. What does current academic medical opinion think about Emergent's vaccine work? Is it highly regarded?
6. Does Emergent distribute all vaccines itself or does it partner with general-purpose pharmaceutical companies? EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just gave the article a quick copy-edit, deleted press release sources, trimmed quotes, etc. Ed has some obvious expertise in this area and I prefer not to handle Request Edits so I'll hand-off to him. But yes, in general we don't want the article to read like the company's website. The current is ok and doesn't need to be re-written to match the company's messaging. CorporateM (Talk) 19:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

EdJohnston, you ask good questions, but that is more than I had hoped to address at this time. Meanwhile, CorporateM has made sweeping edits to this article in the past few minutes which in some ways make this article worse. There is now a typographical error in the lead, and CorporateM has ignored my suggestion to add "specialty" as a modifier to the first line (though I have offered a reliable source) and instead CorporateM has removed "multinational" from the lead although the company is in fact multinational. To CorporateM: I don't understand why you have made these changes. To EdJohnston: What do you think of my sugggestion above this thread, and these recent changes? Stellatarum (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

We try to describe companies in a neutral fashion, and we are not necessarily guided by how the company describes itself. It sounds as though 'specialty' is a buzzword, and we may not want to take the space needed to explain it to readers not familiar with the concept. (At present there is no Wikipedia article on Specialty pharmaceutical company, though perhaps one could be written}. We try to follow what press coverage says about the company, while filtering out reprints of press releases. It is unfortunate that not many regular editors will get interested in such topics. Luckily CorporateM has chosen to participate as a regular editor. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the previous thread I anticipated the question about "specialty" and noted that it is not a mere marketing term or buzzword but a recognized industry sector, as this Research and Markets report shows, and the term has been applied to other firms on Wikipedia. I am disappointed CorporateM is editing this article without commenting on this discussion thread, but the fact is that EBS is a multinational specialty biopharmaceutical firm, as shown by sources from the company and elsewhere, and I do not understand why it would be considered promotional to note these facts. Stellatarum (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The first edits I made with a COI were embarrassingly awful (really really embarrassing), though if you asked me at the time, I would have sworn up and down that they were improvements. Take a deep breath and really put things in perspective. Would you debate the merits of the word "specialty" with a journalist who wrote about the company, because a BusinessWeek blurb (most likely re-written from a press release) used the word? Would you ask the New York Times to make their language mirror the company website?

The point of Request Edit is not to fulfill every request, but to borrow the judgement of an impartial editor to make sure the proposed edits are indeed an improvement. In this case they are not, though they may seem as though they are from your position. This is the nature of conflict of interest. They appear to be improvements from the company's perspective, but they are not improvements for Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you willing to restore "multinational" to the lead sentence? This Wikipedia article would be more informative with it replaced, and it very easy to source (in full-length newspaper articles). If this can be done, I will be satisfied for now. Stellatarum (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I looked at this article. It doesn't really read like a news release. It doesn't seem to violate anything listed here (which would be the requirements for the article to read like a news release): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS.

User:DGG can you please offer supporting evidence for your tag? Otherwise, we need to remove that tag. Thanks. Trendyrandy7290 (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Someone applied the news release tag. Which was true.
• Overhauled page.
• Goal was to make the text neutral, provide a more robust picture of the company including its acquisition history,
• place its products in a table similar to other company articles, etc. Also broaden the number of sources and types
• of sources.

Thanks Nhj78992 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Fixed spelling of BioThrax (the T is capitalized)
• Deleted assets and equity from infobox because they are outdated
• Deleted market capitalization from infobox because it is a financial figure that changes everyday with a company's stock price. Therefore, almost impossible to keep it current and factual.
• The company changed its headquarters location. Updated in lead section.
• Deleted the "Historic Background section." Wikipedia already has extensive coverage of the 9/11 anthrax attacks. Seems off-topic to this page.
• Added two rows to the products table

Heart2heartjennifer (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emergent BioSolutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801072803/http://www.gazette.net/article/20120330/NEWS/703309706/1033/emergent-s-fuad-el-hibri-an-entrepreneur-at-heart%26template%3Dgazette to http://www.gazette.net/article/20120330/NEWS/703309706/1033/emergent-s-fuad-el-hibri-an-entrepreneur-at-heart%26template%3Dgazette
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130813181714/http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/emergent-biosolutions-receives-paul-ehrlich-110000071.html to http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/emergent-biosolutions-receives-paul-ehrlich-110000071.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Currently at the top of this article are two template messages: 1) "This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (August 2018)" 2) "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (August 2018)"

I have no connection to this company. But I have to say, after reading this page, it seems that these claims are false. First, the article relies on dozens of secondary news stories, which are not primary sources. Second, the article - which I re-read in full - is written in a very matter-of-fact, neutral way. It does not promote the company. There is no marketing-type language. So this claim does not make sense.

I hope someone can address why these template messages are there. Thanks. --Sean06889 (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Being that there has been no discussion or opposition to this, I will be deleting template messages. --Biodefenseguy (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not false. Too many primary sources and all "rah rah" stuff; not a thing that is interesting from a biotech business perspective. Wikipedia is not the company's website or a place to flog stocks. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've read this article and find it of interest. I agree that the template messages are not accurate. I looked at the sources used in the first 25 citations. They include: WTOP News Radio, New Haven Register, The Michigan Daily, The Washington Business Journal, The Washington Post, Gazette, American Journal of Public Health, RTT News, US Food & Drug Administration, Paul Erlich Institute, Homeland Preparedness News, BioPrepWatch, Wall Street Journal, Seeking Alpha, CNBC, Mayo Clinic Proceedings (journal), Journal of the American Medical Association, and the American Chemical Society.

Not one of these sources is a primary source. They are all secondary sources. If one checks the next 50 citations, I'm certain one will find the same thing. Thus, the accusation that "This article relies too much on references to primary sources" is wrong and should be removed.

The other statement in the template("This article contains content that is written like an advertisement") lacks any merit. Nowhere does it appear to attempt to sell or market products to Wikipedia readers. The definition of advertisement is, "a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy." This article does none of that. This is a unique corporation; it manufactures biopharmaceuticals that are mostly sold to the governments (local and national) and that we hope we never need, e.g., anti-biological terrorist vaccines and other medications. The only thing, I think, that a reader of Wikipedia might actually purchase is Narcan, and the section on Narcan deals specifically with its history and efficacy, without any claims of superiority or exhortations to buy. It is a public service to let people know that one can get this stuff without a prescription.

Therefore, the template message at the top that "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" is not true and needs to be removed.

The instructions on deleting the template say to "boldly" address the issues. But, because I firmly believe that Wikipedia is a collective effort, I'll wait a couple of days and see if I've missed anything.Evilleavenger (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The second sentence is ungrammatical:

"Emergent BioSolutions Inc. is an American multinational specialty biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland. It develops vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases, opioid overdoses, and provides medical devices for biodefense purposes." 128.120.251.7 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have added an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost joyce for evidence. Users relevant to this page include: Nhj78992 (talk · contribs), Trendyrandy7290 (talk · contribs), RepordRider (talk · contribs), Sarahsheng (talk · contribs), Brendapallister (talk · contribs), Joshuathewriter (talk · contribs), Bkcunningham (talk · contribs), Heart2heartjennifer (talk · contribs), Paultimothyjones714 (talk · contribs), Stephenthrompson (talk · contribs), Harris195622 (talk · contribs), Biodefenseguy (talk · contribs), Laslo krebs (talk · contribs), Evilleavenger (talk · contribs), Letita Bodicia (talk · contribs), Bert Bowler (talk · contribs) The article will need a thorough review ensuring due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hey there! I would like to start by disclosing that I am an Emergent BioSolutions employee and conflict of interest editor who will be proposing improvements to the company article over the coming months. I know that, as a COI editor, I have to use the edit request system rather than rewriting the article directly. I'll do my best to put forward well-sourced, fact-based edits and will let independent editors determine whether or not those edits should be taken live.

With that out of the way, my first edit request is pretty simple. I noticed the infobox has numbers from a 2021 annual report. I've got the 2023 numbers. They are:

• Revenue: $1.05 billion
• Operating income: -$726.4 million
• Net income: -$760.5 million
• Number of employees: 1,600^[1]

And the company's CEO is Joseph C. Papa. He took over in February of this year.^[2]

Please let me know if anything above needs to be clarified. Thanks! Alicia at Emergent BioSolutions (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see that User:Ptrnext has made these updates, so I've marked the request as answered. Really appreciate the help, Ptrnext! Alicia at Emergent BioSolutions (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply