The News Net

In this week’s News Net, a biotech analyst talks sector trends and the rewards of microcap investing, a VC breaks down just exactly what “early stage” means, and an entrepreneur looks back at a decade of starting successful companies in an unlikely spot.

 

  • The International Business Times interviews Rahul Jasuja, managing director and senior biotechnology analyst at Noble Financial Capital Markets. Jasuja thinks gout and targeted oncology plays, among others, are ripe for investing, and considers strong management to be crucial for microcaps to get on his radar. Read much more here.
  • More than half of biotech venture financings are early-stage deals, according to VC Bruce Booth. But what exactly does “early stage” mean. Bruce breaks it down.
  • Finally, New Hampshire Public Radio visits Lebanon-based Adimab and talks to the company’s founder and CEO, Tillman Gerngross, about his role in the growth of the biotech industry in the state over the past decade. Read and listen to the repost here.

A Fledgling Entrepreneur

It’s been a crazy few months. I’m a 2nd year PhD student in Biochemistry at the University of Oxford, but recently took the plunge and started my own company, Marblar. With my team—so far, two other PhD students—we’re setting our sights on radically altering how science is commercialized and getting very little sleep along the way.

I want to share what it’s like to be a student-entrepreneur trying (and struggling) to balance thesis work along with the expectations of a venture-backed startup. It’s not easy, but I wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world. The days may be long, the to-do list ever longer, the lost social time a drag, but it’s been the best time of my life. Let me take you through the past few months and maybe you’ll understand why.

I first decided to take the plunge this past winter. I was literally biking home in the rain (such are Oxford winters!) and had had a terrible day in the lab (who hasn’t?). I felt my PhD work was failing to go anywhere significant and I was getting restless—I wanted to make an impact now; I didn’t want to keep waiting, keep deferring and keep telling myself that one day suddenly I’d make a difference. I wanted to do it now. So I set out to start my own company. Note: The biggest thing holding back entrepreneurs is fear of the plunge. I say lace up your Nike’s and Just Do It. (In the interest of full disclosure, I wear FILAS).

It’s been a crazy ride. I initially reached out to my friends to see if they were interested in joining. Of the 5 of us who initially came together, only two of us stayed: Mehmet (who’s a neuroscience PhD student at King’s College London) and me. I think finding the right team members is crucial. Ideas are everywhere, but execution is what matters. For me, the following three key features are important for a team:

  1. Group Chemistry: sounds obvious but you’d be surprised. Especially in stressful situations, in the midst of a significant sleep deficit, compounded by a caffeine withdrawal, with a head cold sprinkled on top. Team chemistry goes a long way towards overcoming startup-stress and surviving the vicissitudes you’ll invariably encounter.
  2. Complementary skillsets: I think you need to build a team that covers up your weaknesses. Be honest with yourself. I was.
  3. Product evangelization: Your team must have undying belief in the product. That’s not to say they cannot challenge assumptions (they must!) but they must also believe they’re part of something bigger than themselves. My team and I are firm believers in Marblar’s ability to foster emergent properties, in this case: by bringing together great minds with great science we can make 1 + 1 = 3

Also, beware of ‘wantrepreneurs‘ Being on a campus means you’ll encounter ambitious classmates who want the label of entrepreneur, but lack the motivation to deliver late nights, early mornings, missed meetings, lost social time and down-right 24/7 hustle.

So Mehmet and I went off to sell our story to prospective investors. This was a great experience in itself; catnaps on the train in between editing powerpoint slides and winging financial projections on excel. My goal was also to find an investor who would deliver not just money, but also sector knowledge. Luckily we found a VC firm–IP Group (based in London) that shared our enthusiasm, ambition, curiosity and who were crazy enough to back a pair of students with a disruptive and unproven business model. Our product at Marblar, which involves crowd-sourcing market applications for university intellectual property, also matched their business interests that center on university science across the UK. Thus, we gained not only a powerful and respected ally in the university commercialization sector, but also one whose interests align with our own.

Surprisingly, the experience of raising money wasn’t as painful as you’d think. We’d heard horror stories of people approaching dozens of VCs and angels to get their product funded—for us, IP Group was one of only two outfits we seriously approached. I had met both firms while running another entrepreneurial organization, Oxbridge Biotech Roundtable, which afforded me the platform to get to know industry players and learn leadership/organizational skills. Even before I had an idea for a product I had instigated a relationship with a few prospective funders, knowing I wanted to pursue entrepreneurship. They all have a particular approach and particular personalities. Some like to invest early, others prefer coming in at Series A or B, or later. Some move fast, some slow. My advice to any prospective student entrepreneur is, Get to know them. And let them get to know you. A great way of doing that is to start a student organization and invite them on campus. Share your story, take them out to dinner, learn from them and build a relationship.

I’ve learned relationships are everything in business. It is important to interact with people from across the gamut: entrepreneurs, managers, professors, writers, VCs, scientists, even janitors & interns. They can all teach you something! I’ve always been shameless about trying to learn from others.

Marblar is now well capitalized and moving toward building our product. Our days are consumed by talking to clients, media, web developers, strategizing about how to deliver the best experience to our customers. Of course we’re also attempting to get our PhD work done at the same time!

One last lesson I have learned from starting a business: talk to your clients early and often. I learn so much whenever I meet my clients (usually university or research institutes). Most importantly, I also learn about their unique situations and hurdles, which always helps me improve the Marblar offering so it is tailored to their needs.

Recently I added a third member to the Marblar team; Gabriel Mecklenburg, a PhD student in regenerative medicine at Imperial College London. Gabe’s someone I’ve known since December and I’ve seen his skills in action as leader of the largest Oxbridge Biotech chapter, in London. And let me tell you: Gabe’s a sponge. With him, you never have to say things twice. He reinforces my belief that with an A-team anything is possible.

That’s all from me for now. I’ll delve deeper into teams, building relationships, and raising capital next time. For now, I gotta get some rest. I gotta run a load of DNA gels tomorrow in between conference calls with my web developers.

Daniel Perez

The News Net

 

It’s time once again for your weekend reading. In this week’s News Net, we start small and work our way up—from the emergence of DIY biotech, to a startup in an out-of-the-way corner of Canada, and finally to a green biotech that’s found funding success.

  • Last month’s TEDGlobal conference in Edinburgh showcased the fast-growing trend of DIY molecular biology. Ellen Jorgensen, co-founder of Genspace, the world’s first community biotech lab says the possibilities are endless. “It’s impossible for me, as a mainstream scientist, to imagine what an artist, an architect or even a lawyer may come up with when they get their hands on this technology.” Read the Guardian article.
  • The Vancouver Sun profiles Soricimed, founded in 2005 in Sackville, New Brunswick, to exploit the pain relief and cancer-fighting potential of soricidin, a paralytic peptide found in the venom of the northern short-tailed shrew. Founder Jack Stewart says small biotech companies like his are filling the void left by Canadian big pharma’s retreat from early R&D. Read more here.
  • Finally, Mumbai-based Hanjer Biotech Energies, which transforms municipal solid waste into green products (though its website isn’t clear on exactly how), has raised $40 million from European funds, including German investment and development company DEG and France’s Proparco. Hanjer plans to set up multiple municipal solid waste processing plants with a capacity of 5,000 tons per day. India’s Economic Times reports

On the Sidelines

When I recently stepped down as CEO of a small biotech, it was the first time since kindergarten, about fifty years ago, when I was not on a schedule of some kind.  Although I keep up with trends through the usual channels of conferences, newsletters and conversations, my new perspective starting from scratch in search of my next opportunity has led me to ponder topics that are only now important to me.  These include the role of luck in achieving successful outcomes, the changing business of university tech transfer offices, and the forces impacting the pool of experienced entrepreneurs in biotech.  But today I want to concentrate on an issue raised by the unstoppable rush to embrace the virtual model in biotech—the role of generalist managers versus discipline specialists.

In its purest form the virtual biotech adheres to a “just enough, done expertly, just in time” business plan.  In theory, only disciplinary experts need apply for what is typically a single asset company.  For a small molecule development candidate this may mean an expert in preclinical development, another for CMC and a third for clinical and regulatory affairs.  The CEO will be one of these specialists, or one of the investors may assign a partner to the role. There may be an opening for a project manager or clinical coordinator. Everything else is farmed out to CROs, CMOs, consultants and service providers, each again an expert in their respective disciplines.

On the surface this seems a logical response to the costly, unproductive research enterprises that characterize big pharma and many biotechs, especially as availability of capital falls.  There are some potential issues, however, that might be summed up by the saying, “If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

A limited number of disciplinary experts leads to limited knowledge sets available to address the inevitable problems that arise in drug development.  I’ve known examples of chemists who believe that the biggest hurdle in a project is chemistry, biologists who feel the same about their biologic assays, and even regulatory affairs experts who feel they have the ultimate burden.  Of course it’s a combination of all of these disciplines and many more that must come together for a successful project.  An expert with a deep focus on a particular field may be invaluable for the insights they provide in that critical area of a project, but may not even recognize what they don’t know about the wider issues if they have never been responsible for the larger picture.

This problem becomes even more acute when the subject extends to business development, board relationships and investor outreach.  It would be unusual for a pure disciplinary expert to be adept at handling these areas, which unfortunately won’t be reduced to scientific principles.  Achieving scientific excellence (using your hammer) in a way that does not translate into value creation won’t get you far — in other words, that was not a nail, it might be a screw (pun intentional).

I’ve heard several stories of senior managers who had moved beyond their discipline into cross-functional leadership positions but who are considered to be too “senior” or not specialized enough for startup leadership positions.  Recently I discussed a CEO role in a company working in a therapeutic area familiar to me that had fundraising issues complicated by a potentially awkward strategic relationship, founders issues, competitive issues and needed to be led through a management shakeup.  I was not a viable candidate because I was not a world expert in the scientific field being pursued by the company, even though one could argue this was the least of their many concerns.

The virtual model will be with us for some time as we work through this current business cycle and its accompanying theories.  For these tiny organizations attempting to cover something as broad as drug development with extremely limited resources, we still have to figure out what is the right balance of deep and narrow versus limited but broad expertise.

Rick Jones

Entrepreneurial Events

For your future planning. Meetings of interest to entrepreneurs, from around the globe.

 

 

  • 2nd Annual Partnership Opportunities in Drug Delivery.  October 1 & 2, The Boston Park Plaza Hotel.  More information here.
  • BioPartnering FutureEurope.  October 7–9, Square Brussels Meeting Centre. Info.
  • BIO Technology Transfer Symposium.  October 8, Palace Hotel, San Francisco. Questions answered here.
  • 11th Annual BIO Investor Forum.  October 9 & 10, Palace Hotel, San Francisco. Go here for more.
  • Korea-Maryland, USA Bio Expo 2012.  October 9–12, University of Maryland Conference Center, Hyattsville, Maryland. More can be found here.
  • Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy.  October 10–12, Westin Bayshore, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. More here.
  • BioChina, The BIO convention in China.  October 24 & 25, Shanghai. Go here for more information.

 

 

 

BIO 2012: Development cost comparison, China vs. US

I attended BIO this year, and while there I felt responsible for China as a Trade Secrets contributor, so I settled in at “The China Day” – a day-long program organized around China, and was happy to take down some interesting numbers from the morning session.

Two domestic Chinese biotech companies shared their development stories. Beijing Continent Pharmaceuticals and Beta pharmaceuticals have a lot in common – both started 10 years ago from discovery research, both developed pipeline in specific therapeutic areas, and both got their first innovative drug approved by Chinese SFDA last year. There are not many Chinese biotech companies who had gone through the drug development and approval process, so their perspective offered some valuable insights.

According to Ying Luo, chairman of Beijing Continent pharmaceuticals, his company’s development experience was that China costs about 1/3 to 1/2 less than the US at the discovery stage, with the pre-IND cost in China being between US$600,000 to US$1 million.

The cost of clinical trials between US and China were estimated as following:

China (million, USD) U.S. (million, USD)
Phase I 0.3 – 0.8 3-5
Phase II 2-3 20-50
Phase III 3-7 60-300

 

Mr. Luo pointed out that the cost saving in China seemed not significant at the early stage but obvious at the clinical trial stage. This seems especially true at phase III, where the cost could be 10- to 20-fold less than that is in the United States. (Continent pharmaceuticals has its own in-house clinical development team.)

Beta pharmaceuticals started 10 years ago by screening for  EGFR- Tyrosine kinase inhibitors based on Gefitinib (Iressa) and Tarceva’s molecular structure. In early 2000, Beta discovered Icotinib. Mr. Xinxiang  Wang,  CEO of Beta pharma, said that they were able to develop Icotinib with a relatively small team, by efficiently using contract research organizations. The trial was double-blinded and multicenter, comparing Icotinib and Gefitinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. It involved 500+ patients, and, thanks to the large number of hospitals involved, the total recruitment time was only 11 months.  He said that they spent about 60 million RMB (US$7+ million) in Icotinib’s phase III trial.

This number is low – their full China clinical development program could be less than $11 million. Globally, 10 years and $1 billion has been the price tag of a new molecular entity, though people say it is getting longer and more expensive.

I caught up to Mr. Luo in the hall way and asked about this large difference in cost.

Luo was friendly and stressed that trials are different by drug, size, protocol and patient number, so one cannot generalize the cost. In addition, his numbers are not from a comprehensive poll, but individual experiences of his company and his peers. “But innovative biotech companies are rare in China, maybe not more than a dozen,” he said.

Global pharmas in China usually use global CROs, and the statistics I quoted before may come mostly from global multicenter trials. In which case, part of the cost reduction by Chinese companies might come because “global CROs are a lot more expensive than local CROs… global multicenter trials are a lot more expensive than local trials… “ Luo said.

Another contributing factor to the cost difference in the clinical trial may pertain to the number of patients tested, Luo pointed out. Global pharmas usually conduct several phase III trials globally on one drug candidate, each ranging from a few hundred to a couple thousand patients. In China, there is a requirement on the patient number for phase III trials, which is to have statistical significance and with minimum 300 patients on the test arm.

Beta pharma’s 10 years development seems to have created a blockbuster in China. The product was launched in August 2011. Sales reached RMB 100 million in February 2012, and is projected to reach one billion RMB by 2016. Mr. Wang said Beta is preparing to file FDA approval in the United States.

Chloe Liu