Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘science funding’


On the Folly of Big Science

Larry H. Bernstein, MD

Principal, Triplex Medical Science

To the reader:

The very to the point and interesting OP-ED in the Sat, Oct 3, New York Times titled “The Folly of Big Science Awards” by Vinay Prasad is of considerable interest for discussing a problem that goes deeper than the awards.

It is a valid and important points that Dr. Prasad makes that the Dickson, Lasker-DeBakey, Canada Gairdner, Breakthrough and Nobel awards are expending significant resources in support for established investigators at the apex of their careers, that there is always a trailing of leading investigations that have anticipated the awards, and that young investigators are currently squeezed by this structure of scientific endeavor.

In a historical perspective, the tradition of major centers of research is at least 200 years old, and it precedes the Nobel Prize. Notable centers of research in Europe were Cambridge, Copenhagen, Italy, Berlin, and several universities in Germany, from which evolved theoretical and experimental physics,
organic and inorganic chemistry, and this had an impact on the basic science requirements for medical education that came from the Flexner Report, and the establishment of Johns Hopkins University Medical School, and the Rockefeller University.  In the evolution of the medical and supporting scientific disciplines there is a long audit trail of top investigators coming through the laboratories of one or more of the most respected laboratories. This is highlighted in Germany by the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institutes. It is important to emphasize the importance of mentoring to the development of young investigators as well as continued support of their career development. The observation is quite impressive that eighty percent of the funding to basic research goes to one fifth of researchers.

The developments in medicine and in preparatory scientific education and research have for a long time aggregate resources to a small number of highly productive centers. This was in part driven by the ties of these centers to major universities and the review committees that serve NIH funding allocation. In addition, there is also a clustering of major centers of discovery and the instrumentation and technical development industries. A major additional funding comes from a select group of billionaires whose support has been essential beyond the dwindling, politically fragile federal support. The large science awards are for recognition, and they follow the course set by the Nobel Prize. There are also Young Investigator awards that are given by professional organizations.

The idea of breaking down the largest awards perhaps needs consideration. However, the most important consideration is to make adequate funding available to promising investigators irrespective of their university affiliation.  That is also complicated by the fact that funding for research belongs to the institution, and not the investigator. I cite the recent lawsuit won by the Scripps Research Institute in a suit filed by an investigator who was recruited from University of California, San Diego (#16) to the Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern California (#47). The funds could not be transferred. An adjacent problem to that described is how funding is directed to established research, and some good research may be squeezed. Only recently has proteomics and metabolomics opened up after the many years of emphasis in biological research on the genome. This occurred because of better understanding of cell signaling and regulatory pathways.

A different problem is that important discoveries may lead to patents, but the cost of development is a multiple of the cost of the patent. Companies that are dominant in the industry might want to buy the patent, but then they might shelve it because it may compete with another method that has not had its return on investment, or they might try to redesign the method with no significant improvement prior to introduction. This is the way the world works.  The United States has become a leader, and it is also the most wasteful in its success.

Larry H. Bernstein, MD

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Podcast Review: Quiet Innovation Podcast on Obtaining $ for Your Startup

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

I wanted to highlight an interesting interview (What it Really Takes to Get Money for Your Startup) with David S. Rose, serial entrepreneur and Founder and CEO of Gust.com, which is a global collaboration platform for early stage angel investing, connecting hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs and investors in over 75 countries. The interview with David and CFA John P. Gavin was broadcast on the podcast Quiet Innovation (from PodCast Addict @Podcast_Addict) from. I had tweeted it out on my Twitter account below (see the http link)

 

… but will include some notes from the podcast here. In addition you can link to the podcast directly using the links below:

QI-013 David Rose Interview_01.mp3

Or download the mp3

http://t.co/XPjLrJQG7O

This post is a followup from yesterday’s post Protecting Your Biotech IP and Market Strategy: Notes from Life Sciences Collaborative 2015 Meeting.

Some highlights from the podcast

  • IDEAS DON’T GET FUNDED

David Rose discusses how there are hundreds of thousands of new ideas, some which are great some which are not… having an idea may be an initial step but for an investor to even consider your idea it is more important to have

  • EXECUTION

This is what David feels is critical to investors, such as himself, to decide whether your idea is investable. A startup needs to show they can accomplish their goal and show at least a rudimentary example of this, whether it is putting up a website or writing up a design blueprint for a new widget. He says starting a business today (either tech or manufacturing) requires a lot less capital than years ago (unless you are starting a biotech). He gives an example of internet startups he had founded in the 90’s versus today… in the 90’s you needed $2 million… today you can do it for $2,000. But the ability to show that you can EXECUTE this plan is CRITICAL.

David sites three aspects which are important to investors:

  1. Integrity – Be humble about yourself. He says there are way too many people who claim ‘our idea is the best’ or ‘we do it better than anyone’ or ‘we are the first to have this idea’. As he says Jeff Bezos of Amazon was not the first to have the idea of selling books over the internet, he just EXECUTED the plan extremely well.
  2. Passion- Investors need to see that you are ‘all in’ and committed. A specific example is angels asking how much money have you put into your idea (skin in the game)
  3. Experience- David says there are TWO important types of experience in developing startups and both valid. The first is how many startups have you done and succeeded and the second is how many startups have failed. He says investors actually like if you have failed because they are learning experiences, just as valuable if not more than having startups always succeed. Investors need to know how you can deal with adversity. All three points goes back to execution.

David Rose gave some reading suggestions as well including

Lucky or Smart? Secrets to an Entrepreneurial Life by Bo Peabody – He highlights this book to help people understand that a startup entrepreneur should always hire someone smarter than themselves.

Derek Sivers post Ideas Are Just a Multiplier of Execution  – where a great idea is worth $20 but a great idea plus execution is worth $20 million.

Eris Reese’s post The Lean Startup in his blog StartUpLessonsLearned – being frugal (gets back to what he said about not needed as much capital as you would think i.e. Don’t Burn Through the Cash) and also get metrics on your startup or idea (as long as you have the IP). He suggests taking out an ad to see what the interest is out there. You can measure the clicks from the ad and use that as a marketing tool to potential investors i.e. Getting Feedback

Some other posts on this site about Investing and Startups include:

Protecting Your Biotech IP and Market Strategy: Notes from Life Sciences Collaborative 2015 Meeting

THE BLOOMBERG INNOVATION INDEX: Country Rankings by Six Measures of the Capacity to Innovate as a Nation

Updated: Investing and Inventing: Is the Tango of Mars and Venus Still on

Sand Hill Angels

The Bioscience Crowdfunding Environment: The Bigger Better VC?

Technion-Cornell Innovation Institute in NYC: Postdocs keep exclusive license to their IP and take a fixed dollar amount of Equity if the researchers create a Spinoff company

Tycho Brahe, where art thou? Today’s Renaissance of the Self-Funded Scientist!

 

 

Read Full Post »

Protecting Your Biotech IP and Market Strategy: Notes from Life Sciences Collaborative 2015 Meeting


 

Protecting Your Biotech IP and Market Strategy: Notes from Life Sciences Collaborative 2015 Meeting

Achievement Beyond Regulatory Approval – Design for Commercial Success

philly2nightStephen J. Williams, Ph.D.: Reporter

The Mid-Atlantic group Life Sciences Collaborative, a select group of industry veterans and executives from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device sectors whose mission is to increase the success of emerging life sciences businesses in the Mid-Atlantic region through networking, education, training and mentorship, met Tuesday March 3, 2015 at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia (USP) to discuss post-approval regulatory issues and concerns such as designing strong patent protection, developing strategies for insurance reimbursement, and securing financing for any stage of a business.

The meeting was divided into three panel discussions and keynote speech:

  1. Panel 1: Design for Market Protection– Intellectual Property Strategy Planning
  2. Panel 2: Design for Market Success– Commercial Strategy Planning
  3. Panel 3: Design for Investment– Financing Each Stage
  4. Keynote Speaker: Robert Radie, President & CEO Egalet Corporation

Below are Notes from each PANEL Discussion:

For more information about the Life Sciences Collaborative SEE

Website: http://www.lifesciencescollaborative.org/

Or On Facebook

Or On Twitter @LSCollaborative

Panel 1: Design for Market Protection; Intellectual Property Strategy Planning

Take-home Message: Developing a very strong Intellectual Property (IP) portfolio and strategy for a startup is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT for its long-term success. Potential investors, partners, and acquirers will focus on the strength of a startup’s IP so important to take advantage of the legal services available. Do your DUE DIGILENCE.

Panelists:

John F. Ritter, J.D.., MBA; Director Office Tech. Licensing Princeton University

Cozette McAvoy; Senior Attorney Novartis Oncology Pharma Patents

Ryan O’Donnell; Partner Volpe & Koenig

Panel Moderator: Dipanjan “DJ” Nag, PhD, MBA, CLP, RTTP; President CEO IP Shaktl, LLC

Notes:

Dr. Nag:

  • Sometimes IP can be a double edged sword; e.g. Herbert Boyer with Paul Berg and Stanley Cohen credited with developing recombinant technology but they did not keep the IP strict and opened the door for a biotech revolution (see nice review from Chemical Heritage Foundation).
  • Naked patent licenses are most profitable when try to sell IP

John Ritter: Mr. Ritter gave Princeton University’s perspective on developing and promoting a university-based IP portfolio.

  • 30-40% of Princeton’s IP portfolio is related to life sciences
  • Universities will prefer to seek provisional patent status as a quicker process and allows for publication
  • Princeton will work closely with investigators to walk them through process – Very Important to have support system in place INCLUDING helping investigators and early startups establish a STRONG startup MANAGEMENT TEAM, and making important introductions to and DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIOPS with investors, angels
  • Good to cast a wide net when looking at early development partners like pharma
  • Good example of university which takes active role in developing startups is University of Pennsylvania’s Penn UPstart program.
  • Last 2 years many universities filing patents for startups as a micro-entity

Comment from attendee: Universities are not using enough of their endowments for purpose of startups. Princeton only using $500,00 for accelerator program.

Cozette McAvoy: Mrs. McAvoy talked about monetizing your IP from an industry perspective

  • Industry now is looking at “indirect monetization” of their and others IP portfolio. Indirect monetization refers to unlocking the “indirect value” of intellectual property; for example research tools, processes, which may or may not be related to a tangible product.
  • Good to make a contractual bundle of IP – “days of the $million check is gone”
  • Big companies like big pharma looks to PR (press relation) buzz surrounding new technology, products SO IMPORTANT FOR STARTUP TO FOCUS ON YOUR PR

Ryan O’Donnell: talked about how life science IP has changed especially due to America Invests Act

  • Need to develop a GLOBAL IP strategy so whether drug or device can market in multiple countries
  • Diagnostics and genes not patentable now – Major shift in patent strategy
  • Companies like Unified Patents can protect you against the patent trolls – if patent threatened by patent troll (patent assertion entity) will file a petition with the USPTO (US Patent Office) requesting institution of inter partes review (IPR); this may cost $40,000 BUT WELL WORTH the money – BE PROACTIVE about your patents and IP

Panel 2: Design for Market Success; Commercial Strategy Planning

Take-home Message: Commercial strategy development is defined market facing data, reimbursement strategies and commercial planning that inform labeling requirements, clinical study designs, healthcare economic outcomes and pricing targets. Clarity from payers is extremely important to develop any market strategy. Develop this strategy early and seek advice from payers.

Panelists:

David Blaszczak; Founder, Precipio Health Strategies

Terri Bernacchi, PharmD, MBA; Founder & President Cambria Health Advisory Professionals

Paul Firuta; President US Commercial Operations, NPS Pharma

 

Panel Moderator: Matt Cabrey; Executive Director, Select Greater Philadelphia

 

Notes:

David Blaszczak:

  • Commercial payers are bundling payment: most important to get clarity from these payers
  • Payers are using clinical trials to alter marketing (labeling) so IMPORTANT to BUILD LABEL in early clinical trial phases (phase I or II)
  • When in early phases of small company best now to team or partner with a Medicare or PBM (pharmacy benefit manager) and payers to help develop and spot tier1 and tier 2 companies in their area

Terri Bernacchi:

  • Building relationship with the payer is very important but firms like hers will also look to patients and advocacy groups to see how they respond to a given therapy and decrease the price risk by bundling
  • Value-based contracting with manufacturers can save patient and payer $$
  • As most PBMs formularies are 80% generics goal is how to make money off of generics
  • Patent extension would have greatest impact on price, value

Paul Firuta:

  • NPS Pharma developing a pharmacy benefit program for orphan diseases
  • How you pay depends on mix of Medicare, private payers now
  • Most important change which could affect price is change in compliance regulations

Panel 3: Design for Investment; Financing Each Stage

Take-home Message: VC is a personal relationship so spend time making those relationships. Do your preparation on your value and your market. Look to non-VC avenues: they are out there.

Panelists:

Ting Pau Oei; Managing Director, Easton Capital (NYC)

Manya Deehr; CEO & Founder, Pediva Therapeutics

Sanjoy Dutta, PhD; Assistant VP, Translational Devel. & Intl. Res., Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation

 

Panel Moderator: Shahram Hejazi, PhD; Venture Partner, BioAdvance

  • In 2000 his experience finding 1st capital was what are your assets; now has changed to value

Notes:

Ting Pau Oei:

  • Your very 1st capital is all about VALUE– so plan where you add value
  • Venture Capital is a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP
  • 1) you need the management team, 2) be able to communicate effectively                  (Powerpoint, elevator pitch, business plan) and #1 and #2 will get you important 2nd Venture Capital meeting; VC’s don’t decide anything in 1st meeting
  • VC’s don’t normally do a good job of premarket valuation or premarket due diligence but know post market valuation well
  • Best advice: show some phase 2 milestones and VC will knock on your door

Manya Deehr:

  • Investment is more niche oriented so find your niche investors
  • Define your product first and then match the investors
  • Biggest failure she has experienced: companies that go out too early looking for capital

Dr. Dutta: funding from a non-profit patient advocacy group perspective

  • Your First Capital: find alliances which can help you get out of “valley of death
  • Develop a targeted product and patient treatment profile
  • Non-profit groups ask three questions:

1) what is the value to patients (non-profits want to partner)

2) what is your timeline (we can wait longer than VC; for example Cystic Fibrosis Foundation waited long time but got great returns for their patients with Kalydeco™)

3) when can we see return

  • Long-term market projections are the knowledge gaps that startups have (the landscape) and startups don’t have all the competitive intelligence
  • Have a plan B every step of the way

Other posts on this site related to Philadelphia Biotech, Startup Funding, Payer Issues, and Intellectual Property Issues include:

PCCI’s 7th Annual Roundtable “Crowdfunding for Life Sciences: A Bridge Over Troubled Waters?” May 12 2014 Embassy Suites Hotel, Chesterbrook PA 6:00-9:30 PM
The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on KannaLife Sciences and the Discipline and Potential of Pharmacognosy
The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on Computer-Aided Drug Design and Gfree Bio, LLC
The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on Vaccines and Philimmune, LLC
The Bioscience Crowdfunding Environment: The Bigger Better VC?
Foundations as a Funding Source
Venture Capital Funding in the Life Sciences: Phase4 Ventures – A Case Study
10 heart-focused apps & devices are crowdfunding for American Heart Association’s open innovation challenge
Funding, Deals & Partnerships
Medicare Panel Punts on Best Tx for Carotid Plaque
9:15AM–2:00PM, January 27, 2015 – Regulatory & Reimbursement Frameworks for Molecular Testing, LIVE @Silicon Valley 2015 Personalized Medicine World Conference, Mountain View, CA
FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg on HealthCare for 310Million Americans and the Role of Personalized Medicine
Biosimilars: Intellectual Property Creation and Protection by Pioneer and by Biosimilar Manufacturers
Litigation on the Way: Broad Institute Gets Patent on Revolutionary Gene-Editing Method
The Patents for CRISPR, the DNA editing technology as the Biggest Biotech Discovery of the Century

 

 

Read Full Post »


11:30AM 11/12/2014 – 10th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference at the Harvard Medical School, Boston

REAL TIME Coverage of this Conference by Dr. Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN – Director and Founder of LEADERS in PHARMACEUTICAL BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE, Boston http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

11:30 Personalized Medicine Coalition Award &  Award Recipient Speech

Presentation of Personalized Medicine Coalition’s 10th Annual Award for Leadership in Personalized Medicine.

Personalized Medicine Coalition Award Recipient

Mark J. Levin
Co-Founder and Partner
Third Rock Ventures, LLC

Presenter:

Brian Munroe
PMC Founder and Senior Vice President, Government Affairs
Endo

 Award in Science, Business Policy to individual to lead PM – Mark Levin

 

 

  • was at Ely Lilly in the 70s leading supplier of Insulin in the 20s and antibiotics in the 30s,Factor 8, pain drugs, chemotherapy
  • was at Genentech – Human growth Hormone and Human Insulin — both are PM, Interferon,
  • was at Mayfield Ventures
  • was at Millenium, CEO, early 90s, monoclonal antibodies
  • 2000 discussion on the need for PMC
  • Founder of Foundation Medicine – molecular informatics – expands therapeutics and PM
  • NOW — with Third Rock Ventures, LLC

 

Mark Levin – award acceptance speech – Team accomplishments most important

We need to thank the patients participating in Clinical Trials

  1. How I got involved in personalized medicine (PM): High School – Human Biology
  2. Genetics – drive
  3. PM – All diseases – genetic disorders — combination with extreme phenotyping, Muscular Dystrophy – splicing a gene for treatment
  4. Drugability and PM – gene therapy, replace factor, deliver a gene to the brain and the drug. inside CSF
  5. Gene editing – deliver to the Brain correct the gene in the Brain – therapy for ALS, Schizophrenia – understanding the genes involved in this disease, same
  6. Cancer cure – treatment of combination therapies several at the same time vs present time treat one other emerges
  7. cancer vaccine
  8. Sample of blood – proteomics — in Annual Exams at MDs Annual physical
  9. Convergent — comparison of Mutation across to 1000 patient’s mutations
  10. Future is MOST exciting
  11. Challenges of the Future: Biology and Technology, cells in microbiome, 10 million genes, SYSTEM BIOLOGY — will lead the way,
  12. FUNDING SCIENCE via NIH Scientist is the most important National task
  13. Preventative and Prognostics Medicine -need be part of DRUG development
  14. Justification – maximize value for patient vs $$ spent – maximum value – waste and no leadership
  15. Concern — Affordability of Healthcare to All, access to care vs economic Inequality
  16. Leadership and Management: We truly need NATIONAL CONVERSATION — with a Leader with set of goals to solve a problem in certain time
  17. Insurance, Pharma, HMO — budget challenge — attendees inn the room, need to provide leadership at the National Level

 

– See more at: http://personalizedmedicine.partners.org/Education/Personalized-Medicine-Conference/Program.aspx#sthash.qGbGZXXf.dpuf

 

@HarvardPMConf

#PMConf

@SachsAssociates

@VCapitalGuide

@hgbc_harvard

@MassBio

@MALifeSciences

@FierceBiotech

Read Full Post »


1st Pitch Life Science- Philadelphia: “Eavesdropping on Investors’ Closed Door Discussions”

Mid Atlantic Bio Angels group (MABA), an angel investor group focused exclusively on new and emerging life science companies hosted a meeting Tuesday, September 16 2014 5:30pm – 8:30pm Other Time Presented by:

 

“Eavesdropping on investors‘ closed door discussions” gives entrepreneurs the inside track on what happens after a start-up company presents to investors.  Typically, after a start up company’s team leaves the room investors have a private discussion about whether the opportunity merits further investigation and possible investment.  1st Pitch Life Science-Philadelphia offers local company presenters and audience participants the chance to listen in on these closed door discussions to learn what really matters to investors.  This event offers excellent networking opportunities for investors, university technology transfer professionals, entrepreneurs, and business professionals in the Philadelphia entrepreneurial ecosystem.   It provides a supportive learning environment for entrepreneurs.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    “

For more information about Mid-Atlantic BioAngels and to make a submission for evaluation of your startup please visit their

website: http://bioangels.net/.

MABA: LinkedIn:
MABA: Twitter

 

Mid-Atlantic Bioangels was formed in 2013 to provide an unmet need in the Mid-Atlantic region for early-stage life-science entrepreneurship,  providing early life science entrepreneurs a venue to  present their companies, obtain funding and provide mentoring, feedback, networking, and information for corporate development.  A great article by  can be found here

http://tech.co/mid-atlantic-bio-angels-life-sciences-investors-2013-06

 

More information on the !st Pitch Life Sciences meetings can be found at www.1stpitchlifescienc.com.  Further information can be obtained at nfo@1stpitchlifescience.com.For sponsorship questions please email Bernie@bioangels.net.

Meeting Coverage

Three companies are to be presented

Hastke Inc is a device company with a best-in-class, real-time 3D visualization technology that can de-risk the drug development process for pharma.  In the future, their technology has the potential to become an important diagnostic tool for physicians.

LytPhage is a new biotech company using novel bioengineering to develop therapeutics to address the worldwide crisis of antibiotic resistant organisms.  They are developing a treatment for vancomycin resistant systemic infections with their platform, which can be adapted for other problematic organisms.

RAbD Biotech uses proprietary computational methods to design biologic agents capable of treating severe diseases.  RAbD’s lead product candidate is a potential first-in-class treatment for ovarian cancer, a disease characterized by late detection, few therapeutic options, and high mortality.

The meeting format includes:

  1. 15-20 minute meeting presentation
  2. group discussion/questions
  3. panel opinions (panel of experienced venture capitalists)

Notes from the meeting will be put in future postings.

Please also see Twitter handles for meeting coverage using the following hashtags and handles

 

hashtags                                                                                                   handles

             #MABA   #lifescience   #PHL   #biotech         #startup                                @BioAngelsGroup   @pharma_BI   @RAbDBiotech

              #VC  #venturecapital   # bioangels    #entrepreneur

              #angelinvestor 

 

The meeting had a live voting on Surveymonkey for each presentation using your smartphone.  The address for the voting was

www.1stpitchlifescience.com/vote

where event participants vote on each individual presentation and a “Best in Show”.

Read Full Post »


The Bioscience Crowdfunding Environment: Will Crowdfunding be the Bigger, New VC

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

Pharmaceutical Consulting Consortium International Inc. (PCCI) recently presented their 7th annual Roundtable “CROWDFUNDING FOR LIFE SCIENCES: A BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS?”, a panel discussion on how this new funding mechanism applies to early stage life science companies and changes the funding landscape.

A major provision in the recently passed JOBS Act resulted in Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) rule changes revolutionizing the way companies can raise capital, with some figures in the range of $11 trillion dollars. Companies, startups, and entrepreneurs can, in a manner, now go directly to the individual investor and raise capital. This method is generally referred to as CROWDFUNDING.

As explained by Mark Roderick, moderator for the meeting, there are two main types of approved crowdfunding:

  • Donation-based Crowdfunding – Popularized by the crowdfunding platform Kickstarter, this method of raising capital can accept small donations from anyone for an idea/project to be completed. The donor may either get a free token of appreciation or access to enjoy the fruits of the project, for example, a watching a movie funded by the donor. Some scientific researchers have used Kickstarter as a method to fund their research.
  • Investor-based Crowdfunding– This type of crowdfunding involves the actual transfer of securities, and investors must qualify according to rules set by the SEC and go thru brokers, or portals, like the bioscience and healthcare internet portal Poliwogg.

Investor-based crowdfundingwas discussed at the meeting.  There are five different mechanisms with this type of funding: Title II (Rule 506c), Title II, Title IV, Existing Regulation A, and Rule 504. The main focus of the meeting was on Title II as, according to Mr. Roderick, involves the mechanism most suited for biotech startups, while rules for Title III still need to be finalized.

Title II crowdfunding requires that “accredited” or “qualified” investors (those who make at least $200,000/year or net worth $1 million US) go through licensed dealer internet nodes (or Portals) like Poliwog. The Portal will have lists of startups they deem legitimate which investors can choose from. For instance the Epilepsy Foundation uses Poliwog to fund certain projects.

The panelists discussed matters including:

  • How crowdfunding is different than other mechanisms like venture capital
  • What are the regulations and financial responsibilities for both biotech and crowdfunder
  • Liabilities
  • Due-diligence issues

The panelists included:

  1. Mark Roderick, moderator. Mark is an attorney at Flaster/Greenberg PC (@CrowdfundAttny on Twitter) and has developed great experience and expertise in the details of crowdfunding. He maintains a Crowdfunding blog www.crowdfundattny.com, which contains information and links about the JOBS Act and crowdfunding.
  2. Barbara Schiberg, Managing Director at BioAdvance, a Mid-Atlantic bioangel investment community.
  3. Samuel Wertheimer, PhD, CIO Poliwogg, a crowdfunding internet portal.
  4. Darrick Mix, Partner, Duane Morris LLP, corporate lawyer with experience in the JOBS act
  5. Donlon Skerret, PCCI President and CEO of NanoScan Imaging and serial entrepreneur

The Opportunity

 

 crowdcrowdingoutVC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recent estimates place Title II Crowdfunding capacity to $1 Trillion.

Venture Capital (VC) had estimated only $5 Billion bio-investment in 2013.

Where does the rest go?

 

Mr. Skerret noted that bioangels can only take you so far but thinks that crowdfunding may fill this “valley of death”.

Liabilities

 

Crowdfunding is SELLING SECURITIESso there is liability, disclosure and nondisclosure issues.

Title II contains 580 pages of regulations and SEC needs a licensed intermediary.

 

Due-Diligence

 

Barbara Schiberg also noted that with VCs or bioangels groups you also get s support network, basically their rolodex of contacts and KOL’s and experts. With Crowdfunding like Poliwog they just handle linking investors with entrepreneur. Any contact is done through social media and the crowd.

 

BioAdvance hires experts – may take months to years to get expert opinion

 

Poliwog only has responsibility to investor to make sure company is legitimate. They don’t do extensive due diligence like bioangels. Most crowdfunding do not have extensive networks of professionals.

 

 

To obtain a video recording of this meeting and get more information please go to PCCI’s web site at http://www.rxpcci.com/meetings.htm.

 

Other posts on this site related to FUNDING and Bio Investing include:

 

PCCI’s 7th Annual Roundtable “Crowdfunding for Life Sciences: A Bridge Over Troubled Waters?” May 12 2014 Embassy Suites Hotel, Chesterbrook PA 6:00-9:30 PM

10 heart-focused apps & devices are crowdfunding for American Heart Association’s open innovation challenge

Importance of Funding Replication Studies: NIH on Credibility of Basic Biomedical Studies

Partnerships & Funding

Updated: Investing and Inventing: Is the Tango of Mars and Venus Still on

Transforming Biotech & Pharma: LinkedIn is the Quiet Force by Timmerman

Technion-Cornell Innovation Institute in NYC: Postdocs keep exclusive license to their IP and take a fixed dollar amount of Equity if the researchers create a Spinoff company

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


PCCI’s 7th Annual Roundtable “Crowdfunding for Life Sciences: A Bridge Over Troubled Waters?”

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

http://www.rxpcci.com/meetings.htm

Monday, May 12 2014 Embassy Suites Hotel, Chesterbrook PA 6:00 -9:30 PM

Pharmaceutical Consulting Consortium International Inc. presents their 7th annual Roundtable on Crowdfunding for the Life Sciences and how this funding mechanism applies to early stage life science companies and changes the funding landscape. The conference will examine the types of crowdfunding out there and attempts to answer many questions including:

  • Which one is right for which new companies at which stage of the funding process?
  • And how will choosing the right or wrong one influence follow-on funders and funding rounds?
  • Will the advent of crowdfunding speed up the investment process?
  • Will it really bridge the yawning “valley of death”?

The panel is made up of notables and practitioners who will be called upon to deal with the pros and cons of crowdfunding in real life and let them discuss how all this is likely to apply to life science entrepreneurs and investors.

The panel includes:

  1. Mark Roderick, Attorney Flaster/Greenberg PC (Moderator)
  2. Valerie Gaydos, President, Capital Growth (represents angel/venture community)
  3. Samuel Wertheimer, Chief Investment Officer, Poliwogg Darrick Mix
  4. Duane Morris, LLP (journalist who covers crowdfunding

Register by clicking on www.rxpcci.com and following directions The event will be webcast.

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence had recently launched a new, real-time based methodology for meeting coverage using social media as a platform to foster discussion and commentary.

This methodology is described in the following post REAL TIME Cancer Conference Coverage: A Novel Methodology for Authentic Reporting on Presentations and Discussions launched via Twitter.com @ The 2nd ANNUAL Sachs Cancer Bio Partnering & Investment Forum in Drug Development, 19th March 2014 • New York Academy of Sciences • USA

This new method was successfully used and curated at the 2nd Annual Sachs Cancer Bio Partnering &Investment Forum at the New York Academy of Sciences and will be featured at the forthcoming Sachs Global Conferences in 2014 and 2015.

Related articles on this site include:

conceived: NEW Definition for Co-Curation in Medical Research

Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis, Volume One Pre-ePub Announcement

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) as Biomarkers in Cancer Detection: • Alnion Ranked #1 in “Top 10 Israeli medical advances to watch in 2014”.

Investing and inventing: Is the Tango of Mars and Venus Still on

SACHS Associates, London – Planning Forthcoming Conferences: 2014 – 2015

 

 

 

Read Full Post »