2015年经济学人 美国药企辉瑞有意收购英国阿斯利康

（单词翻译）

Pfizer and AstraZeneca

A matter of trust

British politicians are understating their nation's appeal to drugs firms

IAN READ, the chief executive of Pfizer, an American-based drugs giant, says his company wants to go where it is welcome.

Odd, then, that Pfizer persists in trying to make Britain its second home.

Its attempt to acquire AstraZeneca, Britain's second-largest pharmaceuticals¹ firm,

and establish a tax residence in the country is running into fire from many directions.

A few weeks ago Mr Read impressed David Cameron, the prime minister,

with promises to keep jobs and production in Britain if a deal went through.

But MPs who quizzed him on May 13th and 14th criticised these assurances as vague and insufficient².

Pressed for more details, Mr Read said he could not supply them, as he had not yet seen AstraZeneca's books.

He conceded that “there will be some jobs cut somewhere”, though he could not yet say where they would be.

MPs see worrying parallels with Pfizer's past acquisitions.

After it bought Wyeth, an American drugmaker,

in 2009 the new company's research and development budget was slashed³ from about 11 billion to 7 billion a year.

If Pfizer and AstraZeneca were to merge⁴, the combined R&D budget would be about 12 billion.

Mr Read promises to place at least 20% of the new company's R&D staff in Britain.

Even so, this could mean fewer jobs: he did not specify⁵ the total research workforce⁶.

As The Economist⁷ went to press the firm was expected to raise and formalise its bid for AstraZeneca, currently at 63 billion.

The government expects a sweeter offer, too.

Mr Read's promises are just a “starting point” for negotiations⁸, says Vince Cable,

the business secretary, who wants more binding⁹ commitments.

Others insist they should last longer than five years, as currently stipulated¹⁰: drug development often takes decades.

Mr Cameron now says he too is unsatisfied. He and Ed Miliband, the Labour Party leader, are competing to sound tougher on Pfizer.

Yet British politicians are understating the lure¹¹ of their own country to drugs firms.

R&D tax credits and a new “patent box”, which taxes profits from inventions registered in Britain at just 10%, are powerful draws,

as are Britain's best universities. Indeed, even as politicians worry about losing jobs to America, lawmakers in America fear the opposite.

The governors of Delaware and Maryland, where AstraZeneca operates, are seeking assurances from Pfizer similar to those given to Mr Cameron. Mr Read has so far demurred¹².

A further reason for optimism is that AstraZeneca has already done much of the dirty work that might be expected of Pfizer should a deal be done.

Over the last seven years the firm has cut 5,100 jobs in Britain and closed a research lab in Cheshire.

Last year, due largely to lost revenue from an expiring patent, it did not pay British corporation tax.

Most of its workforce and drug development are abroad: see article

AstraZeneca's boss, Pascal Soriot, has so far rebuffed Pfizer.

He has tried to convince investors¹³ and British politicians that,

after years of lagging behind competitors, AstraZeneca is now better off on its own.

He touts¹⁴ a pipeline¹⁵ of potentially lucrative¹⁶ cancer drugs and warns darkly that a merger¹⁷ would lead to delays and perhaps deaths.

British lawmakers seem inclined to protect their “crown jewel”, as one MP put it.

But they will find it hard to stop a deal. The final decision will rest with the company's shareholders¹⁸,

many of whom are eager to see Pfizer's next offer.