Lessons for “Lean Start-up” / “Evidence based Entrepreneurs” in Lifesciences: 2

Reducing development & reimbursement risk,

whilst achieving pre-approval sales.

Intercytex Ltd

Paul Kemp, CEO

I spoke recently with Paul Kemp, CEO of cellular therapy company Intercytex, regarding approaches to reducing time, cost and risk in product development and reimbursement.  Including their “Progressive Translation” approach and forthcoming Cell2therapy^TM “Contract Translation Service”.

Development & pre-approval sales

Paul began by outlining two long standing routes to getting product to the patient (in UK) before a formal MHRA marketing license:

·    “Specials” – this applies to any type of medicinal product but has to be a bone fide request from a clinician and can only be used if a licensed alternative is not available, the product can be exported if it is legal to supply unlicensed products to patients in the receiving country.

·    “Hospital Exemption” – for ATMP (i.e. Regen Med & gene therapy) only, and applies even if a licensed alternative is available, provided that the physician determines this is better.  But is hospital use only, and cannot be routine, nor exported. .

He then mentioned the work of Brian Salter, who believes that the development of Stem Cell therapeutic products is predominantly;

·    Science led in The West; so that patients/doctors etc. have to wait until a company delivers a licensed therapy.   It’s a very linear approach, risky and time consuming.

·    Demand led in The East; with an individual patient focus & based upon clinical experience and medical innovation, and is a circular (iterative) processes. (C.f. transplantation in the UK). Hence it’s quicker and less risky.  However, this approach cannot achieve broad application until a marketing license is obtained.

Intercytex have developed a "Progressive Translation” approach, which combines the best of both worlds. This arose during their development of their fibroblast preparation based wrinkle therapy.  They followed the classic linear approach and completed Phase two trials.  Unfortunately the Fibroblast prep was not sufficiently efficacious using the trial’s protocol to make it economically viable.  Part of problem was that in phase 2b one uses “Dose ranging” to determine optimal doses ready for  phase 3.  However, as Paul explained, for cells (cell based products) this is not that relevant – more important is the overall protocol such as number of doses over what time i.e. “Protocol ranging” - and phase 2 approvals don’t allow this!

They were in the classic trap of being locked into a product that does not work (well enough), and nowhere to go – so abandon?  Not in their case: they realised some of their trial physicians were using Fibroblast preps under the Specials procedure to test out as a therapy for Epidermolysis bullosa and scar contractures.  So they pivoted to these applications, and are taking a “time-out” from phase 2 trials.  The clinicians are treating patients under Specials, with “very promising results”, and the information gained is helping to develop a better protocol for use in later trials.  What’s more, clinicians are sometimes able to obtain reimbursement on a “Named Patient” basis.  And all of this is within existing legislation.

The one thing to be particularly careful about, Paul indicated, is that a company cannot promote a Special product nor make any efficacy claims, so that care needs to be taken in getting physicians involved.  Intercytex are looking at the optimum way to interact with clinicians with the current legislative framework

They are establishing Cell2therapy^TM a “Contract Translation Service", in collaboration with UHSM at Wythenshawe in order to provide this to third parties.

The other approach Intercytex are taking to de-risk development is “to build change into the product from the start”.   The issue is once you’ve defined and agreed your product with the regulator, you are locked in.  So subsequent changes need a large effort, to effectively go back to the start.  

Paul’s approach now, is to discuss with the regulator, “testing the water”, to define the minimum aspects necessary to achieve the expected function of the product (effectively an MVP), thereby providing sufficient leeway for later stage product modifications.  This allows process and even product changes, provided “comparability” can be determined.  

He also mentioned, that once in phase 3, there are the more widely know approaches to expediting registration/sales, such as conditional licenses, orphan status, breakthrough product designation….”the national competent authorities around the world have appreciated that the current standard clinical trial process provides a huge burden to a therapy developer, and are working to improve the situation without compromising patient safety.”

Reimbursement games

A further benefit of the specials etc. approach (achieving pre-approval sales), is that “you develop some degree of market pricing”, along with evidence for cost: benefit, which then aids in reimbursement discussions. It’s also the case that patients can pay for specials, hospital exemptions etc. themselves, although co-payment is not possible (in UK).  This helps to de-risks reimbursement negotiations. 

“we are learning the reimbursement games”!

-----

 This post is part of an occasional series exploring lessons for risk, time and cost reduction, and the application of Lean Start-up techniques and Evidence based Entrepreneurialism to Lifescience based start-up companies.  Ideas explored during The Science of Entrepreneurship event, and practiced at Next Business Generation, Nottingham.

Lessons for “Lean Start-up” / “Evidence based Entrepreneurs” in Lifesciences

Tightly define both your product/service offering

 and the customer’s problem that it solves

Imagen Biotech

Rod Benson COO

(10/3/14)

I spoke recently with Rod Benson of Imagen Biotech, which he founded in 2007, with the proposition of being a High Content Screening CRO for Pharma Industry.  As you may recall, around this time HCS was the broadly seen as the new panacea for all the sector’s R&D ills, and many expected that it would fulfil the promise of restoring innovation and productivity to Big Pharma R&D (as had been thought for HTS previously!).  So this seemed like a great idea. 

Rod’s lesson for “Evidence Based Entrepreneurs” (lean start-up) is that a specific tight definition of the problem to be solved and solution to that problem (that you are offering), gives rise to clear and actionable interest, whereas broad multivariate offerings are deceptively well received (false positives), but give little real learning, and do not translate to sales.

Initial discussions with a number of Pharma’s, proposing a service offering based on a broad panel of many different assays within a HCS platform, gave lots of positive indications of interest.  So a business plan was put together, a working bank overdraft of 50K obtained based on a letter of intent from AstraZeneca. Early on they obtained a grant, several small studies and two larger contracts which made the company look as if it was following a healthy start-up trajectory. This allowed them to write an upbeat business plan to raise 400K to upgrade their equipment.  However, things started to “go off the rails” after this 400K investment in 2011.  Sales leads failed to materialize and this continued to grow worse during 2012 resulting in a year on year decrease in turnover. Whilst some of this is likely due to the tough economic conditions and the patent cliff, Rod contends that although the broad service offering created early interest, it leads to a woolly sales message….

“What companies prefer to be told is how they can solve a specific problem [assuming this is so] and that you have a specific answer that will solve this for them”.  

With a cash crisis looming at the end of 2012, they looked around to see what other opportunities where available with the now more developed technology base. Existing collaborative work, with The University of Manchester, showed good clear results in testing for cell death within glioblastoma stem cell cancer samples.  And their own drug discovery program around phenotypic screening of natural product libraries was showing promise. After an initial aborted fundraising attempt and  careful financial modelling of the personalized medicine idea, they concluded that development of a business around personalized chemotherapy had all the “upside” of a blockbuster drug but none of the downside of trying to get a new entity through first phase clinical trials.  Armed with this they wrote a much more focussed plan based solely on personalized chemotherapy and Pivoted from a broad general service offering to a specific one focused on offering a chemosensitivity assay to the NHS and private hospital sector.  With this and a new CEO, they were able to raise investment of ~£1M from a HNW syndicate, which in Rod’s words “happened only just in time”!  Imagen Biotech is now developing this new service platform with a great deal of specific interest from potential customers. 

Could this pivot have happened much earlier?  Actually, not that much.  Neither the screens themselves nor the enabling vision-hardware & software were sufficiently developed at the start, for this possibility to exit even perceptually. 

His conclusion, to reiterate, is that a specific tight definition of the problem to be solved and solution to that problem (that you are offering), gives rise to clear and actionable interest, whereas broad multivariate offerings are deceptively well received (false positives), but give little real learning, and do not translate to sales.

Rod also observed that “Service businesses just don’t [normally] give enough uplift for VCs”.

This post is part of an occasional series exploring lessons for risk, time and cost reduction, and the application of Lean Start-up techniques and Evidence based Entrepreneurialism to Lifescience based start-up companies.  Ideas that will be explored in the forthcoming The Science of Entrepreneurship event, and are practiced at Next Business Generation, Nottingham.

CrowdCure: Combining Philanthropy with Upside Potential

Is CrowdCure the answer to the tricky dilemma of true crowdfunding for biotech start-ups & drug discovery?   To find out I spoke with Charles Groome, founder of the soon to be launched CrowdCure.

Charles is a Neuroscience graduate of UCL, who started his career trading pharmaceutical stocks at financial services firm Knight Capital, and then left to raise a $25 million venture capital fund to invest in early-stage biotech companies focused on longevity. Despite raising commitments for a third of this sum, he failed to secure sufficient funds overall. He also worked to raise seed capital for one of the companies he planned to eventually back, and so encountered most of the life science VCs on both sides of the Atlantic. His conclusion that VC risk and time profiles are inappropriate for drug discovery, is shared by many of us (e.g. see Funds & Fundability).  The success of Kickstarter et al drew his attention, indicating the success of the crowdfunding approach to specific projects, with its philanthropic nature and ability to pool small sums of money from large numbers of people.

He’s not alone in that of course, as many have considered this approach.  The issue is generally how to marry long timescales & high risk with investment to obtain a return.  CrowdCure’s solution is first to tap into philanthropy in the crowd, with the spice of a potential upside if a particular project is eventually successful.  And secondly, to recognise any success as early as possible, by sharing collaborative revenues, as well as acquisition proceeds.

How does it work?  CrowdCure establishes a “Special Purpose Vehicle” company for each project. 

As part of a “Research Financing Agreement” the SPV exclusively licenses Project IP from the Biotech Company seeking funding, and then sub-licenses it back to the Company, who continue to control asset development. All future Project revenue streams from licensing are transferred to the SPV. The SPV has two lines of shares; voting and non-voting. The voting shares are held in trust and the non-voting shares are distributed as “Research Income Rights”^TM (RIR) to the crowdfunders (via the online portal) and to the Biotech company. This is done in line with a third-party attained valuation.

CrowdCure Ltd receives a commission as a % of funds raised, and “Research Drivers LLP”, the SPV trustee shareholder and administration entity (which licenses the whole structure), receives a small % of any future SPV income pre-distribution. CrowdCure Ltd is an Appointed Representative of an FCA Authorised Firm.

If the biopharma asset develops to the point of commercial value, Big Pharma can either sub-license it from the SPV or acquire the SPV outright.

A SPV approach was used a lot in the early days of US biotech, and seems similar to recent approaches taken by Versant and Atlas Ventures (Fierce Biotech articles).  Charles is an advocate, pointing out the benefit for a biotech being able to raise separate funds for each of a portfolio of single projects, and subsequently selling on the projects when new skill sets are needed.  Whilst recognising that the crowd are more interested in backing Projects with a social cause (e.g. cure Alzheimer's) than investing in risky and obscurely named Biotech companies.  Becoming a “Cure Pioneer” recognises their contribution, and motivates along with the chance for upside.  The RIR approach seems to be novel though.

So what are they looking for?  Its early stage pharmaceutical opportunities, pre-clinical, with a validated/proven target being required, and hit discovery welcomed.  They will also check it out thoroughly, conducting VC’esque Due Diligence on the science & data, requiring a sound project plan & budget, and checking out the team & company background, IP etc.  It also has to fit with their portfolio, which will diversify, rarely addressing already invested areas.

CrowdCure sees itself as a global portal “Crowdfunding for Life”, acting as a “Branded Venture Broker”, enabling sophisticated investors, High Net Worths and “qualified investors” (anyone who can answer six questions on their site) to all contribute.  They are planning to be the first UK & USA operating portal.  Appropriate regulatory requirements are in place in UK, and nearing completion in USA.  With launch scheduled for late July, these are exciting times.

They have big plans – by year 5, to raise over £100m and progress at least one project into clinical trials. 

So for the Biotech, an alternative approach to get that early capital so elusive at present, and

for VCs, perhaps a source of future de-risked opportunities, risk-sharing or co-investment?

For the investor, this is high risk investing, and Charles is keen to stress that.  None the less, if you want to do some good in the world, and would appreciate a possible upside as well, this could be worth a look.  As Charles points out, you too can become a “Cure Pioneer”…….

Lifescience / Healthcare Start-up Evolution?

Lean Start-up, Accelerators and Business Model Canvas in Lifescience/Healthcare?

Can the Lifesciences / Healthcare sector’s business start-ups learn from the experience and techniques of the Tech / Digital sectors? I’m thinking particularly of speed to market, and success rates.  If so it this could well boost investment into this sectors start-ups!

As a starting point to investigating this further I’m reviewing/benchmarking the use of three “techniques” within Lifescience/healthcare sector, and would like to ask or your help with this, via three queries.  The aforementioned “techniques” are listed below along with links to brief Linked-In polls.  Many thanks in anticipation of your help - I will of course freely publish the results on my Blog!

1.      The rise of the Tech Accelerators such as the original Y-Combinator and TechStars, and a number of followers in USA & Europe, are a testament to the success of the Accelerator approach (reviewed by NESTA report Start Up Factories, and utilising community based approach elaborated by Brad Feld www.startuprev.com).  Until the recent Health Wildcatters launch in Dallas and Harvard announcement for funding of a new healthcare accelerator, there appeared to be none active in our sector. Are you aware of any others existing or planned?

Poll: http://linkd.in/12wJRSl

Related are the “Lean Start-up” , movement developed by Eric Ries (theleanstartup.com), and the Business Model Generation techniques of Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur (www.businessmodelgeneration.com.  In particular techniques such as Minimum Viable Product and Business Model Canvascanvas.  These are reviewed in brief article by Steve Blank, Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything (hbr.org/2013/05/why-the-lean-start-up-changes-everything/ar/1).

 Are you aware of these techniques being used in Lifesciences / Healthcare sub-sectors?

2.      Lean Start-up                              Poll: http://linkd.in/17oPuHR

3.      Business Model Canvas             Poll: http://linkd.in/17oPl7b

I look forward to receiving your input.

Many thanks

Nick
nickpope@biospring.co.uk

Funding for Innovative Drug Discovery: UK 2012

Networked Pharma – Finance (NWkRx F8)

 Networked Pharma’s Workshop

Funds and Fundability, 28^th June 2012

Executive Summary

Networked Pharma’s “Funds and Fundability” workshop examined the evolving funding ecosystem (equity, collaboration & grant) and the future role of open innovation (OI) for early stage drug discovery.

Key opinion leaders were joined by 60 participants from diverse stakeholder backgrounds, for presentations and facilitated discussions (report available on request).  Workshop website.

Key Findings

A.  Investor consensus surprisingly positive for biotech/pharma sector.

o There are hidden / ‘below the radar’ fundraisings occurring,

o Although the old investment model is dead in UK, and the public markets closed, there is now a new model of a single large investment sufficient to go all the way to achieve an exit by trade sale.

o Funds are emerging with “Patient” Capital (i.e. they are prepared to wait long enough for value creation to occur).  However, more are needed.

B.   UK is good at producing lean companies with 1 or 2 products that are sold-off too soon for early exit and financial return:

“You Brits are very good a creating ‘Veal’ ready for slaughter”

Participant quoting a USA colleague                           

Rather than being prepared to wait and build a self-sufficient multi-product company and so realise the full potential value. 

“We need the fodder to build ‘Beef’”     Serial biotech entrepreneur

More Patient capital is needed for this and probably the public markets.

“Are we prepared to be patient?”   VC

Sector needs

1.      A new / “better” way to capture information on fundraisings.  Many current investments are “under the radar” as different types of investor are now involved, and there is no need for publicity. This will enable us all to know what is actually happening and to recognise successes.

2.      A better way to recognise our UK pharma/biotech company successes, and new measures to assist with this (not just financial).

3.      Support for entrepreneurs to decide which of the funding sources to approach: i.e. Fill the information gap between funders (of all types including government/research bodies) and those looking for funding

1. Which of the three “silos” of equity investor’s to approach, and who to contact therein? The three silos rarely interact: 1. VC/CVC, 2. Angels/regional funds, & 3. Public-listed funds.
2. Which grant funding and other non-equity sources are applicable to given types/stages of projects/companies, and who to contact?

4.      More equity funds that straddle the three silos.

5.      The creation of some biotech/pharma Sector Champions (“Beef”) in UK, and more investors prepared to be “patient” (prepared to wait 10+ years to develop full value and achieve such champions).

6.      Engagement of the public markets with biotech.

7.      More specific information and better information sources on OI & Crowdsourcing within Drug discovery, and where entrepreneurs can go for advice.

8.      Support for entrepreneurs to establish effective collaborative relationships, utilising open innovation /crowdsourcing, collaborative projects and (open) networks.

Action

NetworkedPharma is now establishing collaborative networks to address the above, and welcomes approaches from those interested in the possibility of working together for the good of the sector.  As a not-for-profit organisation we are also interested in discussions with potential patrons / sponsors / supporters.                       

Our next workshop on Open Innovation& Crowd Sourcing will be in April 2013.

BioSpring Ltd is a member of Networked Pharma Partnership, a not for profit organisation dedicated to assisting development of a new paradigm for drug discover & development

Networked Pharma Partnership; Building Innovative Networks in Drug Discovery & Development

A series of workshops are being run during 2012, leading to an international congress in mid 2013, which will bring together all stake-holders (Corporate Pharmas, SMEs, CROs, Universities, VCs, CVCs, Research Councils, Charities, Regulators & Government bodies etc.) to formulate the new business model(s) for the future success of the industry.

Follow us:

Twitter @NWkPharma,      #NWkRx

The Changing Nature of investing in early Pharma / Biotech: Poll Result

Networked Pharma – Finance (NWkRx F7)

I ran the Linked In Poll below as a prelude to Thursday's Funds & Fundability workshop in London http://www.networkedpharma.com/funding,:

According to those that responded Open Innovation and Crowd-funding will have greatest impact on drug discovery,more than even Corporate VC investment, and perhaps most interesting VCs where seen as the least significant!

I await with anticipation the outcomes form the workshop itself! 

NB there will be some register on the day places available http://www.networkedpharma.com/funding

BioSpring Ltd is a member of Networked Pharma Partnership, a not for profit organisation dedicated to assisting development of a new paradigm for drug discover & development

Networked Pharma Partnership; Building Innovative Networks in Drug Discovery & Development

A series of workshops are being run during 2012, leading to an international congress in early 2013, which will bring together all stake-holders (Corporate Pharmas, SMEs, CROs, Universities, VCs, CVCs, Research Councils, Charities, Regulators & Government bodies etc.) to formulate the new business model(s) for the future success of the industry.

Follow us:

Twitter @NWkPharma,      #NWkRx

Future View of VC investing in early Pharma / Biotech: The CVC Perspective

Networked Pharma – Finance (NWkRx F6)

 I recently spoke with one of the more active Corporate VCs (CVC) regarding the existence 

of the funding gap in early pharma discovery, the reasons for it, and what the future holds.

There is a funding gap in early drug discovery - but not an insurmountable one!

Previously the investment model in Europe for general VCs assumed funding to a proof of principle and then floatation on a public market or trade sale to Pharma company.  However as the public markets do not understand biotech (nor do generalist VCs) share prices are highly volatile and single poor trial results are catastrophic for share prices.  Hence appetite for biotechs became poor in early 2000’s, and so VCs could see no exit that way.  Also Big Pharma have stringent requirements for in licensing and often VCs were not able (insufficient funds) or unwilling (required cost of capital by their investors necessitates shorter timescales) to continue funding sufficiently to achieve the proof needed by Pharma.

Part of the problem was “naive money” ie from general VC’s inexperienced in the sector.  There is now a gap in early funding as the general VCs have pulled out of the sector, although some still have portfolio company legacies.

Being a “Biotech VC is completely different from other VCs, including Tech.”

So what of the specialist funds?  There are (in the interviewees view) a small group of “tier one” specialist biotech VCs that are, or will be, active:

·       VC:

Abbingworth, Imperial Innovations, Index, MVM, Phase4ventures (ex.Nomura), Sofinova, SVLS (Shroders).

·      Corporate VC (CVC) – those that are wholly or largely independent from Pharma HQ influence:

Lundbeck, Novartis, Novo, Pfizer, SR One.

These generally have longer timescales and larger pots of money for investment.  However at present most of the Biotech VC have either run out of money, or are at 5yr+ stage of 10 year fund and so have to keep funds for follow-on investment.  So few are investing (e.g. Sofinova & SVLS who both have ~7 years left on their funds, and Imperial with its longer term approach).  The rest are actively fundraising early stage funds.  Hence the gap is [at least in part] temporary, awaiting fundraisings. The CVCs are actively investing and moving to earlier stage opportunities.

Another issue has been that companies spin-out too soon, with small investment from small funds, Angels etc and then have to find more money to develop further.  The incumbent investors have insufficient funds and as the technology is still not sufficiently demonstrated, so

1.      Larger VCs are not interested or only so with terms which dilute the existing shareholders so much that they will not agree,

2.      Pharma is not yet interested in licensing, or a very poor set of terms is achieved, and/or

3.      Company has to switch to a much lower-value service model to survive.

None of which is a desirable situation for anyone.

The CVC would prefer companies to be incubated longer in universities “until they are really ready”, perhaps with a £50-100k “investment” from a CVC to enable some critical proof of concept work (with a gentlemen’s agreement for first chance to discuss next steps assuming success), and then spin out with major investment by party(ies) with deep enough pockets to see it through to exit (trade sale).

So what are they looking to invest in?   Something really new, which may be a service business, but more likely a game changing innovation that has potential to satisfy unmet medical need, is likely a new mode of action, and most certainly is not only approvable but also reimbursable!  The latter needs a step change in clinical outcomes.  So no longer improvements on existing drugs e.g. new delivery methods or me-toos, as Big Pharma will do this themselves.  Regarding reprofiling: there is still a short window of opportunity, but eventually Big Pharma will be doing this. 

What Big Pharma ultimately want to acquire is the game changing new drug, and so that is what the VCs want to invest in.  This will be high value, with a high hurdle rate, necessitating large investment.  The VC has to consider all risk, not just the technological (R&D) risk that is mainly considered- including ability to exit, and shareholder dynamics risk (sufficient funds, dilution etc).  Hence there will be fewer investments, of great amounts, with funds being more focussed. 

Imperial, MVM and SR One are all speaking at Networked Pharma’s Funds & Fundability workshop on June 28^th in London http://www.networkedpharma.com/funding, and will share the panel discussion with serial entrepreneurs Andy Richards and Julian Gilbert.

BioSpring Ltd is a member of Networked Pharma Partnership, a not for profit organisation dedicated to assisting development of a new paradigm for drug discover & development

Networked Pharma Partnership; Building Innovative Networks in Drug Discovery & Development

A series of workshops are being run during 2012, leading to an international congress in early 2013, which will bring together all stake-holders (Corporate Pharmas, SMEs, CROs, Universities, VCs, CVCs, Research Councils, Charities, Regulators & Government bodies etc.) to formulate the new business model(s) for the future success of the industry.

Follow us:

Twitter @NWkPharma,      #NWkRx

Open Innovation in early Pharma: #2

Networked Pharma – Finance (NWkRx F5)

I recently spoke with Harry Wilson of Innocentive’s UK office about Open Innovation & Crowdsourcing in Pharma discovery.

Innocentive originally spun out from Lilly, and their UK office was obtained by acquiring Omnicomplete (itself a spinout of LBS).  They operate as a platform where “seekers” can post their R&D “Challenges”, and solvers post their responses. The seeker often stays anonymous and the responses are held confidentially. Solvers are selected on a basis of submitted plans, with the financial reward only being paid out if solvers meet the pre-defined criteria. In this way, seekers only pay for results, not research time.

Most of their work so far has been pharmaceutical, although they are now diversifying.  Seekers are companies, charities, and other organisation. 

There are three levels of challenge available to a seeker (with increasing price for the service), Brainstorm (self-service using their platform), Premium (which involves their experts) and a Grand Challenge which is “transformative” in the world and is phased with intermediate challenges. The latter involves therapy area experts, and is typified by the recently successfully completed $1m Prize4Life which sought to identify a biomarker for ALS (needed to reduce timescale and costs of clinical trials).  See their case study blog.

Recent developments are;

• Combining Crowsourcing with Crowdfunding, via the peer-to-peer philanthropy marketplace GlobalGiving, and the Rockefeller Foundation, to crowdsource solutions to problems facing vulnerable communities. Blog.
• Discussing with VCs the possibility of combining activities in “Prize Venturing”

Although neither of these are specifically pharmaceutical, they are interesting as new approaches worth considering.

Siobhan Gibney Gomis, Senior Director of Operations Grand Challenges, and Deputy Head of EMEA, InnoCentive, will be attending the Networked Pharma Funds & Fundability workshop on 28^th June in London http://www.networkedpharma.com/funding.

BioSpring Ltd is a member of Networked Pharma Partnership, a not for profit organisation dedicated to assisting development of a new paradigm for drug discover & development

Networked Pharma Partnership; Building Innovative Networks in Drug Discovery & Development

A series of workshops are being run during 2012, leading to an international congress in early 2013, which will bring together all stake-holders (Corporate Pharmas, SMEs, CROs, Universities, VCs, CVCs, Research Councils, Charities, Regulators & Government bodies etc.) to formulate the new business model(s) for the future success of the industry.

Follow us:

Twitter @NWkPharma,      #NWkRx

Open Innovation in early Pharma: #1

Networked Pharma – Finance (NWkRx F4)

I recently spoke with Jordi Rafols of Innoget, regarding open innovation and the Innoget platform. We began by Jordi  distinguished OI from crowdsourcing as follows:

Crowdsourcing:

• Operates on a shared responses basis, with no confidentiality nor contractual agreements. Individuals post responses to a request and all can see all responses.
• Good for ideas generation, consumer insights, marketing innovation.

Open innovation:

• Operates on confidential response basis. Does not pool responses.

Innoget’s website http://www.innoget.com/ acts as a portal for open innovation, where technology requests or technology offerings can be posted, anonymously if desired, and responses are then made via the website.

Jordi will elaborate further on this approach and its application to pharma discovery during Networked Pharma’s Networked Pharma Funds & Fundability workshop at Holiday Inn, Regents Park, London, on 28^th June.

The workshop will examine who is funding, what they are funding and what makes a fundable investment, as well as the rise of open innovation & crowdsourcing. Jordi will be joined by speakers from biotech, VC, CVC, Pharma, CROs, BBSRC, the Wellcome Trust, TSB/KTN and others. For more information and to register see www.networkedpharma.com/funding.

BioSpring Ltd is a member of Networked Pharma Partnership, a not for profit organisation dedicated to assisting development of a new paradigm for drug discover & development

Networked Pharma Partnership; Building Innovative Networks in Drug Discovery & Development

A series of workshops are being run during 2012, leading to an international congress in early 2013, which will bring together all stake-holders (Corporate Pharmas, SMEs, CROs, Universities, VCs, CVCs, Research Councils, Charities, Regulators & Government bodies etc.) to formulate the new business model(s) for the future success of the industry.

Follow us:

Twitter @NWkPharma,      #NWkRx

The Changing Nature of investing in early Pharma / Biotech: Serial Entrepreneurs' Perspective

Networked Pharma – Finance (NWkRx F3)

I spoke with Andy Richards earlier today (15^th June 2012) regarding the perceived funding gap for drug discovery.

Andy’s view is that although there is a gap, it is not as large as generally perceived.  There is much more money available, people interested in investing, and [equity] funding going on, than is generally thought.  It’s just that it is coming from alternative (non-VC) sources which are not recorded in the generally used statistics, such as High Net Worth individuals, CVCs, sovereign wealth funds and pension funds.

Also such investment is being used to grow assets/products for selling off, rather than to build big companies (a point also made by Julian Gilbert in a recent discussion). Consequently there is little infrastructure building or PR activities undertaken, and so such companies and investment deals are much less visible than in previous times!

Both Andy and Julian will elaborate on their perspectives during the Networked Pharma Funds & Fundability workshop at Holiday Inn, Regents Park, London, on 28^th June.

The workshop will examine who is funding, what they are funding and what makes a fundable investment, as well as the rise of open innovation & crowdsourcing. Andy & Julian will be joined by speakers from VC and CVC, Pharma, CROs, BBSRC, the Wellcome Trust, TSB/KTN and others. For more information and to register see www.networkedpharma.com/funding.

BioSpring Ltd is a member of Networked Pharma Partnership, a not for profit organisation dedicated to assisting development of a new paradigm for drug discover & development

Networked Pharma Partnership; Building Innovative Networks in Drug Discovery & Development

A series of workshops are being run during 2012, leading to an international congress in early 2013, which will bring together all stake-holders (Corporate Pharmas, SMEs, CROs, Universities, VCs, CVCs, Research Councils, Charities, Regulators & Government bodies etc.) to formulate the new business model(s) for the future success of the industry.

Follow us:

Twitter @NWkPharma,      #NWkR
x