The momentum that is gathering behind a call for an international registry of clinical trials is still being largely resisted by industry groups. Impending class action suits over the juvenile use of GlaxoSmithKline's Paxil (paroxetine HCl) should keep the topic in the news. The major argument against such a registry is that to disclose a clinical trial is to give valuable commercial information to your competitors. Telling the world that one's drug trial has been halted or discontinued tells your competitors at least two things: that they shouldn't do the same as you, and that there is still a commercial opportunity to try some other solution in this area.

However, it is not always smart to keep quiet about clinical trials, especially for young companies. Putting experimental compounds into human trials represents a coming of age: it generates kudos that alters the level of attention and respect from investors, collaborators and competitors.

But why not go much further? As a young company, why not give away as much clinical information as possible as soon as possible. Generally speaking, early-stage biotech companies are not the citadels of clinical practice. By exposing a planned clinical approach to the widest possible scrutiny, companies may receive a good deal of feedback from clinicians who know why that approach may be flawed or even doomed.

Biotech companies might be able to convince an investor or two into believing that its clinical outcomes will be positive. But if the drug is wrong or the protocol is wrong, it will not fool the patients into getting better (or getting worse more slowly). For a biotech company running on lean cash reserves, it might be a setback to terminate a trial as soon as it has begun, but it could be terminal to wait until that trial is complete.