Agnete Fredriksen, Nykode | Being one of the top 50 women in 🇪🇺 bio

We’re live from Oslo 🇳🇴 to catch up with Agnete Fredriksen, co-founder and CBO of Nykode (ex-Vaccibody). In this episode, we chat about being one of the leading women in bio in Europe, the Nordics, and immunotherapies.

Agnete founded the immunotherapy company Nykode in 2006 which is now worth around $500M. For her PhD she designed and developed the first Vaccibody vaccine molecules, improving the outlook for cancer patients. I’ve known Agnete for many years and I like her sharpness while having this Scandinavian humility.

Transcript

Agnete Fredriksen: My tips, my tips now is to, this is one of the things I think my learnings personally is to leave early.

Philip Hemme: I know it’s your October months.

Agnete Fredriksen: Not only October, I think in general. In general. I even had to do like manufacturing in you know, a short period that I never necessarily liked or excelled at it.

Philip Hemme: I think you announced from this week that you raised.

45 million dollars if I convert in dollars. It’s a private placement with new international international investors.

Agnete Fredriksen: We are also so happy with the data we have on the DNA. So, so let’s see if that’s you know, maybe more likely that we would explore with a partner with the mRNA competence.

[00:00:52] Welcome

Philip Hemme: Hey, I’m your host Philip. Welcome to a new episode of the Flot.bio Show, where I interview the best Europeans in biotech to help you grow. Today I’m in the really cold and wintry Oslo to talk with Agnete Fredriksen from Nykode, ex MaxiBuddy. Agnete founded the company, this immunotherapy company, in 2006 and the company is now worth around 500 million dollars.

I’ve known Agnethe for several years and I like her sharpness while having this like Scandinavian We will talk about being one of the leading women in biotech in Europe about immunotherapy and about the Nordics So let’s go to her office somewhere in this building and talk to her. See ya

[00:01:36] Women in biotech

Philip Hemme: All right, so for today I want to start with talking about like women in biotech a general topic I mean, you’re actually the first woman guests on the show and I, I took the ranking, I would rank you I think in the top 50 women in biotech in Europe, according to myself. And I’m curious on what’s your experience like

Agnete Fredriksen: being a woman,

Philip Hemme: being a meeting woman in the field.

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah, no, I don’t, I don’t necessarily think about it that much every day. But definitely there’s, there’s been episodes where you feel that you’re treated differently. So. I’ve started to think that it’s important to start to talk about the differences even though some of them are more general than person specific in order just to, to figure out how we can can make it more attractive for, for more women to enter into leadership positions in biotech.

I think it’s important not to just say it’s it’s no difference. It’s just, you just have to want to be a leader in biotech as a woman. I think you do experience differences.

Philip Hemme: What happened? What made you change from, I just don’t want to talk about it, to I want to share more? Is there something that happened?

Agnete Fredriksen: No, I think, you know, you get to a certain level of position or confidence that I feel that I missed. To hear from other women that were in front of me that they actually talked about the differences. Cause I, I feel, I felt when I was younger that what I heard was that there is no difference.

Also from women in leadership positions, and then I felt that I experienced differences and that I actually felt was a bit unfair because I felt that I would be better prepared if someone actually talked about it in public or to me specifically. Yeah. So that I could also feel that it was not like only my, my experiences were unique.

And also that you can be more prepared to, to handle it.

Philip Hemme: Must be also a bit confusing if you hear from eating woman, Oh, it’s the same. And if your experience is not the same, it must be like, Oh, is it me?

Agnete Fredriksen: Exactly. Yeah. So I guess I, I just realized that I don’t want to have that burden put on the next generation of women coming after me.

So I’m happy to tell them, you know, in private or to some extent in public that there are differences and there are ways I’ve been, I’ve learned how to handle them. And there are things I cannot change myself. And there are things that… I think I know how to handle which makes it easier for the next generation.

Philip Hemme: That’s great. Can you share what you can, maybe some lessons or some things you want to share publicly of especially things that were in your control and that you could influence?

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah, I mean, so I, I think I don’t necessarily feel that I personally have experienced too much difficulties in the professional settings.

Also, I mean, obviously when you enter a room. There are people, if you’re not known to them, that normally can, can treat you as you’re not the, the founder and CBO or CSO or something. So, but that normally can, can change within a couple of minutes. And I think recent years, most of the people I’ve met already know who I am, if it’s in a professional setting.

So I haven’t experienced that too much personally, but I know it’s an issue.

Philip Hemme: It’s interesting. How do you, in that example, how do you handle it? Like, like, do you behave in a certain way or how do you handle it?

Agnete Fredriksen: No, I think there it just helps to be prepared so that you don’t have to be agitated in that setting and just, you know, hi and introduce yourself and.

And it also helps obviously to be with colleagues that, you know, you’re, treat you as who you are and support, support that aspect of it and maybe that, that is aware of it. So I think for me, it’s been important also to talk about these differences with my closest colleagues so that we are all prepared and can handle the situation in a way that, that I also feel is with some dignity in, in that setting.

But then I think that the more we move into something that is a bit more social and networking that’s maybe where I felt it was, has been much more challenging. And and I think that’s important also for, for other women to know about, particularly younger women in those settings. I think those social networking events are set up primarily by men and how they like to network.

And I think I’ve been very… It’s, you know, stubborn that I should not have less opportunities to be in those settings and also do. You know, get connections in, in this networking events, but it’s not easy.

Philip Hemme: They’re very precious for business as well. I mean, that’s where networking of the parties at JPMorgan, by Europe, that’s where you make also really good connections, business connections.

Agnete Fredriksen: Exactly. Exactly. But they are not necessarily set up for, for doing that across the genders. And and you know,

Philip Hemme: how did you, how, how, what’s your,

Agnete Fredriksen: no, my tips, my tips now is to, this is one of the things I think my learnings personally is to leave early. So I don’t know how to, to change that immediately and also to be close with with colleagues and not, not be there alone.

Then I think. think to some extent it works, but I don’t think you have the opportunity the same extent to make new connections with people that you didn’t know before in those kinds of settings as a female which, you know, and then we could always joke about, you know, hunting or mountain biking and I both hunt and I do mountain biking, but I’m never invited to those kinds of things.

Networking events, that is not a party. Those are, in principle, I feel, who are males, connecting with other males. So I’m joking about, you know, should we set up a knitting cafe or, you know, should we have breakfast meetings with, you know, poetry over there? I mean, there are… I don’t know. But, but the, these settings, there’s a lot of these settings that are set up where male have the opportunity to connect and get new connections where we are a bit excluded.

So, so that part just feels that you have to focus on, on the more professional settings. Sometimes I think it’s unfair and limits the opportunities for us. but we’re slowly getting there.

Philip Hemme: I think, yeah, I think, I mean, I think overall the situation is, I would say, improving, probably not fast enough, but still, I think improving.

I’m probably curious to hear on your side of, I mean, I remember from the, I think it was JP Morgan, I think it was the 2016, the scandal. Yeah, exactly. I mean, it was a woman strippers at the party, which is definitely not made for us.

Agnete Fredriksen: It’s not made for us. You know, it’s, it’s really not made for us.

Philip Hemme: Did you see any change since then?

I mean, it’s been over five years. Did you see something like changing?

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah, I think so. I mean, you know, from the early years when I started this 13 was outrageous. I think. Versus. I like that. Versus. I like that. I like that. Worse, yeah, but so I, I think it’s slowly changing, but you know, I mean, people are used to this.

There’s a lot of people that’s been in the industry for a long period of time and and they’re not necessarily there to talk business if there’s a woman in the room for good and bad or mostly I think for bad. So, so I mean, and it’s obviously not everyone but it just, you make, it makes you as a woman a bit more.

on the edge in the, in this settings. Cause you definitely just have one ambition and that is to, to also connect. I mean, we are as a special person. It’s a business setting. We also want to talk to people and we want to joke and have fun with with people we know partly and, and that we haven’t met before, that we would like to make a connection with and that can improve, please.

Philip Hemme: I think what you are raising as well, the like talking to your colleagues, male or female, but about, about the, the reaction and how to, or what’s kind of in the, I guess in the, what’s in the control of the group to, to improve. I think it’s super important, but I think also even now raising it up also for men listening to be more conscious.

I mean I can talk for myself, like I there are a lot of things that I don’t really notice. Something I would not notice. I’m not aware of it. No. But once I’m becoming aware of it, then it’s also easier to change. I mean, more from like some events, I would not be aware that it’s like made for men or that some women will feel uncomfortable.

But once I’m aware of it, then I can also change it.

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah. And I think that that’s, you know, it’s not always fun to talk about these things I think, but I feel that we are a bit obligated to talk about the differences. I think we also talked about it about hiring. And realizing that, you know, I’m an ambitious woman. I like people to be surrounded by other people around me with the, with the passion to get things done.

And also, you know, in many settings, I do appreciate it if something happens urgently and we can discuss things at 9 PM in the, in the evening and realizing lately that with those kind of. Wishes and you give those kinds of wishes to a recruiter searching for someone that would be a new employer employee, sorry that would be more men that say I’m happy to be available.

And obviously I will always be there and work also at 9 PM if it’s if it’s something I know I’m so passionate. Well, a lot, you lose some women in the process just because they’re getting a bit concerned naturally. But then again, once they’re hired, you don’t necessarily experience the difference.

On the gender basis is in my experience. So it’s something about how we approach it when we recruit and how the recruiter approaches it. And trying to also see through the filters of how we naturally just behave potentially a bit different. I mean, obviously there are exceptions but between the genders on some of these differences between how we just respond to those kinds of questions.

Philip Hemme: But do you, yeah, I guess it’s a good example, I think. I guess you, you can mention that the, let’s say the potential employee can respond differently, but I guess the employer could also ask a bit differently. I mean, it can be on both.

Agnete Fredriksen: Exactly. Yeah. And you have to, you have to both ask the question, not in a way that favors how men like to display themselves.

Yeah. not necessarily follow up. So that’s at least some of my experiences that it’s very tough for a woman to say, yes, I’ll do this. And I will always be there and I will perform day and night and 24 hours a day. If they know they cannot, you know, fill it, fill it up with with actions in the end, they are don’t necessarily like to overpromise.

And you, and you can experience that in the other aspect with, with some that come into an interview and say, I’m happy to overpromise. Maybe there is on a general gender basis, more. Men that overpromised than women, particularly women with families so they don’t necessarily feel it’s a good day if they’ve been in an interview, come home to their husband and say, I overpromised in this interview that I will be available every day, even though we all know that I need to pick up children in the kindergarten or whatever.

But maybe, maybe that’s not necessarily the same the other way. So then in the end, maybe the woman is at least as diligent and following up in, in my experience. So I think at least I’ve been more open to start talking about it. I know some women say. We shouldn’t talk about the differences because it’s all generalized and there are so many exceptions.

But I don’t think we change it if we don’t start to, to discuss it.

Philip Hemme: I mean, yeah, it is super complex, super complex topic. I like you in the example. And I think I saw what one study from a big consulting agency for Harvard Business Reviews about. That’s one major factor of the salary difference, I think, was for the U. S., was actually connected to overselling or being too humble or too, like, allowing oneself. And that this had a huge impact on salary negotiation. I was surprised, actually, I was in the U. S. setting, but I guess we’re not talking, you know, a cultural difference, but because of sharing the gender and culture, it becomes multi complex.

Agnete Fredriksen: I’m not an expert on this and statistics and everything. It’s just some of those things I’ve been starting to experience myself that, that I seem to also get a lot of. When I talk to a recruiter, the ones that are presented to me are dominantly men. And then starting to realize maybe that’s also due to the fact that I’m telling this recruiter how I want my new employee to, to behave.

And then slightly changing it. And then you see a difference. So.

Philip Hemme: No, that’s interesting. Yeah. I mean, on the statistic, on this topic, I mean, it’s, it’s a very, I think, quite subjective topic and we have some stats, but the stat, it’s not like science. I mean, you cannot measure it and reproduce it. But still, I think having a bit of stats data or some studies is probably better than even though I’m, I’m sure the studies contradict themselves like a lot in social science studies, right?

Agnete Fredriksen: Absolutely. And you know, there’s like, there are as many different men as there are different women. So, so, you know, it shouldn’t be a general topic, but, but. Maybe there are something that we can do.

Philip Hemme: What’s interesting is when you cut, when you have some statistic cut with your own personal experience, and I guess your personal experience is not only once, it’s like several times in recurring, then it starts to be a bit more like a trend and more solid than just, just a stat or just a single experience.

Yeah. And I’m curious about the, also more from where we are, Scandinavia, Norway, Scandinavia. I have the feeling that, and I think there are some studies also that, that gender diversity in Scandinavia is, is better than the rest of Europe or than the US. I mean, first thing that comes to mind is the prime ministers, Finland, Norway but I think, well, I think most of the Scandinavian country had a. Women Prime Minister, which is not the case of not a lot of other countries, France, France. Did this like, I guess, have an impact or how much did it have an impact on, on you? Well, do you agree?

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah. Yeah. I, you, I mean, I think it’s also a lot of, you know. Gender equality has come further, I think, in the European countries is everything from from the opportunity for, for maternity leave, paternity leave which is also sort of more or less mandatory in our countries.

It’s also about. The cost of kindergarten being much less, so it’s obviously stimulus that women do go back to work and everything. I don’t necessarily feel that I had an experience that there was a difference in my career opportunities until I started to travel out on Norway. So, so definitely there are, there are, I think Norway has come much, much farther than that.

And I think when I travel.

Philip Hemme: So you mean in Norway slash Scandinavia, you didn’t feel it, but you felt it much more when you went outside?

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah, particularly this, you know, if you establish some some business relationships with people in France, for instance, and then after a year or something, you start to talk about, you know, I have three kids at home.

And you see the shock in their face which is, you know, I think it’s pretty normal here that you do go to work and you can also travel, et cetera. Even though you have kids, it’s a different community, it’s, it’s not supposed to be different here if you are male or female in the, in, you know, the normal settings.

But do you experience that, that’s a, that’s a shock for. more people in the international world.

Philip Hemme: And the shock is more like from a they’re surprised or also a shock and it changes the business relationship.

Agnete Fredriksen: I don’t think, I don’t think I felt that it changes the business relationship. I just feel that it’s like. That it’s almost like they’re judging you as to, I would not allow my wife to travel when we have kids or something in that that respect.

And I think maybe also some curiosity. So who is taking care of the kids? You know, are the kids fine? Do they grow up? I don’t know if it feels, it feels like something like my kids are so beautiful and so smart and so happy. So I mean, obviously that makes it easier for me also to, to travel. But it’s differences.

And I think, so it’s interesting when you talk about prime minister and all these things where there is a lot of gender equality, as you say, in our countries. But it’s also interesting in what I’ve experienced lately, because we do have some contacts with politicians, the amount of support they are offered, as there are always someone there prepping them, helping them getting there to the next meeting, making sure everything is in place, et cetera.

Which I think is really important. Think to some extent is also a bit comforting or attractive for women that enter into this leadership positions. And you know, I’m starting to experience it more as you may have seen today compared to like five years ago when you have to do everything yourself.

And you have to order your flight tickets and you have to make sure you come to every single meeting in time and you, you know, you need to have the logistics, you, you have to pay the bills and approve and you have to do everything which, which is, you know, demanding. It’s as busy now. But, but I do also have people that support me through the day and make sure that all the important stuff’s are taken care of.

So that’s.

Philip Hemme: But this, so you, you put, yeah, I mean, but. you think in, let’s say, in the political world, they have more support.

Agnete Fredriksen: I think you experience them when they come in here. I mean, there is always someone sitting next to them in a taxi that has prepped them for the next meeting. And this is the topic, you should remember these things, this is the things you’re supposed to say here.

And then, you know, they come and say, now the time is 1054. And now we have to leave and I’ll guide you to the next, et cetera. So that they can spend their time doing. Exactly what they’re best at. And not also simultaneously having to do, do all the other stuff. And that’s not the case with the founder position.

Yeah. You don’t have any support in the beginning. And you have to fight. Yeah. Quite a lot. You have to stand up for your own opinions in front of, you know, investors, partners, employees. So that, that may make it a bit more challenging for women in that, that early phase where you, you just have to do everything yourself.

Philip Hemme: I’m curious if I like, because I experienced that myself as a founder as well, where we would like do a lot of things. At some point where the switch, especially at Laboratec, when the team was growing and we invested a bit more in support functions, especially like a team support who could handle like a lot of different things.

And this was really game changing, of course, as founders, but I mean, as male founders, but I think as women founders, there’s also this learning curve of like, okay, a lot of small tasks. And when you accumulate. Yeah. Accumulated, it takes a lot, a big chunk of time. It does, yeah. And also mental time. Yeah. And having someone who can handle this.Agnete Fredriksen: It’s also stressful, right? Because you have to think about all these additional topics while you are actually trying to drive the business to the next. You also may have to make sure you’ve paid all the bills and you actually have a flight ticket tomorrow or not. Yeah. And it’s it’s,

[00:25:35] Gender equality on the board

Philip Hemme: and the last question on, on, on that topic is on the let’s say board membership, the board of, of Mercure partners. Did you, like, and I think, I remember that I think on the NASDAQ, there are some rules now for gender equality. Like, and I think that actually, yeah, and what do you, what do you think about, like, having more, like, rules, it’s all, like, not laws, but more rules coming more from top down.

Like, what do you think about, about those?

Agnete Fredriksen: No, I, I actually think we’ve experienced here in, in the Scandinavian countries that, that it’s needed to, to be an accelerator of the change. And I think as I mentioned earlier, I mean, whatever we’ve done in Norway as to paternity leave and cost for kindergarten and all this, these things has facilitated that.

Yeah. No, women do work. We don’t have a, a whole lot of women that just stay at home in this country. So that’s, that’s an important thing and it comes from above. It also paternity leaves, sort of gets the, the male fathers to connect with the kids and take care of them on a. you know, have to be alone with the small kids.

That makes a change, not just for those months, I think it makes change for, for for afterwards. And I think also with the, with the board positions and also, you know as you, you know, in the government and everything, there are this, these kind of sentiments that we should show off gender equality.

I. I think it has been important to normalize it. I think it’s also, to some extent, maybe necessary to get to the first steps. Then maybe it’s not necessary in 10 years or 15 years or 20 years. But, you know, we all want to be in a company where you hire someone with previous experience and per definition, as long as it’s not equal, then you will continue with the same bias if you want to have people with prior experience.

So someone needs to take the leap and be brave and hire someone that don’t have prior experience. Or a bit less. Or a bit less so that the next company then can hire them again as board members or whatever, because then they have had the experience. So I think, I think it is necessary and I think it’s a, it’s a good thing.

And you know, you can always fight about this. I don’t want to be on the board just because I’m a woman. But I don’t think it is like that. I think we need to stop and, you know, we shouldn’t start saying, Oh, 50 percent needs to be a woman. We can start with, with something and then slowly this will change, it will normalize, you will get more and more with experience, it will get more and more that enter a board where you’re not the only female.

And then. Maybe sometime from now it’s, it’s positive, obviously everything is based on that we do think it’s a positive thing, but I feel that most, most companies do feel it’s a positive thing to have the balance of the genders and so, so then I think we need to get there. Yeah.

Philip Hemme: Because on the board, I remember I was talking with Patch and I know that it was much harder for them to find a woman that is fits in the, in the board with the same experience was actually really, really difficult.

Agnete Fredriksen: But it will. Yeah, but I hope so. At least I enjoy being on the board. Yes. Thanks. And for me, it’s a great experience as well. And I think, you know, there’s a diversity. I come with a different background on, on aspects than than the other board members that are currently all, all there are made.

Philip Hemme: Is it only?

Agnete Fredriksen: On the board. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But, but. I think, I think it should be positive, but I also think, you know, someone needs to take that decision and say, okay, we need at least one. And then we maybe want one more. And then I will have the experience.

Philip Hemme: Much more than zero. Exactly. Statistically. Yeah.

Agnete Fredriksen: And I will have that experience for the next board and et cetera.

So, so and then it’s easier for me to also help motivate other females to be on the board. So. It’s a long journey. I don’t think we fix it overnight.

Philip Hemme: It will take time. I mean, but as, as any, let’s say society changes, I mean, there’s so many things to change on so many different levels that it will take.

I went to a museum last week. There was a photo exhibition about. What was it? 1968 or 1969 like strikes for women rights. And the signs were like, women are not good only at typewriting. And I mean, in most countries, women had no voting. And you think within, yeah, I mean, it’s been 50 or 60 years. Which can seem very long, but also can seem not that long.

It’s always hard to know, okay, is it changing fast enough or not fast enough? It’s tricky, but I think there’s definitely some changes. When I saw it, I was like, okay, this seems like 200 or 300 years ago.

Agnete Fredriksen: Exactly, yeah. And sometimes it’s good to take, like, to look back 10 or 20 or 30 or 50 years to see that, you know, realize how much it has changed in the right direction.

But there are so many differences in different European countries and also in other countries. And I mean, we travel all the time. So I think that’s also for Norwegian women that come from a country where they don’t necessarily experience the gender differences. as much, then I think there can be, they can be not prepared for what they experienced abroad.

Yeah.

Philip Hemme: I mean, yeah, that’s, we know, yeah, I mean, I think you are traveling a lot in 12 months. I am. It’s October. It’s October. It’s October month.

Agnete Fredriksen: Not only October, I think, Philippe, yeah, in general, yeah.

[00:32:22] CBO rather than CEO

Philip Hemme: That’s great. Maybe let’s, let’s change to… then even your role, it’s one thing that’s I think I already asked you, but I want to ask you again.

When you’re co-founder, you’re founded the company, but you are in the, it’s ACBO role, you don’t want to take the CEO role. Mm-Hmm. . What’s, what’s behind that? What, what’s, what’s behind like,

Agnete Fredriksen: no, I think, I think, you know, my major driver’s always been the company and the company’s success. And I think starting a biotech company and coming from academia and believing that that makes you the perfect CEO with all that entails which does not have a lot to do with the science only I think is not good for the company normally.

As long as you are able to work very tightly with the CEO on the strategy and the science and you have a good collaboration, I don’t think it’s the optimal thing to move into a CEO role. There it is. I mean, you can always structure this the way you want, but I think it’s good to have someone in the CEO role that has done it before.

And I think that that’s what I still feel. I mean, I don’t have, I, I think I could. I strive being a CEO in a new company that is, you know, starting at an earlier phase than what we are now, because now I’ve already done it and I do work very tightly with the CEO on all aspects, but we do benefit a lot from, from that tight collaboration and coming from different angles.

So, so I think it’s good for the company and I don’t, you know, think it’s good to take over the CEO role moving into a phase that you’ve never been involved in before. I think that goes for, for many aspects. But then again, I have more, most likely compared to a lot of other founders that come from academia.

I’ve had a more interest in the strategies, the business development, the investor relations, what else is needed to make this company a success. And that has always been something that I felt was super important because it doesn’t help if you do a good experiment in the lab, if it doesn’t, you know, drive the company forward.

And I, I guess that’s the reason for the change from being the CSO to the CBO in the end. So I could focus across the entire company and the strategies and how to move it forward in the right direction.

Philip Hemme: At the end also, I guess the, I mean, it’s a letter or a title, but what you mentioned, how you structure it internally.

It’s also makes a huge difference. I mean, I guess, I mean, you are from, for so from what you said, sounds like you are doing with a lot of things cross whole company and it’s almost, I mean, I, I guess almost co CEO, like then like, but I guess, I don’t know in the Nordics how it is, but then some.

Countries that don’t like the CO CEO thing. Like France is like completely, yeah, yeah. Completely unknown. Yeah. In Germany it’s very common. You always have two or three managing directors. Yeah, but I think, I mean, and it doesn’t really matter then I think what you said that

Agnete Fredriksen: I don’t think it matters what we call ourselves.

Yeah. Yeah.

Philip Hemme: Bring the best value and that it benefits the company.

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah. Exactly. And I think we benefit a lot, this company benefits a lot from me and the CEO collaborating so tightly. So we do a lot of the business development things together. I mean, we were the ones that were negotiating the deals with Genentech and Regeneron, leading those discussions together.

That’s, that’s the two of us that’s been on the road for this capital race that we did this week, talking to all the investors together in, you know, we compliment each other in what we can answer there so that we cover everything in the company. So we don’t have to take a lot of the questions back in those meetings and say, Oh, I’ll, I’ll go and check with someone internally and then come back with an answer.

Most of the things. We are able to answer in the meeting at the, at the level that is needed there. And I think that drives us forward in the right direction. And we, we get all that feedback from the external world as well, that we can take home and discuss amongst the entire leadership team as to where should we go.

What is the focus and the interest?

Philip Hemme: I liked it. And I think it’s also great to be as a, how you say, do it or like, yeah, whatever the word in English is to also at the top level, because it helps also a lot, it first, it feels, I mean, you always have the thing, it’s lonely on the top, but I think if you’re two on the top, well, it’s lonely and being together in the meetings also helps a lot to get feedback, share thoughts, discuss the same thing that has been lived.

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah. Yeah. And I think that’s like all the dinners, all the airport lounges, et cetera. It is a constant discussion about the, you know, the last meetings, the sentiment, what should then be the focus and the topics and what should be. Which, what should we tell back to the organization and what should we tell the board and cetera.

So, so I always liked it. I also liked it when I was CSO because I, I was on the road quite a lot when I was CSO, obviously the company was smaller, but this opportunity to then be out there, talk to potential partners, talk to investors, you know, understand what is. of interest. And what is, what do they think is just boring?

It’s not always that you can have that same sense if you are just working in the lab when you see I get good results here and I get good results here, which show those experiments. are the ones we should pursue further in order to make this company do something that is of interest for patients and, and shareholders in the end then.

Philip Hemme: I mean, in a way your investors and your partners are your indirect customers. Exactly. And they’re the gateway to the patients. So even in any, usually even in tech companies, like talking to the customer helps them to. Exactly. Funnel it back into the product.

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah. Yeah. That’s where I thrive the most, when I’m allowed to be there, like in the middle, so we can, we can try to take the right decisions that we are proud of in a half a year or a year from now, because we made something that was differentiated and meaningful for the patients.

Philip Hemme: But it’s also. It’s extremely, it’s an extremely hard position, also hard to get this experience and get this like, I can talk super deep about the science, the clinics, plus also investibulation in New York, and the business strategy, making a deal, I mean, it’s, it’s a very Oh, yeah. large range of skills and experience sets.

Yeah. Which I mean,

Agnete Fredriksen: but in principle you need it a bit early as a founder and you know, in the leadership of a very small company, there is normally at least here with the limited funding, you don’t have. the best CBO and the, and the, you know, you don’t, you don’t have, or you don’t have investor relations right in the beginning.

So you need to take care of, of everything. Obviously, maybe I was a bit more interested in, in, in that part than, than all founders. But I, I’m also, you know, maybe extremely curious, curious and I like to, to do new things. So new thing. I think in these companies always for me been for the best of the company.

So if someone comes in and covers, you know, like I even had to do like manufacturing in, you know, a short period that I never necessarily liked or excelled at it, you know, then someone comes in and. And can take that position, then I can quick, pretty quickly move out of the daily operations and the decisions in that aspect.

And then I can focus on something else where we do have a gap still. And that’s maybe something I like that there is always somewhere we have a gap and I love it every time someone comes in and can cover part of what I’m doing today. So I don’t have to take everything on board anymore. Obviously this company’s grown all the time.

So that’s part of the journey. And some of those processes have been more painful than others. Also for me and also for those that come in. Obviously. But, but I think that’s what I like. If there is a gap, how can I do to fill it?

Philip Hemme: I mean, you grow also, I mean, curiosity and personal growth and you grow also in this pain, as long as it’s kind of bearable and the challenge brings a lot of stimulation or mental stimulation.

We could talk further about

Agnete Fredriksen: Not a routine person. Maybe.

[00:42:10] Raising $45 million

Philip Hemme: And you. I think you announced from this week that you raised, so it’s 45 million if I convert in dollars. It’s a private placement with new international international investors. I mean, coming, what you said, being in the meeting and closing it.

And I mean, at the, at the moment also, it’s not the easiest time necessarily to often close. So can you talk a bit about, about it or like what?

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah, no, no, it’s been very interesting. I think as a background information, obviously we are born in Oslo in Norway, and we’re not a VC as such funded company in the beginning, it was in Norway, it’s been some interest from local family offices, et cetera that are not necessarily health, health care specialists, but had an interest in, in biotech and those, those local.

Investors have been very loyal and been with us all the time, but we haven’t been in the market for. any capital raise since 2018, which is very rare for a biotech company. You had upfront payments. Because we got the upfront payments, like 200 million from from the genetic deal. And then subsequently 50 million from Regeneron and then some Milestone.

So we spent the time really to trying to build this company and, and execute, but simultaneously knowing that at some time at, at, at time in the future, future, this company will need specialist investors and also specialist investors with really big funds. In order to support the ambitions we have, we have a platform technology.

We can make multiple different products within oncology. We can multiple products within now autoimmunity if it works. And, and that gives us an ambition to build a big company in the future. If, if it succeeds. And then Norway is most likely not big enough for really supporting a company with this.

And also that understands what’s the difference with medium overall survival of this compared to that, et cetera. What’s the difference if it’s a single arm with these data versus randomized, you know, what’s openly, you know, these kinds of details we need. And to have more specialist investors on board.

And now the market has been horrible the last few years. And and it has made it challenging as to know when are we going to race because we still had like 174 million in the middle of the summer. So no immediate rush. But if we want to support the journey of this company, we need to slowly first get some high specialist investors on board.

They don’t buy the, you know, normal stock on on the stock exchange. They want to be part of, of a capital race. So we’ve been on the road for a long period of time trying to get everyone to know this company that was born in Oslo and familiarize them with the technology and now getting some of the really, really, really best funds to say, I’m interested and I’m interested to the extent that I say.

Let’s do it now. So we got particularly this one big fund. It’s not yet public, but I think it will be soon. I’m super proud of of being able to, to start a collaboration with with this fund starting with a 20 million U S dollar from, from, from those. And then obviously made it easy to get the interest from, from the rest.

I think it was You know, multiple times oversubscribed and in this market that’s, that’s not normal. Yeah. So and that, that means a lot for us. I think we are now, I feel that we are now at the second sort of platform, I think for me it was you know, you’re climbing and then there’s a platform and Genente came on board.

So okay, validating the technology, also a lot of funding. Now, it’s also been a lot of climbing, but now it’s, yeah, I feel it’s like, it’s hard to get us down from this level of validation that we have now as well. So so very important for us these days.

Philip Hemme: And like, I guess also what you said, but I mean, also, I guess it’s also a pretty small, I mean, a smaller investor community.

They’ve been very helpful, but I guess you rapidly tap into European or even US investors and especially US investors for big money like Most of the European companies, they get bigger funding from,

Agnete Fredriksen: I think if you’re like a single asset company, you can do very well in Norway, but I think as a platform company in the future, if this is to be successful, we need we need as we also said that we are obviously exploring a potential listing at the NASDAQ in the future and in order to get there, you should not go there.

with primarily local investor base. So this is an important step also for a future successful Nasdaq listing for us.

[00:47:47] How the science works

Philip Hemme: That’s great. Going to maybe more to the science, I mean, the, and how the science works starting from the beginning. I’m curious. Yeah, maybe you can just on the, on the short, like how, how the science really works.

How was antigens we shown to the APCs like I was, I mean, there’s some questions there.

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah. Pardon my, my recent point. It is a complicated technology in in principle. It’s not that easy to explain in, in simple words no, but we were, so we focus on, on immunotherapies primarily vaccines in principle.

Meaning that we want the immune system to elicit an immune response to certain antigens we call them. And antigens can be like the covid spike protein, if it’s antigen people know about or it can be antigens that are present in tumor cells or something that the immune system react overreacts to in autoimmunity.

And every time you elicit an immune response towards something, it has to, the antigen has to be has to be processed and presented within an antigen presenting cells. So it’s a certain subtype of cells we have in our immune system that is super important. And that was the original idea, just to make sure that these antigens do.

get effectively delivered and loaded into this antigen presenting cells. We sort of combine the antigen with a molecule that binds to these cells specifically. So so that was the original idea, but then again, realizing that different targeting units, so what we use in order to, to to bind to the antigen presenting cells.

They will all bind to different subtypes of these antigen presenting cells. And when they bind, they will be sort of internalized with different kinetics. So how rapid, and they will also go into different compartments. And all of these things determine whether you get this immune response profile or this remote immune response profile.

towards the same antigen. So that again gives us the opportunity to sophisticated technology and make sure that for cancer, we know we want primarily CD8 killer T cells and towards the antigen. We want it to multiple of the antigens, et cetera. And there we identified a targeting unit that makes sure the antigens goes to a certain subtype of antigen presenting cells and.

It’s routed within those ELs in a way that gives us the broad and strong CDI T-cell response, and that is something we apply for all cancer vaccines. Then for autoimmunity that we cancer,

Philip Hemme: sorry, I think I still follow . Yeah, just for the, for how you present the antigen to the antigen to the APCs. Like what’s like, so you can engineer to select.

Which kind of APCs will pick it up or like, and then how do you, what’s the delivery mechanism there like?

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah, so all APCs are different surface receptors. So for cancer, we actually use a chemokine, an inflammatory chemokine as the targeting unit. So this is sort of linked to the antigen through a dimerization unit.

So when this is expressed or you give it and deliver it, we do it intramuscularly. Then the chemokine part of our vaccine actually attracts primarily dendritic cells, certain types of dendritic cells. So that these ends up being in the muscle cell basically, you know, in the context of where the antigen is.

So it’s very effective because the antigen is taken up sort of by the neighboring cell. So that makes it very effective to load the antigens. But then again, when it binds to the kiwokine receptors on these particular APCs, it triggers internalization through a different compartments within that dendritic cell.

As if it didn’t have the chemokine. Okay. And if it has the chemokine, it goes into sort of endosomal lysosomes, et cetera, and makes the epitopes be more effectively loaded and presented on MHC class one molecules or HLA class one molecules, which gives us. When we look at all the data, we see a broader T cell response.

So if you have a large antigen, we can get a T cell response to multiple different regions. And these are primarily driven by CD8 T cells. And we see that if we change the targeting unit, It will go to different subsets of antigen presenting cells and maybe into different compartments. So, so we have identified the targeting unit for our oncology platform that gives us, you know, independent of which antigens we use.

a differentiated T cell response that is optimal for the immune responses.

Philip Hemme: The platform is really more like the IP and the platform is really there of like being able to present different kind of antigen. And deliver it to the APCs and make sure that there will be, that there will be the correct response for a certain type of…

Yeah,

Agnete Fredriksen: exactly. Okay. That’s super easy. Yeah, and that’s what we’re now using in a completely different direction. It looks very similar, but then we changed the targeting unit. We can make sure the antigens are delivered to tolerogenic antigen presenting cells and be internalized in a different manner and give a different signal to that cell so that the immune response we trigger is still antigen specific, but it will be regulatory CD4 T cells.

That’s what we mean. And that’s what we use in order to then make sure that we get a response that is applicable to treat autoimmune diseases. We can work on this for like other aspects that would be more optimal for treating certain bacterial diseases or viral diseases, et cetera, in the future. But so far, we now focus on oncology and autoimmunity.

Yeah,

Philip Hemme: that’s, that’s, yeah, and I think I’ve seen from your last presentation that you will, I think, announce a candidate by the end of the year in autoimmune.

Agnete Fredriksen: No, that’s in oncology. Yeah.

Philip Hemme: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. But you also, you already have assets in autoimmunity in the.

Agnete Fredriksen: No, autoimmunity is very new for us.

So that’s where we’re working on identifying the optimal platform. And now we back in September presented some very convincing and nice data in, in preclinical models. And it’s in a sort of MS like model and a type 1 diabetes model, but it’s smart that there are, you know, preclinical models where we can test the principle.

So we haven’t decided which disease we will move forward with. We will start that work, or we have started that work, to identify our… Our first candidates, but also in parallel, you know, really identify as I said with this particular chemokine, that’s the one we use for all oncology, for for our autoimmunity programs.

We still need to decide exactly which targeting unit. We have multiple that seem to work. We need to find the best one. And also should we give it as DNA or protein or… MRNA or, you know we have all these abilities to, to change.

Philip Hemme: That was my, my next question. Yeah. On the, on the form you’re, you’re giving it to get, I mean, so for oncology, if I understand well, so antigen is already synthesized and combined with the chemokine, it was a.

Agnete Fredriksen: So in the clinic, we have, we so far worked with a simple DNA plasmid based vaccine. So we have the, the plasmid, the plasmid backbone that has then the target, the chemokinase, the targeting unit directly linked to the genes that encodes the dimerization unit directly linked to the genes encoding the antigen.

So it will, after we give it to give it intravascular, it starts to secrete this fusion protein that, so the fusion protein, it’s a pla

Philip Hemme: when you, so when you inject, your plasmid will automatically translate into cells, muscle

Agnete Fredriksen: cells express. Yeah. And the muscle cells secretes this new protein that is not just the antigen, but then the, at the protein level, the antigen is linked to the targeting unit through a ization unit.

Philip Hemme: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. But how, so I’m still curious how the, when you inject it, how it’s automatic, like it transfects automatically or goes into the cells to be expressed or what’s the?

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah. So it’s not very effective if you just like take a needle syringe with DNA. You need to either formulate it in, in in some sort of formulation that makes it cross the cell membrane or what we are using is a simple device, a jet injector.

That basically gets it with enough speed, it’s not a gene gun and such, but it’s, it’s just like me, it’s a tiny orifice and a spring. So it just pushes it instead of a needle. It just pushes it through the skin and into the muscle. At such high speed that and it meets enough resistance so it spreads and it goes, you know, across the cell membrane and and gets into the cells.

So that’s very patient friendly way of delivering it. In principle, this device is also being explored as an alternative to needle syringes also for those with needle phobia and, and other aspects of it. So it’s a very simple device. I mean, we came over that bit as a coincidence many years back and we are one of the first companies that tested this for DNA vaccines in the clinic.

Not the first, but one of the first. And so far it seems to, to allow protein expression and without, potentially also without too much of this adjuvant activity. That’s the things we’re also thinking now when we see the clinical data. It seems that we generate T cells. That, you know, come up and they are not, it’s a DNA, so the protein is being expressed over a long period of time compared to, for instance, mRNA, or if you give the protein, it’s sort of a very short period compared to the DNA.

But also. There are obviously so much of anticity, you can say with the chemokine, some CPG motifs in the DNA, but not as much as with an mRNA, for instance. So we don’t see any signs of exhaustion of the T cells. And we also see this very long term, long lasting T cell responses that even one year after the last dose in our patients and on the trials we looked at, we still see effective T cell responses.

That may be, you know, a good thing with the DNA and with the jet injection where we have the IP to deliver it as an mRNA based vaccine if we wanted to. We don’t. necessarily know all the differences in the kinetics and how that will affect whether we get more exhaustion of the T cells if we move forward with mRNA versus DNA or another something that we would potentially like to explore with a partner.

You’re looking into it. So we have preclinical data with the, with our vaccine formulated as an mRNA LNP vaccine. Those data look good, I mean, if we compare it with the standard mRNA based vaccine that only express the antigen, we see the same benefits when we add this chemokine, and we see it faster, we see it stronger, we see also very importantly, a broader benefit.

Meaning two more epitopes. And that that obviously is so interesting. So it, it seems in that aspect as an improvement of the current mRNA based vaccines, particularly then with this chemokine for oncology purposes. So, so it’s intriguing to, to also get that tested. But we are also so happy with the data we have on the DNA.

So, so let’s see if that’s you know, maybe more likely that we would explore with a partner with mRNA competence.

Philip Hemme: I guess I want to say that some mRNA companies must be also intrigued.

Agnete Fredriksen: They could, could potentially be a bit intrigued.

Philip Hemme: And they’re pretty deep pockets at the moment.

[01:01:20] Explaining the clinical results

Philip Hemme: And what I was what was curious also is.

I forgot my question is but on the, on the, on the on the results, I mean, this also explains the positive results you had. I mean, I just looked up from, from this year, so positive phase two, April, 2023 was a combination with a PDA one from, from Bosch, the centric in advanced cervical cancer.

And also what’s. I mean, super nice results first, I mean, especially for phase two. You doubled the median survival rate, and also you had a lot of very long lasting, remission free response, which I guess also comes from what you just mentioned, that the DNA injection like, generates a very long lasting T cell response.

Can you expand a bit more on the… On the clinical, on the results. Mm-Hmm. On?

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah. Yeah. I can , I mean, principle, we tested this this particular asset we done 16 earlier in the preclinical or in, in a precancerous cervical lesion setting. Mm-Hmm. Where, so we sort of knew that it was safe could elicit very strong and long-lasting t-cell responses.

As well as we saw a very nice correlation with lesion size regression. This is obviously much earlier stages and it was monotherapy. So we had very strong belief in the asset as such and its opportunities. Then we quite rapidly designed this trial that’s called VBCO2 with testing this VP1016 in advanced cervical cancer.

And I think over the, the period, we as management, so we didn’t see the results, right, but getting more and more concerned about opening the book and looking into this data because of realizing that the patients coming into the trial is. It’s not only having one prior line of systemic anti cancer therapy, but two and three and four and five, you know, really late stage cancer patients and cervical cancer is per definition a high unmet medical need patient population from the start and, and getting really the sickest patients into the trial.

It’s, you know, challenging and risky from an opportunity to see that the vaccine has the ability to change it.

Philip Hemme: Especially in the immune set up, I guess, immune system is already very…

Agnete Fredriksen: Immune system is, is, yeah, yeah. And it’s, it’s a lot of inflammation in the blood and it’s not the optimal setting. We’re not set up for success.

And then in the meantime, as well, we saw other cancer vaccine companies moving yeah. Away from late stage in any indication, and while, while almost focusing on, on this early stage adjuvant setting. So we were quite concerned, I would say about whether those data would would give us anything that we could build up on for future development.

And I think we were so happy that the day the, the team had worked like on this for a few days before I got to, to know it, which is the worst period in my life. And then presenting the data with a lot of enthusiasm. This was first the interim data a year before. Where we saw, oh, really, that, that looks very promising and then a bit more optimistic when we should read, have the final readout.

But the overall survival data being as strong as they are I think I think that’s transforming for the company and obviously most likely also facilitates that we could do this capital race now with interest from specialist investors and, and really. you know, move this forward into now a potential registrational trial.

So, so for me, it was a super important days.

Philip Hemme: I mean, that’s the phase two efficacy for other biotech companies. Yeah. It was huge. I mean, you talked about Yeah. Reaching plateaus.

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah. That’s a plateau. That’s a huge one. It’s, it is absolutely. Yeah. And I, I know, you know, our chief development officer is planning these days where he had like paper printouts all over his floor.

Every single patient, you know, double checking how long they survive and how long they actually progressed, et cetera, before coming to us and presenting the results. So. So, those data are, those days are extremely, extremely, and you have to be so sure that everything is, is correct before we go out and it, it feels much better afterwards.

It’s a single arm trial, but it’s a single arm trial and will, you know, what looks like be at least a doubling on the medium overall survival. Now they came, new data came out now with the skyscraper for trial testing again and it’s the same trick in more patients than in PD L1 positive patients, again, heavily supportive for us repeating that medium over, so I was less than 11 months.

Meaning that, that we get more and more confirmation that these VB1016s seem to, to help patients. And that’s what we’re here for. Yeah.

[01:07:19] The immunotherapy field

Philip Hemme: Talking about the, if, if we zoom out a bit on the immunotherapy fields. I mean, so it’s massive breakthrough and massive benefits for patients, L1. At the same time, I heard that quite some, let’s say, some other checkpoint inhibitors or some other pathway didn’t work.

Hmm. As well. And I think a lot of combination trials also didn’t work that well. I mean, the one that works that comes to my mind is the one that Moderna did with Merck. Yep. I think that was very positive. Yep. Especially for other mRNA. Yes. Cancer vaccine. Yeah. Can you. Expand a bit there, like, kind of a zoom out view on, on where does the field stand?

Agnete Fredriksen: Oh, wow. Yeah. No, I think we definitely experienced also when the MERS Moderna data come out, came out that it was very much creating a boost in the interest of cancer vaccines in general. So I think these things are super important and it supports the entire field. Moderna’s data are with personalized or individualized cancer vaccines.

Thanks. which we are also heavily invested in. We have partnered our individualized or personalized cancer vaccine program with Genentech and are doing studies together with them so far in advanced setting, but obviously it’s Yeah. Of more and more interest also to, to move into earlier stages.

Also with our assets. And I think they, I mean, they are supportive as to cancer vaccines should have a role. I think in the future that cancer vaccines should be the first thing you’re offered. When you have a diagnosis, there are really, as far as we know, there are no safety issues with the cancer vaccine compared to all other cancer treatments out there.

And, and all cancer immunotherapies basically do work one way or another because they allow cancer specific t-cells to, to, to be functional within the patient. So adding a vaccine or just giving the vaccine first, which. Its primary role is to generate those cancer specific T cells, should also always be a basis in every single patient as long as there is a cancer vaccine available.

So I do believe that if we look at

Philip Hemme: the cancer vaccine is also effect, I mean, shows,

Agnete Fredriksen: yeah, and it should show most likely more efficacy the earlier you come in the treatment. So I think the entire field is moving in that direction to get cancer vaccines in as early as possible. I do, however, think that while some of the other cancer vaccine developers have stated that they’ve basically given up on advanced setting for cancer vaccines and think it’s too challenging, I think our data clearly indicates that with this differentiated immune response profile that we generate.

That we can help patients also that have failed other therapies. So we will not limit ourselves to only early stage adjuvant setting, but obviously also want to operate in that space. And I think the data we’ve seen, if you see is long lasting T cell responses, we really see very few patients progress if they first have either stabilized or had a resist response that tells us that in an adjuvant setting after surgery.

The likelihood of this vaccine really helping the patients to not get recurrence. is very high. So we obviously want to operate in that space. I think the fact that some of the other cancer vaccine developers have stated that they’ve given up after failures in advanced setting, they also see maybe some signs that it works much better in adjuvant setting if it’s even ctDNA negative versus ctDNA positive, meaning as long as there are as you know, tangible amount of tumor cells present.

It is more difficult for some of the other cancer vaccine technologies to really provide a meaningful clinical benefit. I believe our technology with the, with the differentiated CD8 dominant T cell response to multiple epitopes over time can be the right platform in advanced and in early stage.

Philip Hemme: Yeah, I mean, that’s, and that’s actually the, the question I forgot that, I mean, what’s interesting is that you are, you know, you could be potentially agnostic of DNA or mRNA, so that’s whatever delivery, 3T, if you’re agnostic of advanced or early stage, I mean, this makes sense as a platform.

Yeah. Diagnostic of cancer and, then it starts to.

Agnete Fredriksen: Exactly. That’s why the growth ambitions are pretty, pretty big. Opportunities are big, but we also, I mean, we do have partnerships. So, Regeneron is working with with three oncology programs and two infectious disease programs. I see with the mRNA data that we broaden the the scope of potential partners that would be interested.

So far. Since we have focused ourselves on the DNA, even though we said, I mean, you can use mRNA if you want to having more of these data available makes it also likely that we broaden the scope of potential partnerships in the future. So, and then let’s see what works best in the end.

Philip Hemme: I mean, it’s also a bit chicken and the egg thing.

I mean, you have to start somewhere and what’s in your control is to generate the data. And I guess advanced patient is also a way to have a proof of cancer. Well, I mean, you’re showing that and then going up the, I guess I can imagine, at least from my knowledge, hearing from a lot of biotechs, it’s very, very hard to access cancer patients earlier.

[01:17:02] Biotech in Oslo

Philip Hemme: Nice. They, for just about to, to finish, to wrap up, but connect it to Oslo.

I mean we have an amazing view here. , the whole show a shot. So many people can see it in the intro. And how, how was it to start the company here? You said, you said that access to some investors or generous investors, how was it here? And also, I think you have an office in Copenhagen, Wadi, and maybe one in the U.

S. soon, I don’t know. So how, how was that from a, more from a location point of view, connected to your story since 2006? Yeah,

Agnete Fredriksen: yeah. No, I mean, the headquarter is here, basically, because that’s where it all started with I did my PhD across the road in university in principle. So so that’s where we started.

It’s been good to, to, to found a company in Norway, but it’s, you know, honestly, it’s very few biotech companies and, and not all companies, biotech companies that were around are around anymore, which is logical. No, it’s fewer and fewer maybe, and then there are new things coming up, which we, we hope will succeed.

That has made it more challenging, I think, also from the, you know, the entire value chain with yeah, I mean, so there is not a VC, strong VC community here, maybe getting better. But compared to Denmark, for instance, it’s, it’s very different since there are no, you know, not a lot of other biotech companies, it has been more challenging.

Not necessarily the first part with having people working in lab, because I think there’s a very strong academic science community here, but to take those decisions of what am I doing with that science? How should we move it forward? The development part of this, the business development part of it, there is not a lot of prior competence that we can access.

So that’s one of. The reasons now that we’ve grown into a company with close to 180 employees is that we set up an office also in, in Copenhagen, where they do have a longer history of biotech and also biotech that has entered into the later phases so that you have, you can access competence. They have done it before, as I say, I still, you know, also here believe.

That we do break boundaries, but we don’t need to break boundaries without having people that have already prior experiences. So, so that’s the, the Danish office is around 30, 35 employees. And where we have more of the late stage regulatory development people, a lot of management at the moment while here we have the labs, all the preclinical, a lot of CMC.

Yeah. So that works as a good combination.

Philip Hemme: No, that’s amazing. I mean. I mean, it, and it is an amazing office and the whole science project looks really nice. And I think they’re also building up or building.

Agnete Fredriksen: Yes, another life science building here. So they are trying to build build this industry. I think we are now a bit separated, right? So we have this very nice floor.

We have the lab in one end of the building and we’re a bit separated as a company, but there are also a lot of benefits. So. Or being in a science park where the infrastructure and also the opportunity to connect with companies.

Philip Hemme: Oh, great. I think that’s a great final word. I mean, congrats on the whole journey.

Thank you. It’s, it’s, it’s amazing. It’s amazing for, for the ecosystem here, for, for patients, for everyone, I mean, it’s, it’s great. So, and thanks a lot for taking the time.

Agnete Fredriksen: Yeah. Thank you for coming.

[01:21:08] Thanks for listening

Philip Hemme: I really enjoyed the conversation for having it open on such a sensitive topic and the company she’s built.

I hope you enjoyed it too. And thanks for listening to the end. If you did, please hit the like, subscribe button on any platform you are. You can also leave a review on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Any of these actions will help us a lot. And I would also be curious to hear what you think. So you can please leave a comment on YouTube, Spotify or any platform.

We are reading all the comments or you can also shoot me an email at philip at flod dot bio. All right, now I have to get back to Berlin and see you next episode.