Bio­science in­dus­try stake­hold­er col­lab­o­ra­tion key to ad­dress­ing in­equal­i­ty

Biotech Voices is a collection of exclusive opinion editorials from some of the leading voices in biopharma on the biggest industry questions today. Think you have a voice that should be heard? Reach out to Amber Tong.

When a glob­al pan­dem­ic hit, the bio­science in­dus­try an­swered the call for vac­cines and ther­a­pies in record time, which will save mil­lions of lives. This re­sponse was pos­si­ble be­cause of a sus­tained in­vest­ment of risk-cap­i­tal by the ven­ture cap­i­tal in­dus­try in life sci­ences com­pa­nies, peak­ing in 2020. Great sci­en­tists, vi­sion­ary lead­er­ship and high-qual­i­ty in­vestors that backed new sci­ence and bold en­tre­pre­neurs led to the in­no­v­a­tive tech­nolo­gies of BioN­Tech and Mod­er­na that con­tributed to the ini­tial Covid-19 vac­cines.

As the sec­tor right­ly basks in the glow of this year’s ac­com­plish­ments, there is a con­cur­rent re­al­i­ty to con­front. Covid-19 has fur­ther ex­posed the in­equities in so­ci­ety, dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly im­pact­ing women and mi­nori­ties. This im­bal­ance is al­so ev­i­dent in the bio­science com­mu­ni­ty, pro­vok­ing many lead­ers to act on in­equal­i­ty.

Ven­ture cap­i­tal­ists find­ing rea­sons to change

The ven­ture cap­i­tal in­dus­try, not on­ly with­in life sci­ences, has well-doc­u­ment­ed chal­lenges with di­ver­si­ty, eq­ui­ty and in­clu­sion. On­ly 2.6% of to­tal VC fund­ing in 2020 has gone to Black and Lat­inx founders, and fund­ing for fe­male founders has sunk to lev­els not seen since 2017. De­spite that, I per­ceive a grow­ing ap­petite for change. The ques­tion is – How?

In VC firms, the low at­tri­tion of in­vest­ment part­ners and the lim­it­ed ex­pan­sion of firms lim­its ca­reer op­por­tu­ni­ties for the many tal­ent­ed As­so­ci­ates and Prin­ci­pals that rep­re­sent the fu­ture. With no vis­i­ble route to part­ner, these em­ploy­ees seek op­por­tu­ni­ty else­where, out­side ven­ture cap­i­tal. The loss of such tal­ent re­duces the chance to in­tro­duce more di­ver­si­ty among a ven­ture firm’s part­ner ranks.

A lack of di­ver­si­ty among VCs great­ly in­flu­ences in­vest­ment de­ci­sions and cap­i­tal al­lo­ca­tion. For ex­am­ple, re­search shows how in­ter­ac­tions with in­vestors dif­fer be­tween men and women en­tre­pre­neurs (We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Clos­ing the Gen­der Gap in Start­up Fund­ing. Kanze, Huang, Con­ley and Hig­gins). The ques­tions di­rect­ed at men ex­plore the size and mag­ni­tude of the op­por­tu­ni­ty. In con­trast, women are more like­ly to be ques­tioned about pre­ven­tion fac­tors and down-side risk.

Cre­at­ing a new com­pa­ny in life sci­ences, and grow­ing it, in­vari­ably re­lies on ven­ture fi­nance. VC firms have a strong in­flu­ence over the com­pa­ny build­ing process, in­clud­ing the com­po­si­tion of boards and se­nior man­age­ment, as well as the tal­ent and cul­ture. In­suf­fi­cient di­ver­si­ty among ven­ture in­vestors can lim­it a port­fo­lio com­pa­ny’s com­pet­i­tive­ness in the tal­ent mar­ket be­cause di­verse can­di­dates se­lect em­ploy­ers where they see them­selves rep­re­sent­ed and suc­cess­ful. Just 3% of VC in­vest­ing part­ners are racial or eth­nic mi­nori­ties and around 11% are women. This leads to an ex­ist­ing bias among VCs to­wards his­tor­i­cal suc­cess pat­terns, which has been to the detri­ment of mi­nori­ties and women.

Pri­vate com­pa­nies re­act to pub­lic mar­ket re­quire­ments

The re­cent Nas­daq pro­pos­als to the SEC on board di­ver­si­ty and dis­clo­sure, along­side new state laws and reg­u­la­tions, are forc­ing many pub­lic com­pa­nies to be­come more di­verse. Mean­while, pri­vate com­pa­nies in the bio­science sec­tor re­main strong­ly in­flu­enced by ven­ture in­vestors who many per­ceive as pas­sive re­gard­ing di­ver­si­ty and in­clu­sion.

The in­ter­play be­tween ven­ture in­vestors and port­fo­lio com­pa­nies is a source of great op­por­tu­ni­ty to ad­vance DE&I in the sec­tor. In­creas­ing di­ver­si­ty will cre­ate val­ue for all stake­hold­ers, and re­duce the fric­tion points as com­pa­nies tran­si­tion from pri­vate ven­ture own­er­ship to the pub­lic mar­kets. Chang­ing the com­po­si­tion of the board and the man­age­ment team takes time and en­er­gy and can cause a com­pa­ny to lose vi­tal mo­men­tum. Cul­ture is of­ten seed­ed ear­ly in a com­pa­ny’s life and pos­i­tive­ly ad­dress­ing cul­ture from the get-go re­duces the need for cul­tur­al cor­rec­tions as a com­pa­ny ma­tures.

The pow­er of the col­lec­tive

For small com­pa­nies, with­out the ex­per­tise and hu­man cap­i­tal, the in­tent to im­ple­ment DE&I prac­tices, tools and poli­cies of­ten fails. Prac­tices bor­rowed from large in­ter­na­tion­al com­pa­nies are not rou­tine­ly ef­fec­tive ei­ther.

The range and com­plex­i­ty of DE&I is­sues com­pa­nies need to tack­le, make the task daunt­ing and com­pli­cat­ed. In­stead of or­ga­ni­za­tions in­di­vid­u­al­ly piec­ing to­geth­er a DE&I strat­e­gy, con­stituents have an op­por­tu­ni­ty to work col­lab­o­ra­tive­ly and pre-com­pet­i­tive­ly to de­vel­op DE&I so­lu­tions that are de­signed for the op­er­a­tional re­quire­ments of ven­ture cap­i­tal firms and ven­ture-backed pri­vate com­pa­nies. The Bio­science & In­vestor In­clu­sion Group (BI­IG) is one such op­por­tu­ni­ty (www.bioin­clu­sion.org).

Bio­science & In­vestor In­clu­sion Group chan­nels col­lec­tive com­mu­ni­ty ac­tion; some­thing the bio­science sec­tor does well. BI­IG en­ables com­pa­nies and in­di­vid­u­als to con­tribute their per­spec­tive or ex­pe­ri­ence to struc­tured work­ing groups ini­tial­ly pri­or­i­tiz­ing In­vestor In­ter­ac­tions; Hir­ing and On­board­ing, and Peo­ple Growth and Re­ten­tion. The DE&I so­lu­tions BI­IG de­vel­ops will be freely ac­ces­si­ble to help ad­vance and ac­cel­er­ate DE&I in the in­dus­try.

When in­vestors and en­tre­pre­neurs link arms in the face of chal­leng­ing prob­lems, they are ca­pa­ble of re­mark­able achieve­ments. This uni­ty and the open and col­lab­o­ra­tive spir­it of the bio­science com­mu­ni­ty can tack­le an­oth­er big prob­lem the sec­tor must con­front — in­equal­i­ty.

Karl Simp­son is the CEO of Lift­stream and a founder of The Bio­science & In­vestor In­clu­sion Group.

Biotech Voic­es is a con­tributed col­umn from se­lect End­points News read­ers. Read more here.

Has the mo­ment fi­nal­ly ar­rived for val­ue-based health­care?

RBC Capital Markets’ Healthcare Technology Analyst, Sean Dodge, spotlights a new breed of tech-enabled providers who are rapidly transforming the way clinicians deliver healthcare, and explores the key question: can this accelerating revolution overturn the US healthcare system?

Key points

Tech-enabled healthcare providers are poised to help the US transition to value, not volume, as the basis for reward.
The move to value-based care has policy momentum, but is risky and complex for clinicians.
Outsourced tech specialists are emerging to provide the required expertise, while healthcare and tech are also converging through M&A.
Value-based care remains in its early stages, but the transition is accelerating and represents a huge addressable market.

Alaa Halawaa, executive director at Mubadala’s US venture group

The ven­ture crew at Mubadala are up­ping their biotech cre­ation game, tak­ing care­ful aim at a new fron­tier in drug de­vel­op­ment

It started with a cup of coffee and a slow burning desire to go early and long in the biotech creation business.

Wrapping up a 15-year discovery stint at Genentech back in the summer of 2021, Rami Hannoush was treated to a caffeine-fueled review of the latest work UCSF’s Jim Wells had been doing on protein degradation — one of the hottest fields in drug development.

“Jim and I have known each other for the past 15 years through Genentech collaborations. We met over coffee, and he was telling me about this concept of the company that he was thinking of,” says Hannoush. “And I got immediately intrigued by it because I knew that this could open up a big space in terms of adding a new modality in drug discovery that is desperately needed in pharma.”

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Rohan Palekar, 89bio CEO

89bio’s PhII da­ta add to quick suc­ces­sion of NASH read­outs as field seeks turn­around

89bio said its drug was better than placebo at lessening fibrosis without worsening nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH, in two of three dose groups.

The San Francisco biotech said it thinks the Phase IIb data pave the way for a potential Phase III, following in the footsteps of another biotech in its drug class, Akero Therapeutics. To fund a late-stage study, CEO Rohan Palekar told Endpoints News 89bio “would need to raise additional capital,” with the company having about $188 million at the end of last year.

Flare Therapeutics biochemists Yong Li (L) and Valerie Vivat

A $123M Flare will get Third Rock on­col­o­gy biotech in­to the clin­ic this year

Flare Therapeutics will start its first human trial this year with an investigational urothelial cancer drug after pulling together a $123 million Series B from Big Pharmas, VCs and its incubator, Third Rock Ventures.

Launched in 2021 on the idea that a biotech could finally succeed at drugging the much-sought-after but stubborn transcription factor, Flare Therapeutics said Wednesday it is now primed for the clinic after closing its large financing haul earlier this year. The raise is a relatively stark figure in a tough startup financing environment but further buoys the upbeat signals coming out of other Third Rock biotechs in recent weeks, including the $200 million CARGO Therapeutics and $100 million Rapport Therapeutics rounds.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 163,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Roche and Lil­ly team up to de­vel­op blood test to de­tect ear­ly signs of Alzheimer's

Eli Lilly is teaming up with Roche to help develop a blood test to detect early signs of Alzheimer’s disease and determine whether a patient should go for further confirmatory testing.

Roche’s Elecsys Amyloid Plasma Panel (EAPP) measures pTau 181 protein assay and APOE E4 assay in human blood plasma – elevations in pTau 181 are present in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, while the presence of APO E4 is the most common genetic risk factor for the disease.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 163,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Francesco Marincola, newly-appointed Sonata Therapeutics CSO

Kite's head of re­search leaves for Flag­ship start­up Sonata

Another leader is departing Kite Pharma, and will to spend the “last part” of his career exploring how cancer evades the immune system.

Kite’s senior VP and global head of cell therapy research Francesco Marincola left the Gilead CAR-T unit last week for Sonata Therapeutics. Flagship last May unveiled the startup, which was pieced together from two fledgling biotechs Inzen and Cygnal Therapeutics. As CSO, Marincola will lead Sonata’s push to reprogram cancer cells to make them more immunogenic.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 163,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA in­di­cates will­ing­ness to ap­prove Bio­gen ALS drug de­spite failed PhI­II study

Ahead of Wednesday’s advisory committee hearing to discuss Biogen’s ALS drug tofersen, the FDA appeared open to approving the drug, newly released briefing documents show.

Citing the need for flexibility in a devastating disease like ALS, regulators signaled a willingness to consider greenlighting tofersen based on its effect on a certain protein associated with ALS despite a failed pivotal trial. The documents come after regulatory flexibility was part of the same rationale the agency expressed when approving an ALS drug last September from Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, indicating the FDA’s openness to approving new treatments for the disease.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 163,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Josep Bassaganya-Riera, NImmune Biopharma

Ex­clu­sive: Af­ter get­ting his drug back, Lan­dos founder as­sem­bles new start­up for the big PhI­II test

By the time Josep Bassaganya-Riera stepped down as founding CEO of Landos Biopharma in 2021, the company had racked up Phase II data for its top autoimmune program, completed what he called a positive end-of-Phase-II meeting with the FDA and plans to launch pivotal Phase III trials.

Since then, though, the new leaders at Landos have reshuffled their plans for the drug, omilancor, first announcing they will run a Phase IIb ahead of a Phase III and eventually shelving it altogether.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

NIH re­jects an­oth­er at­tempt to 'march-in' on Astel­las' prostate can­cer drug over ex­ces­sive price

The National Institutes of Health has again declined to use so-called “march-in” rights to lower the price of Astellas and Pfizer’s prostate cancer drug Xtandi despite being invented at UCLA with grants from the US Army and NIH.

“Given the remaining patent life and the lengthy administrative process involved for a march-in proceeding, NIH does not believe that use of the march-in authority would be an effective means of lowering the price of the drug,” NIH told prostate cancer patients Robert Sachs and Clare Love, in a letter shared with Endpoints News. The institutes’ analyses found Xtandi “to be widely available to the public,” an indication that there was not a pressing need for the US to act.