Category Archives: Uncategorized

Convergence West Highlights: From iPhone Sequencing Apps to Funding Innovation in Biotech

Last Friday, Dec. 3, 2010, I attended the excellent Convergence West conference in San Francisco. Here are some highlights. I’ll be doing an additional post on my “fireside chat” with Jamie Heywood of PatientsLikeMe.com.

Topics covered:

  • We have seen the future of high speed genome sequencing – and it’s a bit of a gross-out
  • Diagnostics regulation and iPhone blood tests
  • Diabetes costs are immense
  • MEDCO gets it
  • Creative financing for mainstream biotech

Convergence Forum logo

We have seen the future of high speed genome sequencing – and it’s a bit of a gross-out

With three high-profile liquidity events* in 2010 for high-speed genomics companies, the financial markets seem to have embraced the prospect of low-cost, ubiquitous sequencing for all. But what will the sequencers be sequencing?

During a panel Q&A, I asked Eric Schadt, the Pacific Biosciences CSO, how close we are to wide clinical or even consumer use of that company’s world-beating technology. The applications he named ranged from the not-apparently-useful to the gross:

  • “In four to five years, we will be able to use our third-generation technology to sequence hundreds of gigabases for $100 in 15 minutes.”
  • “In 10 years it will be like an AT&T plan: sign up and get 10 genomes for your family.”
  • “Integrate the sequencer into your iPhone, wave it around and see the genomes of all the pathogens swirling around you all the time.”

We realize that there are plenty of applications for the sequencing of genomes besides the human one. We blogged about the genome-mining of gut bacteria here. But judging from the facial expressions, the reaction to the iPhone app for skin bacterium sequencing was a visceral ‘yuck.’

*Pacific Biosciences raised $200 million in its IPO on Oct. 27; rival Complete Genomics raised $54M in its IPO on Nov. 10. Ion Torrent was acquired on Aug. 18 by Life Technologies for $375M upfront and $350M in possible future milestones.

Diagnostics regulation and iPhone blood tests

A previous panel I moderated (at the Wolfe Biopharma conference in Boston on Oct. 19) featured a discussion of a new regulatory path for MDx at FDA, currently in a bill sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch to be introduced in the U.S. Congress’ “lame-duck” session in late 2010 or early 2011. During the Q&A, I asked the MDx panel about this and heard this groan from MDx company Saladax CEO Sal Salamone:

“I’ve been in diagnostics for twenty-five years. There were not a lot of big advances in the technology for diagnostics in that time but the costs of compliance with regulations have increased an order of magnitude.”

On a similar note, FDA is not the only new hurdle that MDx startups encounter on the way to the market. From entrepreneur Sridhar Iyengar, Founder of New Hampshire-based AgaMatrix, which has successfully partnered with Apple to bring real-time glucose testing to the iPhone:

  • “Working with Apple is a lot more difficult than working with FDA.”

Diabetes costs are immense

Tethys Bioscience is one of the highest-profile VC-backed MDx companies around, with a commercial platform, $48 million raised in the recent Series D round alone, high-profile investors from inside and outside healthcare and an indication focus – Type 2 diabetes – that is one of the most prevalent and expensive of those facing society. CEO Mickey Urdea therefore has a bias but he also has a point: Type 2 diabetes is a societal scourge.

  • “If you have gained 30-60 pounds in 6 months, it probably means you just retired from the Air Force” said Urdea.
  • Furthermore, Urdea said, the Air Force believes it will “go into bankruptcy” by 2017 if it doesn’t find a better way to combat diabetes.

MEDCO gets it

We heard from two panels that Medco Health is the company that is most on top of the shift in the U.S. health care system to a more incentive-driven and value-based model.

“Medco has the potential to change the paradigm for diagnostics. They are working on pairing diagnostics with generics to prove they are better than new drugs.” (Saladax CEO Sal Salamone). As one recent article on Medco’s MDx initiative put it, “With Medco Around for Dx Shops Developing PGx Tests Independently, Who Needs Pharma?”

  • Jamie Heywood, Founder-Chairman of PatientsLikeMe.com said jokingly that “Medco is starting to look like it could buy Merck.” This is not quite true – Medco (NYSE: MHS) at a $26 billion market cap is still much smaller than Merck (NYSE: MRK) at $108 billion. But since Merck spun out Medco back in 2003, Medco is up five-fold and Merck’s value is down.

Creative financing for mainstream biotech

The VC funding panel featured several successful examples of the high-risk, high-reward approach needed to pursue innovation in biotech.

  • Very encouraging: The VCs that are still investing in biotech “are more interested in in funding innovation today than at any time in the last 15 years,” said VC Bryan Roberts of Venrock. But, he continued, this is because “they are so scared by regulatory & commercial risks and [they fund earlier-stage projects because they] think they can get out before [they face those other risks].”
  • Pick your poison: “If you are not getting financial dilution (via VC) or IP dilution (via partnerships) then you have to have ‘bandwidth dilution’ through government funding,” said Oncomed CEO Paul Hastings
  • Find a contrarian: Hastings said that it takes a true contrarian within Big Pharma to push a deal with an innovative biotech. Hastings cited Moncef Slaoui, chairman of R&D at GlaxoSmithKline – who backed GSK’s 2008 acquisition of Sirtris – as one example. Roberts agreed: “Great decisions don’t get made by groups.” This was certainly true when Roberts and Jim Neidel helped CEO Howard Robin sell our Sirna Therapeutics for $1.1 billion to Peter Kim at Merck in 2006. (Sirna’s turnaround PIPE was a deal I did as a VC with TVM Capital in 2003.)
  • Power raiser: Oncomed (which is developing drugs targeting what it calls “tumor-initiating cells” aka cancer stem cells) has raised a lot more money than I had realized: $229M in equity including its investment from GSK & a further $100M from partnerships including GSK and Bayer Schering. Hastings said that Bayer Schering had struck the right attitude by
    • Showing up on a Saturday morning for a kickoff meeting; and
    • By the Bayer Schering team leader telling his 20-person team (visiting the 3-person Oncomed team) “We are here to learn from them and not the other way around.”

# # #

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Google Meets Healthcare VC

The Boston Biotech Watch Take on Google’s Healthcare Investing Approach Based on an Interview with Google Ventures’ Krishna Yeshwant

by Steve Dickman, CEO, CBT Advisors

Now that most private-company biotech CEOs have given up on “IPO window reopens” and “VC bidding war,” three of the most galvanizing words for someone raising money these days are “Google might invest.” Fund-raising for the CEO of a young biotech is always a war of attrition and corporate VC funds are the current weapons of choice.

It is one thing for cash-strapped management teams to want Google’s shiny new healthcare venture arm to invest. But should Google Ventures invest? Would it be the right thing for Google and the right thing for the sector if they came into more deals? We recently spoke to Google Ventures’ Cambridge-based healthcare representative Krishna Yeshwant, M.D., and we did some reading up on Google, including plowing through Ken Auletta’s widely reviewed (and bombastically titled) book Googled: The End of the World As We Know It“. Now here’s our take not just on what Google Ventures is doing in healthcare but also what we think they should be doing.

(One caveat is that the bulk of investments that Google Ventures will do in the coming years will not be in the healthcare space. The fund ambitiously intends to invest $100M a year into startups and new ventures, and the vast majority of those dollars will flow into IT-related endeavors. Our focus is on the fund’s life sciences- and healthcare-related activities.)

Google Ventures would seem to fit right into the current dominance of corporate VCs within the universe of VC life sciences dealmaking. On the surface, it’s another cash-flush corporate fund wading into VC as part of a parent-company mandate to move up the food chain and generate insight as well as returns. (As if the “generate returns” part isn’t hard enough by itself!)

We think Google Ventures (GV) actually does not fit the typical corporate VC mold at all and, based on its provenance, we think it has the potential to do amazing work. More about our views in a moment. First, we’ll look at how GV sees itself in the context of the deals they’ve already done. Then we will pull back and imagine what GV could do that might let it rise above and make a true mark on the healthcare investing and on healthcare itself.

Krishna Yeshwant photos

Krishna Yeshwant, photos courtesy Google web site

Aside from cleantech, most deals lately in the life sciences and healthcare space are in therapeutics. By and large, GV does not do those. “We are probably not the investors to go after moving a molecule from Phase 2 to Phase 3,” GV’s Yeshwant said. “We are not ready to have a portfolio of molecules. [Furthermore,] it would be hard for us to invest in a single molecule.”

So what does GV do? So far, platforms, as embodied by GV’s first two healthcare deals: Adimab and iPierian. Although the former is on the East Coast and the latter on the West Coast, these companies have a few things in common. Both are funded by top-tier life science investors (Polaris, SV Life Sciences, Orbimed in Adimab; Highland Capital, Kleiner Perkins, MPM Capital in iPierian). Both are working on groundbreaking platforms and own enormous amounts of potentially valuable IP. Adimab works on antibody therapeutics; iPierian is a novel stem-cell-biology company with a big vision for overhauling the current clinical trials process by offering streamlined testing on ex vivo platforms derived from a patient’s own stem cells. There is more about Adimab’s and iPierian’s approaches in these linked news articles from Xconomy.

The companies differ in some key ways that give us some insight into GV’s parameters: Adimab is run by a charismatic and battle-tested CEO, Tillman Gerngross, who successfully sold his previous company GlycoFi to Merck in 2008 for $400M and thereby provided investors with a return of 9X or better. So in some sense, it’s a “bet on the jockey” play in the crowded space of antibody platforms. By contrast, iPierian is run by an experienced but not-quite-so-high-profile CEO, Michael Venuti, and in fact let go of its previous CEO, John Walker, the month before GV invested.

Tillman Gerngross, Dartmouth engineer extraordinaire

Tillman Gerngross, Dartmouth engineer extraordinaire

“We are clearly attracted to platforms,” said Yeshwant. “We can understand the science, we see the potential {for large exits} based on the early examples that a platform can produce. If there is room for the platform to go beyond what it is doing, we can REALLY get excited about it.”

Avoiding the corporate VC “bump”

In these cases, GV’s preference was not to invest in pure startups but to wait until some experienced investors took the early risk. In one or both of these cases, GV may have “paid up” in order to get into the syndicate. Lest that leave the wrong impression, Yeshwant hastens to explain: “Almost everyone at Google Ventures has started companies and looked at VCs from the other side of the table,” said Yeshwant. “I remember that: when a corporate VC comes in, you look at it as an opportunity to bump your share price. The way we are trying to place Google Ventures is really as an institutional investor. The track record we want to create here is not ‘here comes Google, let’s get a bump on our valuation.’ People LIKE to have us at the table. We are a VC firm that has [access to] a host of programmers and statisticians. We have former programmers on our team who can help our portfolio. Take our user interface experts, for example. This may not be relevant for therapeutics platforms but it might be very relevant for healthcare IT companies. That programmer’s role is to be dropped into some of those companies and create value.”

And yet neither diagnostics nor healthcare IT seem to be on GV’s radar screen yet. Yeshwant: “We are excited about the diagnostics field. We are watching it very closely. [But w]e have yet to find a great investment.” Most life science VCs who have looked at diagnostics would say the same thing – many more have looked than have actually done a deal.

When speaking of healthcare IT, Yeshwant reflects the melancholy wisdom of someone who knows the US healthcare system all too well. Yeshwant is in fact not only an experienced programmer and IT entrepreneur who has founded two companies that were sold to big IT players; he is also a current resident at Harvard Medical School working at Brigham & Women’s Hospital. “The healthcare market still does not really make sense [to us as venture investors]. Working in a hospital, we [as physicians] try our best to do what is right for the patient but the patient is only one of our customers. That distorts what [GV] as a service business [or investor in service businesses] can do. That setup does not let us get into this natural harmony of a company that can really serve the needs of the consumer and succeed because they did a good job by the consumer. As a medical doctor, I want to serve my patients, but it is very difficult to conceive of a great IT company [in this space]. There are so many needs IT can serve that would help patients. But what is the business model that does not involve so many confusing different stakeholders?”

Yeshwant has similar reservations about companies developing electronic medical records (EMRs) despite the inclusion of EMR subsidies in the stimulus and health care reform packages. “Despite a lot of money coming in from the government, it is not clear that the opportunity is really there yet,” he said. “Yes, that government money will drive M&A activity and there are ideas being thrown back and forth. We do not feel compelled yet by the companies we have seen.”

A common theme across all areas in which GV is considering is its very high bar for investing. Indeed, it has been nearly three months since our conversation with Yeshwant and GV has not announced a single new life sciences deal. Although it is inappropriate to draw conclusions from this absence of announcements (a flurry of new deals could be announced next week), the fund’s measured pace reflects the realities of being a VC in 2010 – when a lot fewer new-money deals are closing than in the years between, say, 2003 and 2007 – and the realities of being Google.

When we asked Yeshwant whether Google Ventures would prefer to start companies on its own rather than wait to be shown “doable deals” by the VCs in its network, Yeshwant cited the fund’s need to stay on the right side of its sole limited partner, Google itself: “Especially in healthcare, we are still looking for those [right] companies [for us]. We are looking for the entrepreneurs, the teams that will make those companies great. We are meeting a bunch of entrepreneurs and VC folks. If there is something we can put a good thesis around, then, yes we would be open to starting something, seeding a company and incubating it. We are still a bit early – we’d hate to hastily put something like that together and have it fall apart. That would sour Google proper. So for now we have to have a very high threshhold.”

Reluctance? What reluctance?

Googled book jacketWe think the threshhold does not have to be so high. This is where our recommendation comes in. From reading Ken Auletta’s book

Googled: The End of the World As We Know It, we were reminded of Google’s roots and its winding path to $23 billion in 2009 revenues. The company is an advertising behemoth with now 99% of those revenues coming from ad sales. And the ethos underlying Google’s birth is still true for its many new ventures:

  • We are engineers.
  • We are scientists.
  • We want to change the world.

Auletta’s book shows that Google is all about two mentalities: the engineer on one hand; the consumer-minded marketeer on the other. Sometimes – as when the founders built the first search engine – these are embodied in the same person. More often the roles are played by different people within the company’s leadership. The process works like this: the engineer comes up with an idea about what is technically doable and at the same time inherently elegant; the marketeer relentlessly orients it toward the “real user.” Born of a dynamic tension between these two forces, product after product has emerged from Google (think Google News, Google Earth, Gmail and Google Maps and) More recently, products and technologies have been acquired to take advantage of perceived opportunities (Android, YouTube).

Admittedly, it is hard to see how either mentality – better engineering, better consumer focus – will work in healthcare investing unless and until the healthcare system is reformed to be more responsive to incentives, more consumer-driven and especially more data-driven. The Google fund would seem to be able to apply its overwhelming leverage more efficiently in other fields – mobile computing, location-aware mobile apps, data storage and retrieval, even hardware – at least for now.

At the same time, the apparent hesitation by the GV team to do most healthcare deals and especially to start companies of its own – the “high bar” that Yeshwant was talking about in our interview – strikes us as inconsistent with the basic premise of the fund’s corporate parent. There seems to be a reluctance – if not an all-out refusal — to get too involved in truly risky deals that at the same time could be truly transformative. After all, in the letter that accompanied their 2004 IPO filing, the Google founders themselves wrote that they are looking to “make big investment bets” on technologies that have only a 10% chance of achieving a billion-dollar level of success. To paraphrase the loud, lascivious Sean Parker character in the hit movie “The Social Network,” “You guys think it’s all about making a million dollars?! It’s not. Think billion, baby!”

WWGD?

What we have heard from Yeshwant (echoed in this interview published by Wade Roush of Xconomy back in May, 2010) sounds not much different from what we hear from generic corporate VCs. What we’d love to see instead would look more like this:

  • More attention from the top: You want to change the world, Sergey & Larry? Pay attention to healthcare.
  • More experiments in combining bandwidth with healthcare. The Google project to “wire” a US city with ultrahighspeed broadband capability comes to mind. There have to be HC opportunities in that, perhaps in conjunction with an existing startup or a new one
  • Pioneering programs outside the developed world that, for relatively low initial investments can improve upon technologies initially developed here and roll them out in developing-country markets. Then, when the “boomerang” comes back (see our earlier post on “boomerang” technologies), Google will be thinking ahead about how to make money on these technologies in the developed world.
  • Start more companies! Forget the “high bar” and the “sour taste”. Instead, use your cachet and market power to start companies that might take a while to incubate but that can be truly transformative. This is already the approach of some top-tier US-based pharma company VC funds who have told us that they have grown impatient waiting for VC syndicates to form from the ever-shrinking pool of active VCs, so they’ve begun to dive in and fund the companies they want to see all by themselves.
  • Focus on diagnostics. Yes, Yeshwant said GV has not seen its favorite deal yet. But Yeshwant himself wrote an award-winning business plan for a company, Diagnostics for All, that could provide a valuable prototype. That company, which we highlighted in our blog post on “boomerang” technologies, is working on filter-paper-based diagnostic kits that can be manufactured for pennies. And Google founder Sergei Brin invested in personal genomics company 23andme.com, an investment now owned by Google itself.
  • See our “shopping list” below for specific opportunities

We hope GV does all of these things. Because of its potentially long time horizon and its amazing market power in search and advertising, GV has a huge advantage over traditional VC funds. The exit from most of these businesses will be traditional ones – IPO or, more likely, trade sale – but another potential exit could be the creation of a new business unit for Google.

Church sign: "THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT CAN'T BE ANSWERED BY GOOGLE"

But not as many as there used to be

Right now, with the convergence of high-powered data collection through genomics and better sensors; better analysis of that data using high-powered computing; and a reorientation of the healthcare system toward prevention, there is no limit to what an active and visionary investor could achieve. To us, the potential for improving actual human health by taking advantage of available data is endless – and Google’s own track record in improving data access makes it an ideal player.

Therefore we’d encourage Google Ventures as follows:

  • Think long-term, not near-term.
  • Think big, not small.
  • Focus more on strategic and societal benefit.
  • Reach for the stars.

END

TABLE 1: A HEALTHCARE   SHOPPING LIST FOR GOOGLE VENTURES
  • Personalized medicine
  • Computer-aided medical devices
  • The “human-machine interface” in medical devices
  • Electronic medical records
  • Global health (investments in “boomerang” technologies would be perfect for GV – they will have the time & patience to wait for the boomerang to come back)
  • Analysis of “Big Data” e.g. from patients or payers that could rationalize the US healthcare system or piggyback on the move toward comparative effectiveness

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

We are our bugs – hot Boston startup mines the gut

by Steven Dickman, CEO, CBT Advisors

Seeing the human being as a “superorganism” composed primarily of freeloading or symbiotic bacteria and other parasites and designing products accordingly – that is the basis for a new startup with the alluring name of Libra Biosciences being incubated by PureTech Ventures in Boston.

Daphne Zohar, PureTech Ventures

Daphne Zohar, top Boston innovator

News of Libra began to come out in a piece in yesterday’s (Oct. 4, 2010) Boston Globe citing PureTech managing partner Daphne Zohar as one of Boston’s top 15 innovators. Little else is publicly available about the startup except a one-page web site stating that the company will be active in diagnostics and consumer products as well as therapeutics. Disease areas will include developmental, immunological and epithelial disorders.

The idea of humans and other eukaryotes as walking sacs of bacteria is not new. It was raised elegantly by Lewis Thomas in his seminal and delightful 1978 book Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher.

Libra Biosciences logo
Nor would this be the first time someone tried to apply this concept to predictive disease modeling – witness this paper from Nicholson et al. in Nature Biotech in 2004 exploring applications of “omics” to human-residing bacteria. But this appears to be the first time that commercial activity has coalesced around this interesting field of science, likely driven by advances in high-speed genetic sequencing. (The latest presentation we’ve seen from BGI – formerly Beijing Genomics Institute – reports that BGI alone will have increased to 5 TB of genome sequenced per day – that’s 1500 human genomes – by the end of 2010, up from 100 GB a day at the end of 2009.) There have been some interesting publications pointing to links between the nature of gut bacteria in individuals and their weight. According to these studies, as reported in the Los Angeles Times in June of this year, the more efficient the gut bacteria are at processing food, the more overweight the hosts are. We prefer the inefficient ones!

<iframe src=”http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=000000&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=httpwwwcbtadv-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&md=10FE9736YVPPT7A0FBG2&asins=0140047433&#8243; style=”width:120px;height:240px;” scrolling=”no” marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>

Except for the brief mention in the Globe today, Libra is not talking to the media just yet. But this interesting piece of startup news confirms PureTech’s role – alongside Third Rock Ventures and just a handful of other Boston-based firms – as one of the few key bridges across the current yawning gap separating creative academic science and fundable biotech companies.

# # #

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Into the Hot Seat – Scangos to Lead Biogen Idec

By Steve Dickman, CEO, CBT Advisors

Photo of burning chair Just when we were beginning to wonder whether Biogen Idec (Nasdaq: BIIB) would ever have a new CEO, along came yesterday’s announcement that industry veteran George Scangos had accepted the job.

We will argue that the choice of Scangos is both a good one for the beleaguered biotech itself and also a positive signal for the industry in general.

First the negatives: in his fourteen years at the helm of West Coast publicly traded oncology company Exelixis (Nasdaq: EXEL), Scangos has not brought a drug to market. On his watch, the company licensed nine of its pipeline compounds to pharmaceutical companies and has fourteen drug candidates in the clinic. At the close of trading today, Exelixis had a market value of $377 million. Biogen Idec has three marketed products in multiple sclerosis and oncology that last year generated $4.45 billion in revenue. Its market value at the close today was $12.7 billion.

Now the positives: Scangos has thrived as a CEO and has raised hundreds of millions of dollars through good markets and bad. Both because of his biotech chops and his prior history as a Big Pharma executive with Bayer Pharmaceuticals, where he was President of Bayer Biotechnology, Scangos will have instant credibility. He will presumably be granted something of a honeymoon period when he takes over at Biogen Idec.

To us, the selection of Scangos sends a signal that the company will likely not be sold any time soon, although there may be some reorganization. The first question many investors were asking when this announcement came was what veteran corporate raider and recent biotech gadfly Carl Icahn thinks of Scangos. Scangos presumably has Icahn’s blessing, and that of the board of directors, especially if he has promised to shake things up. And we don’t think Scangos would have taken the job unless he was given Icahn’s explicit support to improve the company’s drug development performance and its stock price.

Two aspects of Scangos’ background intrigue us: first off, he started out as a scientist, obtaining a Ph.D. degree in microbiology from the University of Massachusetts and becoming a professor at Johns Hopkins University. When Scangos began at Bayer, he was a staff scientist. When he took over as CEO of Exelixis, the company was a platform technology company using fruit flies to screen for drugs. This bottom-up career implies a deep understanding for the challenges of drug discovery. The selection of Scangos also fulfills a criterion laid out by Biogen Idec board chairman Bill Young that the new CEO have deep roots in science, as reported in February by Xconomy. Scangos is likely to command immediate respect from the company’s hundreds of scientists, a plus if he is to improve research productivity by making tough decisions about cutting programs.

Second, Scangos’ employer when he was a pharmaceutical executive, Bayer, is still around, albeit in a slightly larger form following its 2006 merger with Bayer Schering. We would downplay the natural implication – that Bayer moves up the list of potential suitors for Biogen Idec because Scangos is there now – but instead point to a different aspect. Every ex-pharma executive thinks he would have made a good pharma company CEO. Scangos has been putting his own ideas into practice for 14 years now but never on the big stage and never with a substantial revenue stream. Now, at age 62, he gets a turn in the limelight. He’s the best kind of new job candidate: one hungry to show what he can do.

The outcome at Biogen Idec is important for the entire biotech industry. For the last couple of years, the pharma industry has been in wholesale retreat from its previous big-ticket R&D efforts, which proved unproductive. Due to its loyal shareholder base and solid revenue stream, the research ranks at Biogen Idec, although they have been culled, have not been nearly as diminished as those in pharma. Icahn’s proxy fight for control of Biogen Idec – which he would presumably split up and sell for parts or at the very least massively downsize – represented an unmistakeable wake-up call for the company, which has already been heavily challenged by the safety issues that arose in 2005 for its newest and most potent MS and Crohn’s disease drug, Tysabri, safety issues that have not yet gone away. Meanwhile, Biogen Idec’s R&D team can fairly be said to have been productive, being responsible for pushing forward most of the nearly twenty products the company has in Phase 2 clinical trials.

Can Scangos forge a model that allows a drug discovery and development engine to thrive inside a company earning billions from its products? Or will he have to slash and burn to appease its more bottom-line-oriented investors? The industry is waiting to find out. Welcome back to Massachusetts, George. Let’s see what you’ve got.

Disclosure: Biogen Idec has been a client of CBT Advisors.

# # #

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

New, breathing “lung on a chip” shows the way for expanded use of tissue culture in preclinical development of new drugs

By Steve Dickman, CEO, CBT Advisors

Harvard researchers Dongeun Huh, Don Ingber and the Ingber team on Friday (25 June 2010) published in Science an impressive advance in organotypic tissue culture that could someday be adopted as a viable alternative to animal experiments: a “lung on a chip” including both human cells and a bioengineered boundary layer that is both porous and flexible. The new chip overcomes limitations of previous 3-D organ models in at least two ways: both by recreating the body-environment interface featuring a multilayered set of membranes with communication across them, which in itself is remarkable enough, but also by allowing dynamic mechanical forces (think “breathing”) to be applied and showing the response.

Ingber's breathing lung on a chip

Soon to feel the breath of life? Lab-created chip moves and flexes to mimic breathing (Image courtesy Science)

On a recent visit to Ingber’s lab, in the new and hiply designed Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, we got to see the device, a rubbery object more reminiscent of a clear pencil eraser than of a futuristic biochip. The lung-on-a-chip sandwiches a layer of epithelium and a layer of endothelium, both formed from living cells, around a flexible synthetic boundary layer. Vacuum chambers on either side provide stretching and shear forces that mimic those in real lung air sacs (alveoli). The cells find the environment so natural that they secrete surfactant, the normal coating found on air-contacting cells in the lung.

What makes this new technology stand out is its ability to demonstrate and even explain in-vivo-like reactions. The lung cells on the chip were shown to respond to external stimuli such as nanoparticle irritants or bacteria. “We could watch the entire inflammatory response,” Ingber told a radio interviewer. “One thing we found is that [environmental pollutants] went across to the capillary channel with a low level of efficiency but when we had physiological breathing, there was an eightfold increase in how many particles got across and we saw toxic and inflammatory reactions. This was not known before and we were able to confirm it by going back into the whole-animal model.”

The lung chip is the latest example of the trend we noted in our Boston Biotech Watch post last October (“Coming soon to a Pharma near you: complex tissue culture models”). Ingber told the radio station that the chip can potentially shortcut the time it takes to get drugs through the development process, which, “…as we all know, is incredibly expensive .… Animal studies are not only costly and time-consuming, but they often don’t predict what happens in humans.”

We think that this device will quickly come to the attention of pharmaceutical companies eager to reduce clinical failure rates and eliminate costly animal experimentation. Here are some attributes that make us think that (we’ve seen many of these reflected in efforts by other labs in other organs):

  • Uses human cells
  • Incorporates more than one cell type — including vasculature
  • Simulates the smallest functional unit of the organ, in this case a single air sac
  • Adds physical structure to provide stability, reproducibility and verisimilitude (physics is of critical importance in these systems!)
  • Can potentially be multiplexed for use in screening assays on drug candidates
  • Avoids use of animals

This technology’s new attributes – responses to dynamic forces, use of translucent materials to allow for real-time observation and the ability for cost-effective mass production  – make it truly stand out.

The lung chip represents an interesting bridge between skin models, which are already in widespread use in both the pharmaceutical and the cosmetics industries, and realistic models of even more complex tissues like liver, kidney and heart. These results might also accelerate research on the engineering of replacement tissues for medical use.

In a related article appearing the same day, Science published work from Yale professor Laura Niklason (scientific founder & CSO of a tissue engineering company called Humacyte focused on lab-grown blood vessel grafts) who reconstituted a rat lung in the lab by removing lung cells from a young rat, growing the cells up in a bioreactor and replacing them into the empty lung scaffold in the living animal. She was able to get the reconstituted rat lungs to breathe and behave consistently with normal lungs for a couple of hours.

The lung stories made it big into the media. This well-written press release helped. For instance, the Science Friday show on US National Public Radio ran a 17-minute feature (once on the site, click on link at upper left for Podcast) and the Boston Globe put it on the front page.

Wyss Institute Faculty Portraits: Don Ingber

Don Ingber, Founding Director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University (Photo courtesy Harvard University)

Ingber’s efforts do not stop there. In a lecture we heard him give at Harvard in March, he described efforts to develop “programmable nanomaterials” for implantation  in the body. Other organs the institute is looking at include “peristalsing gut on a chip.” Tissue by tissue, organ by organ, Ingber plans over time to link the models together with “engineered channels carrying fluid” to create “a synthetic human on a chip.” Stay tuned for more news from the fast-moving edge of organotypic tissue culture.

# # #

Abstract from Huh et al. Science paper:

Science 25 June 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5986, pp. 1662 – 1668
DOI: 10.1126/science.1188302

Research Articles

Reconstituting Organ-Level Lung Functions on a Chip

Dongeun Huh,1,2 Benjamin D. Matthews,2,3 Akiko Mammoto,2 Martín Montoya-Zavala,1,2 Hong Yuan Hsin,2 Donald E. Ingber1,2,4,*

Here, we describe a biomimetic microsystem that reconstitutes the critical functional alveolar-capillary interface of the human lung. This bioinspired microdevice reproduces complex integrated organ-level responses to bacteria and inflammatory cytokines introduced into the alveolar space. In nanotoxicology studies, this lung mimic revealed that cyclic mechanical strain accentuates toxic and inflammatory responses of the lung to silica nanoparticles. Mechanical strain also enhances epithelial and endothelial uptake of nanoparticulates and stimulates their transport into the underlying microvascular channel. Similar effects of physiological breathing on nanoparticle absorption are observed in whole mouse lung. Mechanically active “organ-on-a-chip” microdevices that reconstitute tissue-tissue interfaces critical to organ function may therefore expand the capabilities of cell culture models and provide low-cost alternatives to animal and clinical studies for drug screening and toxicology applications.

1 Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
2 Vascular Biology Program, Departments of Pathology and Surgery, Children’s Hospital Boston, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
3 Department of Medicine, Children’s Hospital Boston, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
4 School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

IPO Drought Likely to Last, Boston Globe writes

Scott Kirsner, the Boston Globe’s innovation columnist, on Sunday thoughtfully tackled the question of when the current IPO drought is likely to end. His piece, which makes a nice mention of CBT Advisors, is nominally focused on the Boston area but the sentiments are of course similar in other geographies. Here is an excerpt with a link to the rest of the piece below.

Innovation Economy

IPOs in a holding pattern

Start-ups are ready, when the market is right

By Scott Kirsner Globe Columnist / June 13, 2010

Filing the paperwork for an initial public offering is like buying the perfect bathing suit for a beach party. Yes, you’ve taken the first step by finding something to wear, but you still need people to show up at the party and warm weather, too.

Right now, the forecast isn’t phenomenal for the five Massachusetts companies looking forward to their day in the sun.

“There were some dumb people last year saying that 2010 was going to be a good year for IPOs — and I was among them,’’ said Peter Falvey, cofounder of Revolution Partners, a Boston-based investment bank. “As we’ve seen, the markets have been really unsettled, and when that happens, IPOs are the first thing that shuts down.’’

One of the most recent local offerings, Aveo Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Cambridge biotech working on a drug for kidney cancer, had hoped to sell its shares for between $13 and $15; the shares debuted at $9 in March and have declined since to about $7.50.

Despite the market conditions, a quintet of companies is lined up for their turn, representing diverse sectors of Massachusetts’ innovation economy: energy, consumer-focused services, life sciences, and technology.

■ Newton’s First Wind Holdings Inc. develops and runs six wind farms in states including Maine and Vermont, and has plans to build others; the company originally filed to go public in the summer of 2008, and it hopes to raise as much as $450 million, using the clever ticker symbol WNDY.

■ Zipcar Inc., based in Cambridge, operates the world’s largest car-sharing service, with more than 400,000 members who pay for convenient access to a fleet of 7,000 vehicles.

BG Medicine Inc. is a Waltham company developing blood tests for heart disease and multiple sclerosis.

■ GlassHouse Technologies Inc. of Framingham is a consultancy that helps its clients manage corporate data centers.

■ Ameresco Inc., also based in Framingham, helps customers manage their energy usage.

Of BG Medicine, Steve Dickman of the consulting firm CBT Advisors notes that the company’s tests haven’t yet won approval to be sold in the United States or Canada. “It’s a very promising technology platform, but it’s wishful thinking that they will be able to go public without significant revenue,’’ he wrote in an e-mail.

And Ethan Zindler, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said First Wind may also have a tough time.

+++

You can read the rest of Scott’s article here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Next Feeding Frenzy? VCs Rush Toward diagnostics (!?)

By Steve Dickman, CEO, CBT Advisors

There was a time not long ago when no amount of persuasion could have made most venture capitalists do a diagnostics deal. The reasons abounded: markets were too limited; margins were too low; and the number of potential acquirers too small. So imagine our surprise when the most upbeat session of this year’s c21 investor conference in late May was a panel discussion focused on – you guessed it – molecular diagnostics.

If this is not a feeding frenzy, then at least it seems to be a period of high marketability for private diagnostics companies seeking acquisition exits. Session chair Bill Kreidel of Ferghana Partners described four sell side diagnostics assignments his firm is working on for which multiple bidders had appeared.

What sells? Proprietary content, improvements in speed or sensitivity/specificity, robust datasets, and large markets. Who are the buyers? Clinical labs like Labcorp, naturally, but also instrumentation companies and companies in the imaging business like General Electric that “see diagnostics cannibalizing some of their revenue” and are trying to capture it back, said panelist Dion Madsen of Physic Ventures.

To read the rest of today’s post, visit In Vivo Blog here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Boomerang: Healthcare Innovation Goes Where it Must, To the Developing World

By Malorye Allison* and Steve Dickman, CEO, CBT Advisors

We always thought that innovation in biomedical science started in western countries and pretty much stayed there, where the money is. The role for developing countries, if they ever got their hands on new biomedical technologies at all, was as consumers, not innovators, and not exactly desirable consumers at that.

But lately we have noticed a countervailing trend. We call it “the boomerang”: technologies invented in the developed world that are designed (or re-designed) to work better, cheaper and more efficiently in developing countries. Once every extra penny has been shaved off the cost of goods; once the moving parts have been reduced to the bare minimum to stand up to harsh conditions or other demands; and once the innovations have been adopted by thousands if not millions of consumers, then, their owners figure out how to reintroduce them to the countries whence they originally came.

We are far from the first to observe that the United States is burdened with excess regulation, perverse incentives and entrenched interests barely affected by the recent insurance reform, which was mislabeled “health care reform” (HCR). At the same time, we observe burgeoning opportunity and a willingness on the part of both U.S.-based and developing-world inventors to focus on the less affluent but larger markets outside the United States and Europe. This is turning the markets of the developing world into hotbeds of innovation.

The limitations on implementing new healthcare technologies and delivery approaches in the United States are well known. We will give a couple of examples later on of how new technologies outside the boundaries of reimbursed care (think iPhone apps and Facebook) are leapfrogging the current U.S. healthcare system. But first we will look at some new technological and business innovations in healthcare that are getting their start or at least a big boost elsewhere.

Our thinking about this topic began with a visit to the recent World Health Care Congress (WHCC). This, backed up by an Economist article, convinced us that we are onto something. Some of the next radical or gentle upheavals in surgical techniques, medical devices and healthcare delivery may start in the labs of Minneapolis and Mountain View but then they will be tested and optimized in India, Mexico, Bangladesh and Africa. Eventually, if we are lucky, some of them will return.

At the World Health Care Congress in Washington in early April, we heard Harvard Business School professor and author Clayton Christensen give a fabulous set of talks. Christensen, whose 2009 manifesto The Innovator’s Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care, coauthored with Jerome Grossman, M.D. and Jason Hwang, M.D., was a sensation in healthcare circles, said that US health care “reform” legislation did nothing except to “cement the current unsustainable model.” He said that nothing innovative can really happen in the United States for another ten to twenty years (!). But what’s happening in India and Africa is stunning, he said. “When you have no other options, that’s the perfect model for innovation.”

Clayton Christensen

Clayton Christensen (photo courtesy http://www.claytonchristensen.com)

In another WHCC talk, Grameen Bank founder and Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus pointed to a similar phenomenon. The new paradigm he cited: Build cheap practical versions of high tech tools and clinics that focus on a narrow range of badly needed treatments: think “surgery factories.” Here, the innovation focuses as much on the process of care delivery as it does on the care itself, reminiscent of the “business model innovation” cited by Christensen in The Innovator’s Prescription as one of the key needs of the U.S. healthcare system.

Muhammad Yunus

Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank

Consider eye surgery, ironically one of the profit centers for physicians even in countries like Canada which have “socialized medicine.” In India, for example, Aravind Eye Hospitals can offer $25 cataract surgery. Each doctor at Aravind does about 2000 surgeries a year. As The Economist put it in its startling April 15 survey of developing-world innovation “The World Turned Upside Down”, “Aravind [is] the world’s biggest eye-hospital chain [and] performs some 200,000 eye operations a year. It takes the assembly-line principle literally: four operating tables are laid side by side and two doctors operate on adjacent tables. When the first operation is done, the second patient is already in place.” The price is lower, but the process is still profitable. What a refreshing thought for those of us in countries like the United States, where each incremental innovation feels exponentially more expensive!

Then consider the upstream impact of such massive scale: costs must be lower, so technology must adapt. Krishna Reddy of Care Hospitals said at WHCC that his organization looks at every opportunity to lower costs. When designing a device for heart surgery, for example, they try to make only the part that will touch the heart disposable. In many cases, Aravind and Care have found ways to manufacture their own devices more cheaply than their first-world cousins.

LifeSpring Hospital

LifeSpring Hospital in India

Then look at childbirth. Elsewhere at WHCC, we heard about birthing centers created by LifeSpring in India that, according to The Economist, have reduced the cost of giving birth in a private hospital to $40 by looking after many more mothers. They charge $1.60 for a consultation with a physician and about $38 for an average delivery. They are teaching the people WHY there is value in paying for a delivery (versus mother and child possibly dying on a dirt floor out in the middle of nowhere). They market to husbands and mothers-in-law, and they paint the places cheery colors and make them comfortable and appealing. They are profitable and expanding, and the patients demand quality care for the price, which is of course well below the Western market price. Of course, we surmise that care is available so cheaply only via “paraskilling” e.g. deliveries by midwives or nurses, with physicians in the background if needed, which is not (yet) allowed to such a great extent in the developed world.

How about the business of healthcare? Take electronic medical records, for example, which received a chunk of government support in the US HCR package. India is rolling out a smartcard that can be printed up in any village and contains biometric information along with the patient’s health record. Standards are imposed from above: Local governments have to make sure these cards can be read anywhere if they want to get their share of government funding for the program. About fourteen million cards have been created already and the goal is to get one for each of the 300 million Indians who qualify for this plan, specifically – and only – those poor workers who tend to move a lot. Interestingly, Anil Swarup, Director General in the Indian Ministry of Labour & Employment, said in his talk at WHCC that it is important to charge something, not nothing, otherwise patients don’t think the service has any value and won’t use it. Furthermore, charging something, even very little, shows respect for the patients’ dignity. Swarup claimed that a large part of the project’s success was due to his complete naivete regarding health insurance. Certainly, no one anticipating the usual landmines would have attempted something as simple and yet far-reaching as he appears to be well on his way to achieving.

As more users are brought into the healthcare system, this drives up demand for “low-tech” services such as cheap, practical, point-of-care diagnostics. That theme came up again in a recent lecture by biotech financier and big-picture thinker Stephen Burrill held at MIT on April 14. “China passed its own health care reform in April, 2009,” Burrill said. “They want to provide healthcare for all 1.2 billion of their people.” Just think of the economies of scale! Innovation in low-tech areas such as healthcare delivery will be massively rewarded.

Consider three low-cost healthcare innovations from the developed world described at the World Health Care Congress:

  • Mobisante’s smartphone/ultrasound device: Mobisante has developed a smartphone that can serve as an ultrasound scanner. It stores information, sends images to hospitals for diagnosis, and employs a touch-screen interface


We’ll look at each of these one at a time along with a look at how two boomerangs have already begun to return.

Mobisante: the smartphone-based ultrasound
Mobisante is based in Redmond, WA, and run by Sailesh Chutani, a former Microsoft executive. It has developed a smartphone that can serve as an ultrasound scanner. It stores information, sends images to hospitals for diagnosis, and employs a touch-screen interface.  The first market for the device is the developing world, where its makers say seventy per cent of people cannot get access to ultrasound services. The device will cost approximately $5,000, which may still seem steep by developing nation standards, but will be attractive to public health departments and NGOs, since having access to ultrasound is to vital to many medical diagnoses. Chutani predicts the device will allow ultrasounds that cost less than $1 a patient.

Boomerang: In his talk at WHCC, Chutani said that their next market will be primary care physicians in the developed world.  While the device doesn’t replace high-end ultrasound equipment found in most U.S. hospital radiology departments, it is perfectly suitable for taking “a quick look” for example to confirm a pregnancy or determine that a baby is in the breech position.  Such devices could thus expand the range of services that primary care doctors do, taking business away from specialists.  This could be especially important for the twenty million (!) patients in America treated in community health centers. The needs of this community have traditionally not been the main focus, to say the least, of big-company health care technology developers but that seems to be changing as we shall see below when we come to General Electric.

Mobisante smartphone ultrasound

Mobisante’s ultrasound smartphone

Diagnostics For All’s paper diagnostics laboratory
For a former venture capitalist who used to attend an annual “lab-on-a-chip” conference that was all about silicon, glass and plastic, the appearance of a lab made of paper from Diagnostics For All (DFA) comes as a bit of a shock. It apparently impressed the jury of the WHCC poster competition, which awarded DFA the conference’s top prize. But there it is: a network of channels on a single tiny device routing blood, urine or other bodily fluids to tiny assay spots that give easy-to-detect color readouts. The product is based on the elegant microfluidics and materials science work of the serial biotech entrepreneur George Whitesides of Harvard University and the company’s board is studded with some of Boston’s biotech elite, e.g. former Vertex CEO Josh Boger. According to the non-profit’s web site, the nearly-all-paper chips are “designed for resource-poor settings”, are “less expensive to manufacture and deploy than alternatives” and are intended for populations that would otherwise have no access to the high-tech wonders of the modern diagnostics lab.

The DFA lab-on-a-stamp has not yet boomeranged back to the United States but one could imagine myriad developed-world applications beginning with self-monitoring for disease or for medication compliance.

Diagnostics for All lab-on-a-postage-stamp

Diagnostics For All paper “diagnostics lab”, offering high precision coupled with low cost and robustness required of deployment in “resource-poor settings”

Voxiva: Taking “mHealth” (“mobile health”) to the developing world – and back
Voxiva is one of these U.S.-based innovators that started out serving healthcare providers and patients in developing countries and has already made the leap back to the developed world. The company started in 2001 deploying mobile phones for public health with its disease-outbreak reporting system. Speaking at WHCC, William Warshauer, Voxiva’s Executive Vice President, pointed out that mobile phones are a game-changing technology in public health. By the end of 2010, 90% of people in the world will be living within reach of a cell phone signal. Voxiva anticipated this trend, and has built a range of platforms that use cell phones to address health needs. The company first established the HIV/AIDS health management system in Rwanda which helps that country manage drug stocks and avoid the type of shortages that once plagued them regularly. The power of wireless, Warshauer points out, is that you can not only pull information from multiple sites, you can also push it. The health care worker who is reporting the number of vaccines distributed can get a message back saying “your district is 15th in terms of vaccination rate.”

Boomerang: Recently, Voxiva launched its first service in the United States. Text4baby promotes safe motherhood among lower income women. The service is free to the users because mobile carriers have donated the messages. Women are asked for their due date and zip code and then get three messages a week.

These reports resonate with project work CBT Advisors did last year about how innovations in telemedicine were likely to find their way to the market. Our overpowering conclusion from that assessment was that iPhone apps, distance treatment by physicians and all manner of new services were being introduced both in the developed and developing worlds. But virtually none of it was being reimbursed! The innovation was finding its way to the end users with very little intermediation. And consumers outside of highly regulated countries like the United States were likely to derive earlier advantage from it.

Escaping the morass

While non-profits and for-profits avidly mine developing nations for future health solutions, what do companies here do? Plenty, obviously. But they are plagued by a morass of regulations, some well-meaning and efficient and some just stifling, imposed by a large number of federal and state agencies (HIPAA and FDA to name just two). We attended another conference in Cambridge, this one sponsored by Xconomy and held at the MIT Media Lab. See Xconomy’s report on the conference here.

What caught our attention was how many of the innovations featured at this star-studded conference were “workarounds” for some of the more outdated U.S. regulations. Two excellent examples of this are fax transmission of medical records and transmission of images only on CDs, not over the internet. Most physician offices still do it this way in order to comply with patient privacy regulations under so-called HIPAA rules. Thus the fax and CD have been “locked in.” Other transmission methods might be permitted under the regulations but compliance is so cumbersome that they have not yet been widely implemented.

Hamid Tabatabaie, CEO of Life Image, is focused on providing technology to cut costs for storage and sharing of images, and at the same time improving image quality. One billion medical images are expected to be taken annually in the United States by 2012, with waste that Tabatabaie estimates at $15 billion to $20 billion a year due to repeat imaging. Related to that is the lack of image management abilities in the form of networks for storage, retrieval and sharing of images.

At the Xconomy conference, Tabatabaie showed a slide of a skateboarder and an X-ray image. “We’re here to fix the problem that this guy’s buddies on Facebook saw his wipeout before his surgeon saw his X-ray,” Tabatabaie said. Typically, images are passed around the U.S. health care system on CDs. But many of these CDs never reach the right hands, or don’t work when they get there, which leads to repeat imaging. Life Image, a Massachusetts-based, venture-backed company is like a home page for images. Access to the images is tightly controlled, but once a physician is granted access, she needs only to click a mouse to see them. It has been adopted in nine northeastern U.S. hospital groups and now the company is expanding to Florida.

'His wipeout made it to Facebook before the X-rays made it to the surgeon.'

'His wipeout made it to Facebook before the X-rays made it to the surgeon'


So to put it bluntly, developing-worlders innovate to improve care; we innovate to overcome our own bureaucracy.

Innovation inching closer all the time
Going back to boomerangs: which technologies are likely to turn up soonest on U.S. shores? Some higher-cost technologies are here already. As Christensen pointed out in his talk at WHCC, Pfizer and General Electric (GE) are creating many of their innovative products for the developing world, where there is less regulation to get in the way, and then bringing them to the United States and Europe years later. Last year, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt published an article in Harvard Business Review (“How GE is Disrupting Itself”), outlining why, in healthcare and other markets, GE is pursuing what he and his co-authors dubbed “reverse innovation”. He cited two products that have already boomeranged, a “$1,000 handheld electrocardiogram device and a portable, PC-based ultrasound machine that sells for as little as $15,000.” Both were “originally developed for markets in emerging economies (the ECG device for rural India and the ultrasound machine for rural China) and are now being sold in the United States, where [GE is] pioneering new uses for such machines. They are part of a $3 billion initiative of GE to introduce technologies in the United States that actually lower healthcare costs.

And some of even the more technology- and physician-intensive procedures – think heart surgery – that developing-world-based pioneers have taken on are moving closer to that key milestone. Witness this Nov. 25, 2009 Wall Street Journal piece.

It described the growing franchise of Dr. Devi Shetty, whose hospitals in India perform huge numbers of heart bypass operations (officially called coronary artery bypass graft or CABG) at a price point of $2,000, just a bit below the typical $50,000 to $100,000 charged by Western hospitals – with a lower mortality rate. Dr. Shetty is planning to build and run a new hospital in the Cayman Islands, an hour away from Miami by plane, offering surgeries at a middle-level price point.

Besides heart surgery, what other technologies will arrive soon? The intersection of smartphones and personal health monitoring is one sweet spot. Self-administered diagnostics (think home pregnancy and home HIV testing) and treatment compliance monitoring could be another.

Eventually, maybe even in less than twenty years, market forces are going to even things out. Pricing of healthcare is just so arbitrary and, at least in the United States, so unrelated to value. Yunus has said he hopes to build a health care system that provides quality care so cheaply “even Westerners will want to use it.”

Reading The Innovator’s Prescription again in the wake of healthcare “reform,” we are struck by the observation that there is virtually no reason for any health care provider in the United States to lower prices. Indeed, Harvard’s Christensen wrote, affordable innovation virtually always arises outside of standard systems including healthcare. And the Obama healthcare reform has more or less cemented into place the misplaced incentives. In the book, Christensen identified eight different categories of U.S. healthcare regulation that “now impede disruption and must be changed” (page xliii) i.e. that these regulations are preventing innovation from taking hold. But insurance reform did not affect even one of them! Maybe that’s why he sounded so frustrated in his talk. It’s as if every “must” in the book has been replaced with “won’t.”

So in the United States, we have well-meaning but strangling regulation. Elsewhere, there is rampant innovation. We think we know which will win. One way or another, the innovation we are noticing overseas will soon reach US consumers in ways that will be both remarkable and necessary.

# # #

*Malorye Allison is a Boston-based freelance writer who writes and blogs regularly about innovations in healthcare.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Venter Builds a Bacterium – and a Bio+Technology Company

By Steve Dickman, CEO, CBT Advisors

For a glimpse at the future of biotechnology, we recommend this week’s Economist cover story on Craig Venter and his Science paper describing the creation of a bacterium with a synthetic genome. The accomplishment, which made front pages around the world on Thursday*, reflects a high-profile step along the winding path to a new industry. The new bio+technology will practice true genetic engineering on genomes and organisms, yielding predictable and practical results including – one hopes – cheap and environmentally friendly biofuels.

The Economist story along with an accompanying editorial is available without charge here. The Science paper is similarly free here.

The Economist has done its usual thorough job in this piece. The science and technology editor of many years, Geoff Carr, demanded and got the cover for the story, not to mention three full pages inside. That’s unusual treatment for a science piece. The piece, unattributed, lays out the case for why Venter’s creation is so remarkable: “the first creature since the beginning of creatures that has no ancestor.” As you see from this example, the treatment is somewhat breathless (cue the Frankenstein metaphor) but also persuasive:

• We learn the limitations of Venter’s organism, cobbled together as it was from the carcass of an enucleated bacterium in which the new genome hijacked the cadaver’s protein synthesis machinery.
• We learn the status of Boston-based academic projects like the RNA-based self-replicating life forms that Harvard’s (Nobel laureate) Jack Szostak hopes to create that can mimic what early life may have looked like in a primordial “RNA world.”
• And we learn of next-stage projects like that of another Harvard professor, George Church http://arep.med.harvard.edu/gmc/, who is attempting to engineer a protein-synthesizing ribosome from scratch.
• Finally, we learn the magazine’s view that although technology, which until now been mostly of academic interest, is perhaps still nothing more than a parlor trick (the magazine calls it a “stunt”), there is one big reason to believe that re-engineering of microorganisms is the next big step toward true bio+technology.

That reason derives largely from two diverging exponential curves: the rising productivity of efforts to synthesize DNA; and the cost of said synthesis, which is plummeting. This application of “Moore’s law” leads directly to the conclusion that ever-fancier tricks will lead to ever-more practical and powerful end products, which might include carbon-dioxide-eating, gasoline-producing bacteria. At least this is what Venter wants investors in his company Synthetic Genomics to believe. The case is strengthened by this publication, although in July, 2009, presumably even before the paper was even submitted to Science, Exxon Mobil had promised to invest as much as $600 million in Synthetic Genomics.

Moore's Law of Biology: declining cost, increasing productivity of DNA synthesis

Figure 1: Exponential improvement in the availability of (some of) the stuff of life (Courtesy The Economist)

And therein lies an interesting twist not covered in the article: how the race for a new organism is playing out on the commercial side. It is just thirteen months since the Boston Globe (in April, 2009) announced the demise of the Boston area’s entry to the gene synthesis race, a now-defunct, then five-year-old biotech company called Codon Devices. Codon Devices, a CBT Advisors client, went to market with a strategy of selling synthetic DNA. The company had high-profile advisors, including Church and then-MIT professor Drew Endy, also quoted here. Codon did not lack for high-profile investors, who included Kleiner Perkins, Alloy Ventures and the Boston area’s own Flagship Ventures and Highland Capital. Its corporate slides, presented at BIO 2006 in Chicago, even mentioned “Moore’s law in biology” as a selling point. But the assumption that “if you build it they will come” did not work for a DNA factory. There was a lack of demand for DNA, even long stretches of it, at premium prices.

Codon’s problems included the main one mentioned by the Globe: lack of ability to raise additional venture money during a financial crisis and an IPO drought. But in retrospect it also seems like the company did not forward integrate quickly enough into lucrative end markets, preferring instead to try to supply them all and try thereby to capitalize on its technology advantages. Other gene synthesis companies have recently moved beyond selling genes (e.g. California-based DNA 2.0, which just signed a strategic alliance with a protein expression company) or been sold off (GeneArt in Germany, bought by Life Technologies last month).

Venter’s firm was never content to stop at DNA synthesis alone. It forward-integrated all the way to a new and interesting form of life. Synthetic Genomics has also been quicker and more efficient – not to mention having Venter himself as its marquee spokesman – at finding a deep-pocketed and thus far sustainable base of investors.

We agree that synthetic biology has the potential to be the future of biotech. That’s why we are calling the field it is spawning bio+technology. It will take not just cheap DNA but brilliant bio-architects doing more than parlor tricks to make the new industry a reality.

# # #

*The Belfast Telegraph jumped the gun and broke the Science embargo on publication early on Thursday. That landed the story at the top of the web sites of newspapers and scientific journals around the world a day or so ahead of the original plan.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

VC From Both Sides: “Mastering the VC Game” by Jeffrey Bussgang

A Boston Biotech Watch Book Review

By Steve Dickman, CEO, CBT Advisors

Jeffrey Bussgang’s new book Mastering the VC Game: A Venture Capital Insider Reveals How to Get from Start-up to IPO on Your Terms is a welcome contribution to the literature surrounding venture capital and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs of all stripes, whether in healthcare or information technology or cleantech, stand to benefit from Bussgang’s highly personal and articulate look at the process of raising venture money.

Part how-to, part memoir and part reportage, Bussgang’s book offers a folksy stroll through the gardens and thickets of the venture funding process. What’s more, Bussgang, a general partner at Boston-based Flybridge Capital Partners adds transparency and rationality to many seemingly impenetrable aspects of it.

This is no small feat. To some entrepreneurs, VCs may sound like politicians and football coaches, using words without saying anything. Many entrepreneurs, especially after their business plans have been turned down a few times, see VCs as masters of the universe who talk in zen koans or SilValSpeak. Worse, they see VCs as vapid schemers afloat on oceans of “other people’s money” who will never understand businesses as well as those who run them.

MasteringTheVC_cover Therefore, the rare VC who, like Bussgang, has actually been a successful entrepreneur may come to enjoy a special place in the entrepreneur’s heart. “He’s been where I am” is the basis for what an entrepreneur hopes is the beginning of a beautiful business relationship. In my experience, this is a reasonable expectation. My VC office became a more fair-minded and understanding place when a seasoned entrepreneur joined the team.

Bussgang writes with passion and conviction about how to build a company as much as he does about how to fund one. He comes to authorship having worked with not one but two highly successful startups – first Open Market and then Upromise. Both had great exits (Bussgang writes that he was a “paper millionaire” by the age of 26) and Upromise is still on the scene, albeit as part of Sallie Mae, which acquired it in 2006. Bussgang had an early role in both, especially in Upromise. When he was there, he writes, he and his colleague nervously pitched to the legendary VC John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins. The company went on to win the investment.

It is Bussgang’s crossover history as well as his knack for reporting on the work of others that allows the book to overcome its largest obvious potential flaw: how can Bussgang consider himself a “master” when as an investor he has apparently had only one or two exits?

jeff_bussgangBussgang succeeds because he is a savvy reporter and scores fresh material from some key people in both life sciences and information technology e.g. LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman; Constant Contact’s Gail Goodman; Sirtris’ Christoph Westphal; because he is not afraid to address tough issues, such as differences between a CEO and his or her board of directors; and because he displays an infectious ebullience in relating the ups and downs of both entrepreneurship and investing.

The book owes its existence to some extent to blogging; VC-bloggers are an unusual species, now growing in number, and Bussgang joined their ranks early with his blog Seeing Both Sides: VC Perspectives From a Former Enterpreneur. There, he found satisfaction in sharing some of the steps he took to make his companies successful in both of his careers. The book was a natural next step. Readers can expect pithy and readable answers to questions such as:

1). Should I raise angel money or VC money for my fledgling company? (Bussgang’s checklist is very helpful – I’ve put it to use already in my practice).

2). If I decide to take VC money, how do I approach VCs, by cold call or warm introduction? (The question gives away the answer…)

3). Several VCs are interested in my company; what criteria do I use to choose among them? (It’s not always about the money.)

4). What are the keys to getting along with the VCs who have already invested in my company? (One well-known entrepreneur quoted here called VCs “the hire I could never fire.”)

5). How up-front should I be with information about my company that might be damaging to the company should it fall into the wrong hands? (In my own experience, the answer is to err on the side of saying too much. Being too secretive is one of the worst mistakes I have seen entrepreneurs make.)

Book reviewers are notorious for airing their quibbles so here goes, but I hope they are taken not as a criticism but as a call to action for Bussgang and other VC bloggers everywhere:

It’s good that the book contains a “blog roll”; too bad that it does not go on to cite Twitter feeds about VC and entrepreneurship. The book makes no mention of web-based tools for tracking or understanding the VC industry (“TheFunded.com” comes to mind). There is no chapter – or even a quick aside – on how VC is likely to change (or has already changed) in response to the financial crisis of 2007-2008, a topic obsessing more than a few portfolio companies not to mention would-be entrepreneurs.

I don’t want to spoil it by saying too much more (though a 40-page chunk of the book is available free on Bussgang’s web site. What I will say is that, as an avid reader of the literature about VC (for a list of my previous faves, see below), I find Bussgang’s book to be a welcome addition. By both staying away from technical jargon and avoiding the temptation to reduce his advice to over-general sound bites, Bussgang threads the needle and we all benefit.

# # #

Steve Dickman’s favorite books on VC and entrepreneurship
The First $20 Million is Always the Hardest: A Novel by Po Bronson (1995) – Too sad to be funny and too funny to be sad, Bronson’s fictional tale of a 1990s computing startup rings true and should make the reader immediately pick up Bronson’s other books Nudist on the Late Shift and Bombardiers.

StartUp coverStartUp coverStartup: A Silicon Valley Adventure by Jerry Kaplan (1994) – A self-deprecating and illuminating account of Kaplan’s first venture, a Kleiner Perkins-backed “pentop computing” company that never turned a profit. In a New Yorker interview published after the book came out, Kleiner general partner and former company board member John Doerr said, “[The book] should have been called ‘Screw-Up.’”

Done Deals: Venture Capitalists Tell Their Stories by Udayan Gupta (ed.) (2000) – Like Bussgang’s book, this little-known and somewhat out-of-date work delivers real lessons from real VCs in their own words.)

Lerner Venture Capital Casebook coverVenture Capital and Private Equity: A Casebook by Josh Lerner, Felda Hardymon & Ann Leamon – Lerner, an excellent researcher and writer, is “the source” in academia on VC topics. This book is in the “case” format used at Harvard Business School, where Lerner teaches. The top-listed Amazon reviewer called it “perhaps the only book available on the subject matter.” It is more VC-focused than entrepreneur-focused.

eBoys cover
eBoys: The True Story of the Six Tall Men Who Backed eBay, Webvan and Other Billion-dollar Start-ups
by Randall Stross (2000) – An at times informative, at times adulatory look at life inside Benchmark Capital, one of the most financially successful venture funds of the 1995-2000 era. The anecdotes about funding eBay and WebVan are worth the price of the book.

Burn Rate coverBurn Rate: How I Survived the Gold Rush Years on the Internet by Michael Wolff (1998) – A hilarious and witty romp through the bubble-era world of revenue-free Silicon Alley media startups – Wolff, a long-time columnist for New York magazine, names names and the reader benefits.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized