Thought bubbles on the way back from the Sach’s IO Biopartnering meeting, a very interesting event:
- The Sach’s Conferences are small, focused and diverse. Sach’s is much better known in Europe than in the US, and the NYC location brings European firms and companies into the fold. Therefore you meet interesting people you might otherwise never come across.
- When in provincial Cambridge Massachusetts, i.e. the village of Kendall Square and environs, we visualize investors as the VCs that are in the square, across the river in Boston, or out in Waltham. With more experience one might add investment and hedge funds and the associated bankers of greater Boston. What you find in NY is an entirely new investment ecosystem, one that is very active and a good crowd to know. fyi, you won’t find these guys at Area 4 or Voltage.
- It follows that similar ecosystems exist on the west coast, in Europe (France stands out), England’s golden triangle (London >>> Cambridge >>> Oxford), and in diverse far flung locales (Tel Aviv, Singapore, Hong Kong to name just a few). While many firms have preferred investment geographies, all of them are aggressively spreading their money further afield. It is well worth getting to know as many investors as possible, worldwide.
Science and deals:
- The conference cliche was “good science wins”. This sounds trite but contains an essential kernel of truth applicable to the suddenly challenging financial landscape. We should remember that, since 2014, VCs and other investors raised massive funding rounds. This money will need to be invested during each fund’s life cycle (these average about 5 years). Equally large hordes of cash are sitting inside of large biopharma and on the balance sheets of newly IPO’d companies. The upshot of all this is that “good science” has a good chance of attracting financing.
- A second theme, less of a cliche and more of a hope, was that M&A activity will surge in 2016 due to the suddenly more affordable valuations of small and midsize biotech. In this scenario the biggest biopharmas will get bigger by buying up a bunch of smaller companies – but do we believe they will all buy “good science”? Investors may harbor a doubt about this, but we’ll see.
- So what is “good science”: I’d argue that in the IO space good science in small biotechs has one or more of the following qualities:
- Novel IO assets, IO combinations and bispecific antibodies that will synergize with existing checkpoint inhibitors.
- Next generation vaccines, oncolytics, small molecule inhibitors that have tumor cell cytotoxic activity and/or immune activating activity. This is a broad class with assets of diverse MOA and quality, but winners will emerge here.
- CAR-T and TCR 5.0 (or 6.0) – whatever that will be.
- Personalized medicine solutions that guide treatment choices.
What can we observe now? Can we recognize “good science”?
Lets dial back a week or so to the response to three talks given in the cellular therapy session at the recent AAAS meeting: (https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2016/webprogram/Session12231.html).
The three talks were widely (wildly in some cases) misrepresented, misinterpreted or both as documented in detail on social media - see for example http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2016/02/aaas-stories-hype-immunotherapy-cancer-saliva-test/ …
Fortunately two of the three presentations are now represented by publications. The papers are in advanced publication at Leukemia (paper-1) and Nature Biotechnology (paper-2). I’ll review these papers and comment on how these data reflect back on the public perceptions of the AAAS presentations, and how they fit into other recent findings in the field, in the next post.
comments are welcome