Q&A: David Rabuka

BooksI sat down with David Rabuka at the recent IBC Antibody Engineering and Therapeutics conference and discussed his entrepreneurial path. David is the founder and chief scientific officer of Redwood Bioscience, a startup company focused on antibody-drug conjugates and other semi-synthetic therapeutics. David started the company as a graduate student at UC Berkeley, where he earned a PhD in chemistry with professor Carolyn Bertozzi.

 

Gene Kym:  You worked in industry at Optimer Pharmaceuticals prior to starting your PhD program.  How has this influenced your scientific development and career as an entrepreneur? 

David Rabuka: Working in a small biotech environment before I started my PhD program was very influential in my scientific development and career as an entrepreneur. The speed of work and the focus on reaching milestones quickly was something I learned while working in industry. This is especially true if you are involved in a smaller start-up environment. I learned how to design experiments that would lead to an answer quickly, either positive or negative, and then move on to the next question. I also learned the technical skills I needed when I started my PhD program and could run independently out of the gate. Being exposed to the business side of biotech was a fantastic learning experience, one that I would not have been exposed to without working in industry. Building and executing on programs that generated value, both for investors and customers/patients, is something that I was fortunate enough to be exposed to in a small start-up environment. The start-up environment is engaging and exciting. I knew that even upon returning to UC Berkeley to work on my PhD program that my career would continue with an entrepreneurial focus.

 

GK: You licensed the technology from UC Berkeley and started a company while writing your PhD thesis. Can you speak about this experience from a student perspective? Did you face specific challenges?

DR: The final year of my PhD program is a bit of blur, actually. I am not sure when I slept. From a student perspective it seemed to me par for the course. I was extremely busy, but I don’t think any more so than my lab mates and colleagues – you just work steadily and grind it out. I actually really enjoyed the process of getting the company started while I was finishing up my academic requirements. Mixed things up a bit, I suppose, and kept everything interesting.

 

GK: Mentors and networking are important for young entrepreneurs. Are there people who have guided you along the way? How did you build your network as a student? Were there any unexpected benefits that came from networking?

DR: Networking is absolutely essential for young entrepreneurs. It sometimes sounds silly – network, network, network – but in the end it is the folks you surround yourself with that will make or break getting the company off the ground. Again, having worked in industry before grad school helped me a lot. I had the advantage of already having built up a network of scientists, [business development] folks and mentors. The CEO of the company I worked at before heading off to grad school, for example, was always willing to sit down and listen to my ideas and plans and give advice. Many other folks along the way also provided new contacts and assistance. These were folks I had interacted with at conferences, or past collaborations. Some of my mentors I simply met through friends and family. During grad school there were many opportunities to meet with folks who were more than happy to help out. I would attend lectures and seminars around company building. Many universities, including UC Berkeley, are beginning to provide services and solutions for spinning out technology. I tapped all of these.

 

GK: How important are management skills in a startup, and how can scientists develop these skills? What else should aspiring entrepreneurs learn that is not taught in school?

DR: Initially management skills, for me, weren’t important right out of the gate, as I was the only employee and I really didn’t give it that much thought. However, over time as the company grew, my management tasks grew accordingly. I was forced to develop management skills on the fly and just learned things along the way. I read a bunch of books, some useful, many not. While I was in grad school I did have the opportunity to manage an undergrad researcher – a very useful learning experience. It’s funny, but really I just take everything I liked from past managers I have worked under and try to apply those principles to how I manage my own team. Being a great manager is an evolving process for me, and I am constantly being challenged. Getting honest feedback from your team and being willing to adapt accordingly is essential for entrepreneurs who find themselves in a management role for the first time.

 

GK: Your company uses a platform technology. Can you speak about distinguishing a platform from a product? How has this affected your startup’s path?

DR: There are different pools of money that one can access if you are a platform company or a product company. Most investors have a preference of one path over the other, and it is important to identify funding opportunities that fit your path forward and not to try to force your company down a path that may not be a fit for your team and not play into your strengths. We tried a number of variations on our company theme, spinning it as a product play, and failed to garner any interest or attention from investors. We weren’t a product play, and it was painfully apparent. The problem was that we hadn’t properly identified the groups that would be interested in a platform company. Being a platform company also requires a more outward-looking approach to building a business. Building collaborations and partnerships consumes more of your resources and bandwidth, as opposed to focusing on developing a product.

 

Q&A with CombImmune’s co-founder

10Jason Yonehiro is a co-founder of CombImmune, a Stanford University startup that hopes to develop immunotherapies and diagnostics for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Jason comes from a sales and marketing background, with prior experience at Amgen, Celgene, Boehringer Ingelheim, and more. I spoke with him about his experiences as a first-time biotech entrepreneur.

 

Gene Kym: What can aspiring entrepreneurs do now to prepare for starting a company one day?

Jason Yonehiro: Really understand your technology and know if it has merit in the real world. Young science entrepreneurs who have spent their entire career sheltered in a lab don’t really understand how the biotechnology industry works. It’s important to “get out of the building,” as Steve Blank says, and find those potential customers to help validate your idea.

 

GK: Can you give some detailed pointers as to how academic scientists can do this?

JY: As a budding entrepreneur there are so many unknown unknowns, so the more you can validate your product against an existing pain point in the market, the better you’ll be prepared. This includes speaking with your advisors, attending careers fairs, reading industry news and publications, attending conferences, etc.  Heck, create your own meet up.

Continue reading

CalBIO

calbio2013-banner-299x1481I recently attended CALBIO 2013 in San Diego, along with Samy HamdoucheAndrew Lim and Weston Nichols. The event was headlined by Craig Venter and Patrick Soon-Shiong, and breakout sessions featured industry veterans who discussed topics ranging from corporate venture capital to university tech transfer. Most importantly, there were numerous opportunities to mix and mingle, both during casual coffee breaks and formal speed-dating sessions.

With San Diego sunshine overhead, the atmosphere at the conference was upbeat and friendly, and merging the digital and biological realm was a recurring theme. Venter kicked off the conference with a glimpse into the biotechnology of tomorrow. He spoke of “biological teleportation,” where computers hooked up to molecular printers can download DNA blueprints from the Internet and immediately make biological molecules such as insulin. Using this system, pathogen genomes could be distributed to disease control centers around the world as outbreaks happen, allowing nations to respond with vaccines in real time.

Soon-Shiong revealed his planned biomedical information superhighway – an IT infrastructure across the US that connects physicians, scientists, and the entire healthcare ecosystem in an integrated and speedy manner. The network is designed to be connected to sequencing centers so doctors could receive near-instantaneous genome sequencing and analysis of patients’ DNA. By making medical information sharing more intelligent, Soon-Shiong hopes to eliminate misdiagnosed cancers. While others have attempted to digitize individual parts of healthcare, such as medical records, Soon-Shiong is working to bring the entire healthcare industry up to speed at once.

In a breakout session, a venture capitalist mentioned that the atmosphere was “more bullish” than years past, and indeed, the IPO window for biotech companies appears open, though some panelists expressed concern about how long this will last. In a session titled “Finding the Money: Where to Look and What Sells” (click here for PDF of conference program), panelists from several VC firms spoke of the difficulty in raising new funds. While limited partners used to allocate a portion of their investment toward life science funds, they now invest only with VCs that have a strong track record of providing returns. Another panelist and investor mentioned that VCs are less concerned about where startups have raised money from in the past, and that VCs no longer make distinctions between “good money” and “bad money.”

In the “Funding Collaborations between Pharma and Traditional VC funds” session, VC and pharma representatives discussed their expanding relationship. Traditional VCs are generally seeking purely financial returns, but corporate VCs can also have strategic goals, such as acquiring drugs for their pharma sponsor’s pipeline. This desire for access to good molecules (as well as pharma’s deep pockets), allows corporate VCs to sometimes fund beyond traditional VCs.

In the “Pharmaceutical Business Development Investing” session, panelists mentioned that they see far too many drug reformulations and want to see more innovative therapeutics. Pharma representatives involved in academic outreach mentioned they like collaborators who have a deep understanding of the biology behind diseases, as well as a roadmap for clinical trials.

For the entrepreneurs, the sessions in the “Life Science Speed Dating: Finding the Diamond Ring from VC and Pharma” track allowed two-minute pitches for select companies, with the winner chosen via audience applause. The two-minute timeline proved challenging for many, and the entrepreneurs who delivered refined pitches attributed it to practice. Industry panelists from each session gave valuable feedback to the entrepreneurs giving pitches.

As students, the conference gave us insight into the workings of the biotech industry and perspective on how our scientific training fits into the greater scheme of things. We’re looking forward to CALBIO 2014.

Gene Kym

Koreans Abroad and at Home

bagtag

Returning Koreans are one faction that have a chance to shape the future of the Korean biopharma landscape.

There has been considerable chatter about the glut of life science PhDs and a corresponding lack of jobs upon graduation. In the US, most graduate students in this field plan on becoming academics or industry scientists. But during my time in Korea, most life science graduate students I spoke with hoped to become professors, and nary a student spoke of industry. Despite a near-universal desire to enter academia, university positions are limited and competition is fierce (much like the US). Concurrently, Korea is gradually becoming competitive in the biotech arena, requiring more industry scientists to drive this engine of growth. Feeding all this is a large pool of domestically educated Korean scientists who are seeking positions after graduation.

To better understand how these forces will shape the future of Korean biotech, I spoke with Dr. Jong Sung Koh, chief technology officer of Genosco, a biotech company in Boston. Koh earned his PhD from Caltech and has had a long career in drug discovery on both sides of the Pacific, including serving as VP of drug discovery for LG Life Sciences. The following are excerpts from my conversation with him.

 

Q: What are your thoughts on Koreans who study abroad and then return, and what is their role in Korea’s biopharma industry?

Koh: Studying abroad or a postdoc in an academic institution is not enough to succeed in biotech. Some industry experience is important. When Samsung entered the semiconductor business, it recruited foreign industry-trained engineers such as Drs. Chin Dae-Je and Hwang Chang-Kyu. The failure of Hanhyo’s Life Science R&D center in the 1990s is a good counter-example: it recruited well-trained life scientists from academia without industry experience, and then spent R&D money on basic research, rather than in areas with industry applications.

There has been a recent influx of foreign, industry-trained scientists to Korea, mostly chemists from the US. So far the impact has been limited, with a few outstanding exceptions, such as the drug discovery directors at Green Cross Corporation and Handok Pharmaceuticals. However, Samsung has hired many Korean biologists who have biotech experience in the US. We will see how they impact the Korean biotech industry down the road.

 

Q: What about the locally educated talent?  It seems like there are many graduate students in Korea who are training in the biological sciences.  How will this impact the Korean biopharma industry?

Koh:  Home-grown graduate students and researchers have been increasingly publishing in prominent journals.  With industry experience, they can provide a strong workforce for the biotech industry. The bottleneck is the reluctance of graduate students to consider an industry career. However, the job openings for academia are so limited, they will begin to seek industrial positions soon. A flux of talented scientists to industry will provide new opportunities to Korean biotech in the near future.

One weakness of homegrown scientists is the limited ability to communicate in English, but this is improving as universities such as KAIST offers classes in English.

 

Q: In the US, graduate students in the biological sciences typically want to be professors or work in industry.  In Korea, it seems like industry is still maturing, so most people want to become professors.  When do you think graduate students will enter Korean PhD programs with the intent of going into industry? 

Koh: There are several components when scientists consider job tracks. Let’s consider two of them: job security and pay. If you compare the US and Korea, a professor’s job security is higher in Korea – almost all assistant professors will be tenured. This is not the case in the US. In the US, industry payscale is much higher than in Korea and also higher than US academic positions. So it’s a rational choice for Korean students to prefer an academic position, which pays better and provides a more stable job.

The bottleneck to increasing industry salary is that Korean biotech companies are small and produce lower profits than their US counterparts. The revenue of Dong-A Pharm, the biggest pharma company in Korea, is less than $1 billion. For Korean industry to compete, it needs to provide a better career outlook with higher payscale than academia and the possibility of a big upside (IPO, stock options).

Korean industry can consider a profit-sharing mechanism with in-house inventors, as well as providing more freedom to publish. In addition, Korean biopharma companies need to be large enough to support R&D, which can be accomplished by merging with one another. Implementation of these cultures and a shortage of academic position will entice graduate students to enter Korean PhD programs with the intent of going into industry in 10 years.

Gene Kym

 

Exploring Korea

two patternsI am the President of Caltech’s Entrepreneurship Club (eClub), and there’s a significant student interest in biotech startups here. As students we’re always trying to educate ourselves, and to learn more about biotech entrepreneurship, I will be reaching out and interviewing people in industry on various topics. My colleagues in the eClub will also be joining me in this learning process.

Before I came to Caltech for my PhD, I studied abroad at Seoul National University in Korea, where I earned a masters and did neuroscience research. The building I was in housed both academic labs and startup companies. Looking back at this arrangement, I am somewhat amazed. This formal cohabitation of academia and industry would be considered entrepreneurially forward at an American university.

It has been a few years, and I think a lot has changed since my time there. I am curious to learn about recent developments in Korean biotech. While outsourcing biotech R&D to China is frequently discussed, less is known about the Korean sector. With the emergence of Korea as a growing contract research organization (CRO) market, the entrance of corporate giants like Samsung Biologics, and the large pool of young scientists there, interesting things should happen. I hope to speak with people in the Korean biotech industry and learn about opportunities and progress there.

Drug discovery is a challenging industry, but there is a lot of grass-roots interest among younger scientists. Biotech has an increasingly international face, and I think there is a lot of exciting news coming out of Korea in this sector.  I look forward to sharing what I learn with Trade Secrets readers.

Gene Kym