Laurent Levy, Nanobiotix 🇫🇷 | Nanoparticles, Radiotherapy

As Philip travels to France, Nanobiotix CEO Laurent Lévy discusses how the company broke into Europe’s exclusive $1 billion biotech club, alongside the likes of Abivax and Medincell.

They also chat about what it means to partner with giants like Johnson & Johnson, and how Laurent’s leadership style has evolved over his long tenure.

⭐️ ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Laurent Lévy co-founded Nanobiotics in 2003 and has served as CEO ever since. Before this, he worked in a variety of roles with companies including Altran Technologies, Valbiotis and Sanofi. He has a doctorate in nanomaterials-focused physical chemistry from the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris.

🔗 LINKS MENTIONED

Nanobiotix website — https://nanobiotix.com/
Nanobiotix’s $71 million deal with Healthcare Royalty — https://ir.nanobiotix.com/news-releases/news-release-details/nanobiotix-announces-strategic-royalty-monetization-agreement
Nanobiotix’s first phase 1 data — https://ir.nanobiotix.com/news-releases/news-release-details/nanobiotix-announces-first-data-phase-1-study-evaluating-jnj

Transcript

[00:00:00] Intro

Laurent Levy: When you look at our industry, it’s a lot about biology and chemistry, and we thought that we should bring something different in the game, not just to be different, but because we think there’s many people and enough people working on biology and chemistry and not enough people working on the physics side of things.

So the key question is how do we improve the dosing? In the tumor without improving the dose in surrounding tissue. So when this particle in the cell, the patient is getting the usual X-ray, the particle will absorb the energy of x-ray and will deliver much more damage like

Philip Hemme: how often you had to reinvent yourself.

Laurent Levy: It’s not always an easy task because if you do something, if you did something that was really useful in the past. To understand first, that may not be the best thing for the future and to actually apply it. That requires some internal motion. That’s what makes this venture very interesting.

Philip Hemme: New episode. I am your host, Philip, and on the show I’m interviewing the best Europeans in biotech to help you grow. Radiotherapy is still today one of the most effective ways to treat cancer, but it could be even better. Nano biotics is developing a nano radio enhancer to improve the efficacy of radiotherapy in tumors while minimizing the side effects.

On healthy tissue. The drug is now in phase three, so I met with the founder and CEO Lauren while I was in Paris. I’ve known Lauren for over 10 years. We talked about the company’s recent, very promising phase one B results. We also talked about the development of the universal value enhance. In many types of cancer and why you should listen when people say no, but sometimes they’ll do it.

So here’s my conversation with Laurel and please hit the like or follow button if you’re enjoying it.

Alright. All right. Welcome to the show.

Laurent Levy: Thank you.

Philip Hemme: Yeah, good to see you.

Laurent Levy: Yeah, it’s been a while, isn’t it?

Philip Hemme: Been a while. And. That’s amazing.

[00:02:11] Soaring stocks with clinical results

Philip Hemme: I wanna stop is, I’ve seen that you recently passed on Nalytics, recently passed the $1 billion market cap, which I think is, is an amazing market. I wanna know Yeah.

How you. And just how, how you feel about it.

Laurent Levy: Well, I think we feel just as we felt before, I think until we reach our goal, which is to be able to treat millions of patient and really help and make a change. We just continue our journey and what I told to the team is. You know, when we are really low in market cap, we just continue to work and continue to deliver what we have to deliver, then we should do it even when the market cap is higher.

Yeah. At this stage, we don’t think that’s the best surrogate of what we are doing. Yeah,

Philip Hemme: sounds good. Yeah. And what was impressive is, I mean, what I saw is one thing you recently published was the, the phase one B data, and that was kind one of the, one of the trigger. What was impressive is that there are not, I mean Okay, it was, was a small amount of patients that inpatient, but the, the, the six complete response I think is like really high.

I know. What, how do you, yeah. How did you look at these results?

Laurent Levy: I think we, we look at this result as an add-on to everything else we’ve been showing. And starting with the first randomized trial we have done in self tissue glaucoma, which was really the basis to show that our product is working. When you compare the standard of care versus the standard of care plus our product, and you see a delta, a significant delta, and you eat all the primary and secondary endpoint, that’s really what established.

To basis for, for this product. And then every other trial we’ve been running, adding some more things about efficacy and safety and feasibility. Just opening and opening to potential for this product.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. We’ll talk about the platform also a bit more in details.

[00:04:08] Nanobiotix’s history

Philip Hemme: What I’m curious is also to, to start from the beginning I remember you told me one thing, a bit of the record that.

At some point you’ll show me the first pitch deck. You, you did. You need to show it to me, but more like, what I wanna know is like how, how did the, yeah. Basically how did nano start and. And the how are the holidays compared to now?

Laurent Levy: Well, I think that this deck was fun because for true, true reason, it was the first deck we used to pitch the story to investors like more than 20 years ago.

And what is good is the goal did not change and the goal never changed at Nano. But the way to reach the goal have been changing. Because you, you have to adapt as a small biotech and even as a biotech to make sure you can continue to survive, can continue to develop and bring new things. And it is really rare to know exactly which pathway you’re gonna take when you start the company.

So that’s, that’s where that completely. Untrue from a pathway perspective, but and hundred percent accurate from a goal perspective

Philip Hemme: and from a vision, I guess.

Laurent Levy: Yes.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. And I think you also, one, one thing that is quite. Surprising in a way, but you did your postdoc in I think, what is Buffalo University and some of the technology comes from from there.

And then you developed in, in Europe, which is of, I mean today or nowadays is more often the, the, the other way around. Can you talk a bit about this on how, like on the tech itself and how. Yeah, how you transfer this?

Laurent Levy: Yeah. Maybe we can, can talk about the fundamentals of what we are doing and I think when we say we do nanos supply to healthcare, that’s one way of looking at it.

But more fundamentally, when you look at our industry, it’s a lot about biology and chemistry, and how do you bring something that will interact with the biology of the body to produce an effect. That’s the basis for most of the development we have in the biotech and pharma companies. We thought that we should bring something.

Different in the game. Not just to be different, but because we think there’s many people and enough people working on biology and chemistry and not enough people working on the physics side of things. So we decided to, to see a. How can we bring something new? And for that, looking at a cell, not from a biological perspective, but from a physical perspective.

And when you start doing so, you don’t see like a molecule you want to target with a drug. You start seeing the cell from a different perspective and you can really find the notion of. Target and then you can start developing small object that will interact with the physics of the sales. And when you do that, you can have product that could be useful across all viability of biology.

And maybe we talk about that later. But for me, that’s a big fundamental thing that is shaping our industry probability of success. And if you can develop technologies that move this probability of success, then that’s happening many doors.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. And this you, this, this realization or vision, you had it from the beginning and like to spin it when you spin out.

So when you brought the technology

Laurent Levy: Yes. It was from the beginning, even when I was doing my PhD, I should say.

Philip Hemme: Yeah.

Laurent Levy: Working on the nano physics at that time, I thought that if we could change the way a cell can fill the physics, then that will open many many doors.

[00:07:39] Nanoparticles and radiotherapy

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Yeah. And maybe you can talk, I mean, it is a good connection also to the.

To the mechanism of action because at the end you, you’re using nanoparticles to enhance the standard on way of therapy. Yeah. Can like. Yeah. Can you go a bit more in detail, like of,

Laurent Levy: and I think that’s the first product we have, we have with our platform that we can talk about. But from this perspective, maybe we can go back to what is the need we’re trying to to solve.

And we, we met an observation, which is a very basic one, is at the time of diagnosis. Cancer patient, most of them have a local disease even before having met. And if there are so many patient having metastasis, it’s because a lot of local treatment will fail. And our industry usually is taking care of those patient, having met last line of treatment, try to bring new drugs, and eventually if it works, then try to go to the early lines.

But if we think about patient. If you can cure them at the stage where they have a local cancer, then you’ll have a big impact. But for that, then you need to go back to fundamentals of oncology, which are surgery and radiation therapy, and some of the chemo. So those are the pillars that are treating patient frontline when they have a local disease.

And we have target. Targeted radiation. Radiation is probably one of the biggest tool use in oncology. Has more than 60% of patient will get radiation. Okay? And radiation, basically use an x-ray that will go through the body and through the tumor, and you will deposit some dose that will kill the tumor.

And the problem is. It’s a very powerful technique, meaning you put a cell, you’ll find a dose of radiation to kill it. Yeah. Regardless of the cell

Philip Hemme: and just if it’s,

Laurent Levy: yeah, yeah. The thing is, because the tumor is surrounded by a C tissue, you are always limited by the dose you can deliver in the tumor.

Yeah. Because you’re creating damage in the surrounding tissue. So the key question is. How do we improve the dose in the tumor without improving the dose in surrounding tissue? And we’ve been developing a product to exactly answer that question. So those are nanoparticles that we inject directly into the tumor, and those particle have been designed with a very specific material to be the most.

Inert possible, but also to be a super strong x-ray absorber. So when those particle in the cell, the patient is getting the usual X-ray, the particle will absorb the energy of x-ray and will deliver much more damage than the radiation alone can do.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. And on the, on, I like on the, on the path of the patient, but the.

Also, from my understanding is you first, when it’s a local tumor, you do first the surgery, and then the remaining of this, like the remaining tumor cells. Then you do radiation, or do you do radiation also on the,

Laurent Levy: that’s one of the possibility, but not always the possibility. I mean, basically if you can remove a tumor by surgery, you try to do it because that’s.

Big benefit for the patient, but many patient and majority of patient, depending on the indication, will come with a locally advanced tumor that you cannot remove by surgery. Then that’s where radiation will play a semial role in trying to sterilize the tumor and kill the tumor and often use alone or in combination with chemo or some other molecules.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. It’s good. Yeah. And I mean, it’s good. You’re talking also quite on the macro, on the macro picture. I, I like that. I’m curious on, on the last, let’s say on the, I mean, you said I think 60 patient, 60% of patients will have radiotherapy. How did it evolve over the last 10 years? Because when I, when I’m thinking about oncology drugs, I mean, you have some huge like.

Like game changing therapies in terms of, I mean, the first whatever, antibodies, micro antibodies, I mean, how to, but now they, they’re moving to first line and the checkpoint inhibitors and the car Ts Of course Car Ts for a specific type of cancers. But how did it kinda, and, and some chemotherapy, but how did that change of whatever Yeah.

So last decade. And did it impact the number of, of the number of, of Radiotherapies or was it. I think not really.

Laurent Levy: Surgery and I radiation therapy are deeply rooted in the treatment paradigm. You, you cannot just remove one strong technology to replace it by something else. So yes, that’s true. What you’re mentioning about all those drugs,

Philip Hemme: the complementary

Laurent Levy: Yes.

And most of the drugs that you’re mentioning, they’re also starting last line of treatment. And if they come back into frontline, usually they add. To what existing already frontline. If not, that will mean that you have to reshape the entire way patients are treated. And if you go back frontline and you want to see if you can replace one of this old, well-established technology and treatment, the time to get some endpoint or the, the, the risk you may bring the patient into is really, is really big.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So it didn’t change that much, basically.

Laurent Levy: No. Did not change. That’s a conclusion. But what, what we can say maybe is if, if we improve the way we diagnose cancer to be more proactive in the way we can prevent cancer, there, there will be more and more patient that will be diagnosed with a local disease way before it can become metastatic and therefore local treatment is going to continue to play a, a key role in the treatment.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I guess, yeah, so like, I mean, you want diagnosis as, as early as possible. So ideally, ideally, yes. Yeah. Yeah. But that’s another topic. That’s another topic. What that, yeah.

[00:13:42] Developing NBTXR3

Philip Hemme: So I’m curious on, on, maybe you can expand a bit on NBT XR three. So you, you sify or you lead, you lead a product because you.

I’m curious on, on also the, I mean, I think you’re running a phase three on how, like, how you’re running it, given what you just said on like, you want to be at the local stage, so the very early stage of the, of the tumor. But at the same time, I guess it’s also a bit harder to run the clinical trial if you’re earlier in terms of endpoints or how does it, like does it impact?

Laurent Levy: Yeah, maybe there is what can I say? Misunderstanding of what early means and what late stage mean in the sense that it’s not because you treat patient early, that they don’t have a high unmet medical need. Yeah. If I, for example, take the example of head and neck the vast majority of patient, 90% of head and neck cancer.

Patient, they have local disease at diagnosis. The one that have a small disease, like small tumor can go for surgery. They’re the one having the better outcome. So they get surgery plus minus radiation and chemo as an adjuvant treatment, and they usually have a good outcome. There’s too few relapse here.

The vast majority of patient will get is there radiation plus chemo or radiation alone, depending on how frail they they are. And for those patient there will be more overall 60% of the patient that will relapse over time. So it means that. They have a need to get a much better local control. And if I think for example, about the frail elderly patient, the one we are treating in our ongoing phase three, what they need is local control.

And if you look at the literature, you should expect for those patient a median overall survival of 12 months, which is not that big. Mm-hmm. So if you take OS as an endpoint, then it’s not that long to get an answer.

Philip Hemme: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And I’m curious also on the, the head and neck because like, why did you choose head and neck?

Versus, and I think you also have some other indication in the pipe, but as a lead, why did you choose this one?

Laurent Levy: Well, first of all, now j and j the partner yeah, we have for, for this drug is running the phase three and also other, other programs. But initially we’ve been. Testing in head and neck because we thought, first of all, that’s an indication where a patient have a big need.

There is a big number of patients with local disease and head and neck could be a good surrogate of what’s happening in another indication. Also head and neck being an indication which is less competitive than other like lung and, and some other, at least at the time we started, it will be addressable for a small company like we were in the past when we started this this trial.

But basically what we wanted to prove and what we still want to prove with and other tumor is. You take the patient after diagnosis, they have local disease. If you can bring a good local control and a number of CR complete response, yeah, then you will improve the PFS and the overall survival for patients.

Yeah. This correlation exists for local tumor much more than what you can find in the metastatic disease.

Philip Hemme: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And is it because also is it connected to. And one other question because basically the nano particles, you have to inject them intratumorally as well. So is it also that head and neck is more accessible or easier to inject in tremor compared to, let’s say, pancreas or something?

Or is it not connected to that re

Laurent Levy: Well, I think first, if we look at the fact today we’ve been treating hundreds of patients across different indications. So we’ve been injecting patient in head and neck in sarcoma in. Term in lung, in hepatocellular cancer, in esophageal and some other tumor. So it’s feasible.

And I think there, there’s like some kind of phantasm around intraoral injection. If you look from an oncology perspective, it’s something that hasn’t been developed a lot because. What we were saying previously, we try to treat a metastatic disease, so it’s gonna be hard to treat the metastatic disease with a local injection.

So when you first look at oncology or it’s IV injection, and then you try to get a systemic effect, but for local treatment, which is what the vast majority of patient need after a diagnosis, local approach, make a lot of sense. And it’s not something new. If you think about biopsy, we do biopsy most of the tumor.

And the way to position a needle when you’re gonna make a biopsy could be the exact same pathway you’re gonna use to make an intra injection. So it’s more about who’s doing what in the hospital. Is it the surgeon? Is it the interventional radiologist? How do you position the product and the practice with it?

What exists in the hospital?

Philip Hemme: Okay. But I guess now it’s, it’s like you can, I mean, it, it’s very doable or kind of come a more common operation than, than it was before. Yes,

Laurent Levy: for sure. And we can see that globally international approach in oncology is something that really increase and has increased a lot over the past 10 years.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Yeah. And I’m, I’m curious also on the. On the approval like path, because I think your, your product, you went first for a CE mark, at least in Europe, but I guess you also needed the clinical data anyhow. I guess more for the, I mean, market access and for the reimbursement or how, how did it, like Yeah.

Is it true like yeah,

Laurent Levy: it was a pass. And again, we started the product and the development with the knowledge we had of the product when we started and was making sense for different agencies to maybe a different perspective of what the product should be. A drug in the US as an example, and a device in Europe.

Philip Hemme: Yeah.

Laurent Levy: But over time. We’ve also learned about the drug and I’ve seen some mechanism of action that should bring it more into the drug side Yeah. Than the device side. So that’s why j and JL started last year to, to start discussing with European agencies to reclassify the product in the drug, which is done by now.

So we can say except few countries. We have a drug status across the world.

Philip Hemme: Okay. I’m curious on the why. What, what’s the, like, what, what made the change Then know, like, if you want to detail on that,

Laurent Levy: there are many parameters. I mean, you absorb the energy and you deliver energy, but you also have some biological consequences about that.

So when you look at the mix of things, that’s, that’s what makes the balance go into a, a drug status.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Okay. Yeah, and I mean, I guess you don’t want to do. Stick too much on, on also on when, when it’ll be on the market. But I think you announced, I think end of what is it like end of next year?

What, what did you, so what did you announce, like in terms of, I mean, just official, the pub bots public.

Laurent Levy: What, what has been announced in the past is H 1 26. For the first readout of the trial.

Philip Hemme: Yeah.

Laurent Levy: But as I mentioned, j and j now is running the, the trial we’ve started to transfer a year ago also.

Philip Hemme: Yeah.

Laurent Levy: And now it should it should be on their end just completed it.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Yeah. And how about j and j also, you, I mean, maybe you want, if you can comment a bit on the deal, because I think it’s a, that was a very nice deal as well. Just on, yeah. How you looked at it and like how, I guess. Yeah.

Laurent Levy: Well, I think first maybe the tructure.

Go back in time. Yeah. So at the time we did our IPO on the nasdaq. Since we’re moving in the right direction, the market was was good. People could find money and continue to develop. But rapidly at the end of the COVID period, we’ve seen the biotech market crushing a little and we saw that.

With the lack of visibility about the market, it’s going to be hard to predict how much we can continue to grow and develop the company and finance the company with an asset in phase three. So that’s where we decided as we can’t plan and anticipate the market, let’s find a partner

Philip Hemme: because you didn’t partner before.

Laurent Levy: Yeah, correct.

Philip Hemme: We did partner, but from a local perspective,

Laurent Levy: we had this deal with Lean Bio for China and some other countries, but globally, the, the product was not partnered. And then at that time we started looking to different partner and we said no. To some of the partner because we thought they were not the right match in term of strategy and values for the company.

But then we, we discussed with j and j teams and from not only we shared this vision of treating patient early. In oncology would be of a great benefit for them. But also we like the people we’ve been talking to and the philosophy and the values of those people. So altogether we did brought this deal to life.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. I see. And I think was yeah. I. I have only the upfront, but it was a $30 million front. And then the total deal was, I mean, but that’s, the total deal number is always very high, but I think it was in a, whatever, 2.5 billion or something. But,

Laurent Levy: so that’s 2.6 billion dollar deal in in milestone and lot in solo, 20 for royalties.

And you mentioned the 30 million upfront. We should go back in time to, to understand why at the time we were negotiating this deal we were a sub hundred million market cap company. So it was really hard to,

Philip Hemme: it was very little

Laurent Levy: to negotiate a high upfront without triggering like a, a bio discussion or that kind of things.

And as a company, we felt there’s much more value to create. And that’s 0.1, 0.2, I think. When you look at our, the potential of the product and what we believe is the potential of the product, we did establish a deal which is backloaded to make sure we can capture what we think is the biggest value of this product, which is helping potentially millions of patients with radiation therapy.

Philip Hemme: Yeah.

Laurent Levy: And also we did structure this deal a little differently because there was the 30 million front, there was 30 million inequity. There was also some milestone, short term milestone that were planned. And there was some in kind contribution also from, from j and j.

Philip Hemme: Yeah.

Laurent Levy: So altogether that, that was a much bigger.

Philip Hemme: Yes.

Laurent Levy: Yep.

[00:25:02] Universal cancer radiotherapy enhancers

Philip Hemme: And if we, if we look a bit on the, on, I said about, more about the vision and the, the, on the high level, the next steps, but I think, I mean, you, you mentioned it, but. At the end antibiotic approach could, could target like most of the indication, most of the cancers. So I mean, you think you’re talking about the universal way to enhance the therapy and your website can, like, they can tell a bit more about, about that vision and how, how it’s feasible.

Laurent Levy: Our vision about this approach of using radio and answer in oncology is if you use a physical mode of action, at least from a primary mode of action perspective, then it is something you can apply broadly into patient, right? And that’s why we started doing it and we hope that’s why also j and j continue will continue to to do, but the fundamental of this.

And I want to come back to some of the comment I was doing about biology and chemistry is when you think about it, when you inject a product like a biological product in a patient, you never know if the target is going to be rich. You never know if the target is fully present in the patient. And you never know.

For example, in oncology, if the target will be expressed in every cancer cell or if the target is not going to increase, then decrease. And that’s why we see so many resistance appearing in some of the cancer treatment and so on. It means that the motor action you’re using with sometime the biological molecule is uncertain.

Hmm. Depending on where the patient is sitting and which patient you are treating, if you use a physical mode of faction, you don’t have all this viability. So at the very basic level, you have a product that could work in every patient. It doesn’t mean that you will bring the same benefit for all patient because they have their own biology, but at the primary level, you have a mode of action that could work for all patient.

That makes a big difference. When you think about probability of success, when you think about universality,

Philip Hemme: Okay.

Laurent Levy: And that’s what we see with radiation, right? We don’t screen patient to see if they express a specific biomarker before getting to radiation.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Okay. Yeah, so it’s just kind of. Since you Yeah.

So in the head, and it needs to be head and neck, I guess needs to be local, head and neck. And then you can basically treat them prostate lacking, breast lacking glioblastoma or liver cancer or many other cancers. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And can you maybe on the finish a bit on, on nano, but on the, on the next steps.

In the next 12, 18 months, you said the, maybe the approval, I guess is one of the biggest or the end of the phase three, the biggest next steps, but

Laurent Levy: we can about the future of what now j and j is doing. And I think from now that’s j and j that is going to communicate on that product, especially the advanced program.

But NanoVi continue to run some of the program like in combination with PD one and radiation. It had a neck in Oma. And we also have a, a big. Alliance with MD Anderson Cancer Center that are running. So from there on, we’ll continue to talk about what we are running and j and j will, will start communicate on what they do as they do usually.

[00:28:28] Few competitors

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Yeah. On the, I’m, I’m curious also on the, on the competition you have in the, in the Nanotherapy space, because even when I looked up to prepare the conversation, I found a few, a few like competitors, but also not. That many how, like, how do you look at it like competitors? How do you differentiate from them?

Laurent Levy: Well then can you name the competitors then?

Philip Hemme: I found like Nanos Spectra, I think I found that’s what I found and one other that stopped. Was it NH or how you pronounce it? That’s so I found, I don’t know. Okay.

Laurent Levy: So if you think about Nanos Spectra, that’s a company that is using particle that they activate or ex excite with laser.

So it’s a different technology and does not target the same thing. And there’s a fundamental difference here. Lights that you use in lasers, they have limited penetration in the body. Mm-hmm. So you cannot target every tumor with that. But the biggest differences is we are using a practice that is shared by millions of patient and already.

Rooted in the cancer treatment, so we don’t change all the practice to treat patient, we’re just going with the flow. If you want to use the particle activated by laser or any other equipment or any other practice that is not in the hospital, you have to recreate an entire practice and therefore the penetration of the market or the use of such a product should be, will be very limited.

So that’s, that’s a big, big limitation of not using an existing practice in hospital. And it was one of the reason why we did stop one of the first technology we are developing to move to NBTX artery, the one that is combined with radiation. So that’s for this, they always, they

Philip Hemme: use

Laurent Levy: private

Philip Hemme: competitors.

Laurent Levy: we don’t have par competitors. And that’s also the way you structure your intellectual properties. You have competitors when you target a patient, right? Because many. Companies with different type of drug approaches trying to help the same patient. So if you treat head and neck metastatic patient, you have many approaches that are on their development.

So we have indirect competition for helping those patient. But fundamentally, when you look at product, that will be answer meaning inorganic, crystalline particle with identity, which is a prerequisite to get a strong absorption. There’s no, so we don’t have direct competition in that. Okay.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. So you, you don’t have direct competition on the, on the technology, but you have direct competition I guess on the, on indication.

Yeah. On the indication. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And, and like, I, I’m still curious on why, why is there not more people using radio enhancers? Developing radio enhancers.

Laurent Levy: Well, hi Genentech, when they started where there was not too many people using monoclonal antibody. Yeah.

Philip Hemme: But I, I’m still curious why, I mean, even Genentech, you had a few people using NS even when, when they were at that time.

I know.

Laurent Levy: Well, I mean, to to, to be fair going with biology into healthcare is a, is a natural bridge, right? Because even when you started in the past developing chemical molecules, you need to understand biology to to get there. When the first biotechs had been developed, there was a bridge that occurred over time and then it became part of the pharma industry, the biotechnology and the bio biological molecule.

And now we see more and more complex biological object coming in.

Philip Hemme: Yeah,

Laurent Levy: when we started Nano bio. The nano physics and the understanding of how reducing the size of the met here will change the physical property was something emerging. Right. And when we started combining this emerging science with biology or with healthcare, there was not many competitors doing.

And as we’ve been the first for the past 20 years to, to work on that and pioneering the science for decades, then we still have advanced versus others. Yeah. What we should expect is when we start as any product to see some good outcome in the clinic or the first marketed pro product, et cetera, I can guarantee there will be much more people running after it.

Philip Hemme: Yeah.

Laurent Levy: So it’s all about when you start being in the front of the wave, so you can protect with IP a very broad domain, and you can advance faster than others and be, be in the front.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Makes sense.

[00:33:37] Biotech in France, Europe and the US

Philip Hemme: Yeah. On the, I I wanna switch gears a bit on the, on the French biotech ecosystem or something, and you’ve, you’ve seen, you’ve seen quite a lot.

And one thing that I’ve, I’ve, that I’ve seen recently, which was quite amazing, I think was. Now, it’s been two weeks ago, I think you, you guys passed the, the billion dollar mark and then there’s Abbi VX and also who passed on. Now you have basically three, three biotechs at that, at that level, which I think is kind of, I mean, one of the only times, I mean.

If I remember well how, how, like maybe mean, how, how do you look at the Yeah. The French biotech or the ecosystem? I think, yeah, say market cap is market cap, but I think it reflects also a bit of something like,

Laurent Levy: well, I mean, there have been in the past some companies having a billion market cap and going out, going down.

And I, and I think. More importantly than the market cap is, I think this ecosystem is maturing.

Philip Hemme: Yeah.

Laurent Levy: There’s more and more company that hit the mark of approval or beyond or getting there, and that’s a sign of maturity and a sign that the good science we’ve been developing so far and needed. Some entrepreneurs and time to get to the right level of maturity, either to make deal with pharma or to, to get to the finish line of the marketing approval and sales.

And the more company will get there, the bigger the ecosystem could be. That’s, that’s one of those thing we have been observing for the past 20 years, but also. I think the value of the product we are developing. Interestingly, if we can develop things that are different and being in the front of things, then that give us a hedge in everything.

I think in every business. If you don’t have a hedge, then I. It’s hard to compete, especially if you compete with company that have much more money and could go faster and et cetera. So I, I will always say to, to people that want to start a business that, especially in the European ecosystem, if you don’t have something different, if you don’t have an edge, don’t go there.

I mean. The best chance you have is be number four, number five, and you will have a lot of drawbacks in general. So try to do something others don’t do.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Actually it’s, it’s one thing that I, I saw also you think, you said in, you said in in interviews that comparing more like European. Let’s say tax transfer or ization compared to US commercialization.

And you were saying that European was actually not that bad. I think, I mean, it’s not your exact words on

Laurent Levy: in commercialization. Yeah. I think I’m, I may have forgot this interview. What is that?

Philip Hemme: So the European innovation is us progressing is what we’re seeing in America.

Laurent Levy: Yes. That I, that I can say. Yeah, no, clearly.

I mean, when you think about science, right it’s sure that with a good platform, a good ecosystem and a lot of money injected, then you have a much greater chance to, to develop and to find some innovation. But you cannot prevent spontaneous innovation to come from anywhere in this globe. And when you look at some of the key innovations, some of them have been developed here.

Many of them have been developed in the us So just coming back to my previous comment is if you have an edge, if you find something new that others don’t have, that’s where we should put our investment. And it’s not always what we do in France and in Europe, but I think we have few of those technologies and that’s where we should really aim.

Go for it. Yeah,

[00:37:19] Laurent Lévy’s leadership style

Philip Hemme: that’s good. I wanna go a bit more on the, on the personal level. Well, again, it’s, and it’s not only antibiotic things. One thing you told me, which it still struck my mind, I think was in 2020 when we talked and you told me on decision making, I you, I mean, I think maybe you were word you told me.

When I have a decision that is kind of equal, I don’t know what to pick. I flip a coin that was, and actually I applied it. If she has it kind of worked. Can it?

Laurent Levy: Now, wait, when, when I say that is in, in our, in our industry or job, there are many times where you have to take decision, which are not certain, right?

There’s always a level of, and many of, of some decisions sometimes is a lose lose. Situation where you don’t win anything going A or B, but you have to choose A or B. So that’s where we don’t flip a coin, but then you say, where do you find more certainties and control in this type of decision? And those are not easy decision to take.

The rest is really easy, but those one are complex and, but that’s where you can make a difference. That’s where what you decide matters and can, can help to grow or to go down sometime.

Philip Hemme: Yeah, I like that. I wanna say on, on the, a bit more on your, on your personal, I don’t know if you, on your personal like style, it’s, I think you’re quite like direct. I think people can, can tell think and no, no bs no bullshit. Like, I’m curious on on how do you, like, I don’t, were you like this before or do you like.

Try to control it, tune it down a bit, or you just let it go? Like how, how do you look at this like,

Laurent Levy: well, it’s a, that’s a complex question and I think we evolve, we change, we learn over time. I’m today not the one I was five years ago and 10 years ago and even before. I think one, a big part of my internal process to move forward as being a CEO of nano biotics is really first I had to get out of my brain.

I, I’m scientist at core, so, and I’ve been spending a big part of my life in my brain thinking about science, imagining things, having my own world, and it was easy. It was cool. Everything was possible. And that’s also what led me to be able to invent. Or to start inventing what we have at Nano and starting the development of Nano.

But at some point you need to shift from. Being a scientist and understanding the risk and, and having a vision to lead people. And you can’t lead people being in your brain. So that has been the biggest shift I had to do. Getting out of my brain as an introvert as I am to start getting to know the people and knowing where they are.

Philip Hemme: Mm-hmm.

Laurent Levy: So I can show them where I want to go. That’s, that’s, that’s, that’s a big thing I’ve learned, which is. Not efficient, but essential to what you want to do. So more than efficient, essential, if you want to lead and bring someone somewhere, you need to take them where they are.

Philip Hemme: Mm.

Laurent Levy: And then they can, you can show where you want to go.

Philip Hemme: Mm. I like that. Yeah. I was about to ask actually, like on, on how over the 20 plus years you have been founder and leading and CEO.

How often you had to reinvent yourself? I mean, you said one other thing. Do you have any other, like other examples?

Laurent Levy: Yes. I mean. You need to learn from your mistakes and and grow and also agree and be cool or fine with the fact that what you were doing in the past is not necessarily what you need to do in the future to grow and continue to grow the company.

It’s not always an easy task because if you do something, if you did something that was really useful in the past. To understand first, that may not be the best thing for the future and to actually apply it. That requires some how can I say? There’s some internal motion. So, so you need to to move that.

But that’s, that’s good. I mean, that’s what makes this venture very. Interesting. That’s where you get the passion is that it’s every day is different. Yeah. You always have the same goal and you need to keep your goal in mind. But what you live with people with the constraint, with problem, with the good side, the downside, you, you have to evolve and adapt.

But it’s, different journey every day.

Philip Hemme: Yeah, yeah. Like that.

[00:42:16] Quick-fire questions

Philip Hemme: I want to switch final part more to, let’s say quick fires or quick questions, quicker, quicker answers. And one is com, I mean, connected to what we just said. Is it, do you recommend starting a company after your PhD or postdoc or gather experience first?

Laurent Levy: Both. Both. There’s no pass. I mean, there’s no predefined pathways. It’s all about the people and what they can do. But I recommend to be ready to evolve.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. I guess we’ll have the same answer, but do you I don’t know. Prefer should you go for a founder, CEO or hire professional? CEO?

Laurent Levy: Depend. Frankly, you depend.

I think if you develop something disruptive. Highly based on a science that is new to keep a scientific vision in what you’re doing and how it does insert into our ecosystem, I think is a, is an important thing. Yeah. But like all timers, CEOs and professional CEOs could do so. Good job. So there’s, I don’t think there was there key rules

Philip Hemme: here?

Yeah. What’s the most common misconception that investors have about about nanotechnology? I. Yeah,

Laurent Levy: nanotechnology is a word that is used any, and in many places, and when you look at the manufacturing capabilities on this planet, there’s a lot manufacturing of nano or nanoparticles, but you can find them in paper, on the paint, on the wall, on the cars, on your phone.

Philip Hemme: Nanoplastic

Laurent Levy: contamination in many places. So it’s just like you say, I invest in tech. That could be many things. So it’s just a big word. There’s so many things in it.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. So I guess investors should look into more details, I guess. Yeah,

Laurent Levy: well, like they do for any investment in some specific companies.

Yeah.

Philip Hemme: Yes. I don’t know if you want to answer the Go for it. What’s the next billion dollar biotech in France?

Laurent Levy: Well. I have few ideas. I won’t say it, I’m not supposed to comment market, but but I don’t think, again, for me, the valuation of a company should reflect the value created. And until you get to the market, until you start having a clear vision on how much revenue you’re going to generate, et cetera, et cetera, could go up and down.

And that’s, that’s, that should not be the target.

Philip Hemme: Mm-hmm.

Laurent Levy: We, we work. In an industry where the long term view is more important than the short term view. Yeah. So if you believe in the fundamentals, if you have something that is strong that can help patient and you have a strong pathway to market like a partner or by yourself, then you have to wait to get to this stage, and then you get the real value and valuation and return investors.

Philip Hemme: I, I like that. I mean, you know, the, you, I mean. You mentioned it a few times, but I think, and I’ve seen it on the, on the show, people have mentioned it, but at the end of the day, when you focus on execution. Especially under the clinical trial execution and, and generating the data that makes a difference.

I mean, that’s the fundamental that the most important gives you the options. And of course you need market lab if you found ways, but that’s definitely not the end goal. That’s, yeah,

Laurent Levy: there’s a milestone for every stage, right? You need to bring your product to clinic and then you need to show it.

Then you need to show it’s working. Then you need to. Get the final phase three data, then you need to approve it, then market it. And depending where you are, all those things will create value, of course. But ultimately it’s when you use the product in hospital every day after market approval that you can start catching the, the real value for the patient and you make a difference and for everyone.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Yeah. Another bit con, controversial question, but should the French or European biotech still list on Unex or go directly on the Nest?

Laurent Levy: That’s a good question and sometimes a rhetorical theoretical question because there’s so many different stories and. There’s a question of can you or can’t you?

Sometime it’s good if possible to go directly to Nasdaq but if you are a small biotech unknown by the market there, it’s, it’s kind of almost impossible to do it. So it’s more about where should I start my company and or where should I grow the company more than which market to be listed in.

Philip Hemme: One, one mistake you made in the past 12 months.

Laurent Levy: Wow. What do we do as a mistake? I think we did much more in the past than, than in the past 12

Philip Hemme: months. You can say what, one four at 12 months I.

Laurent Levy: No, I think that the biggest mistake we, we do because it’s very hard to prevent it’s in people, right? I mean, you, you get people to enrich the team to bring and to grow the team.

And it’s not a science, I mean, it’s not an exact science. And we learn with time on how to select people based on the value, based on many other things. But it’s as it is not an exact science that’s kind of a mistake. We do less and less, but we can’t prevent ultimately or absolutely over time.

Philip Hemme: And on your, on your personal level, I guess you’re involved in the hiring, but

Laurent Levy: I started I try to start learning a new language and it.

I started for five days. Then I thought, how God damnit, I need to move forward. And that was, that was a big a big thing. But it was not a mistake. It was a good thing to start a new thing. But we’ll see where I go with that.

Philip Hemme: What’s, what’s one, one biotech company you would’ve loved to be part of?

Laurent Levy: No biotechs.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Who’s one of your biotech or biopharma heroes or mentors?

Laurent Levy: I don’t have

Philip Hemme: many. You don’t need to name the public masters or,

Laurent Levy: but I have many people I talk to. Yeah. To get additional perspective. I give also my perspective to them. It’s more, it’s more an exchange peer to peer trying to understand their problem and share ours to see how we can grow.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Yeah.

Yes. Yeah, you tell

Laurent Levy: me what, what the,

Philip Hemme: what’s spinning in your

Laurent Levy: brain?

Philip Hemme: I would think, no, I think in, especially as entrepreneur, usually, I mean, I, either you have, I, I think it, I can share this like if people, you talk to kind of peers, and this is super helpful to share challenges. But then I, I can feel myself, I, I have kind of some, some heroes or some people who inspire me a lot, but that I know, I don’t know necessarily.

I don’t know personally. I mean, I have kind of levels of, of people, like some people I talk to peers, some people are mentors ahead of me, and then some are heroes. I dunno, whatever. I don’t know him, but I, but biography of Henry, I’m like, wow, it’s super inspiring. Or maybe in the tech world, whatever, Steve Jobs or some, some guy like this.

So I, that it’s just, I’m kind of thinking toon, I’m thinking, do you have, on this layer, do you have people on, on that layer? Layer?

Laurent Levy: Well, you know, I’m more fascinated about physics and what it brings and how deep it is. Than having one or the other person having accomplished something extraordinary.

I mean, I like what people do in general, but I, I don’t bring, I bring value to people that do things. And then depending on where we are, depending on the context and our ability, we do more or bigger things. Mm-hmm. Small or bigger things, but. That’s, that’s, that’s the way, the way I think.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Maybe your last one to finish was for, for the bit younger audience who watches, if you have one, one final advice or an advice to you for them.

Laurent Levy: Well listen, why people are saying no. But just go for it.

Philip Hemme: I guess that’s what you have been doing for

Laurent Levy: Tanya, kind of awesome. Thanks. So thank you.

Philip Hemme: Great conversation. Yeah.

I’m impressed by how Laura grew nano biotech from rough ID to now a billion dollar company. While being very focused on patients, I’m also impressed by his mindset and the clarity of the bigger picture. If you enjoyed this episode, please hit the like, follow, or review button. Any of these actions would help a lot the podcast to get to more people.

If you wanna support us even further, you can make a donation by clicking on the link in the description below. We also have a lot more videos on our channel, so please free to check them out. I would also be curious to hear what you think. So if you could leave a comment. Wherever you are, or shoot me an email at Philip at Flo Fire.

Alright, thanks for staying to the end and see you next episode.