Marina Udier, Nouscom 🇨🇭 | Cancer Vaccines, Neoantigens | E21

We’re in Basel 🇨🇭 with the CEO of Nouscom, one of the top EU immuno-oncology biotechs in the cancer vaccine space, Marina Udier.

We talked about cancer vaccines and Nouscom’s platform. We also discussed the importance of focus for success and her career.

⭐️ ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Marina was recommended to me by one of her investors. She has an inspiring story, growing up in Croatia, going to the US, and making it all the way to be one of the 11% of female CEOs of biotechs in Europe in 2024. Now she is the CEO of Nouscom, but prior she was the Operating Principal at Versant Ventures, as well as holding top-level positions at Novartis Pharma, and McKinsey & Company.

🔗 LINKS MENTIONED

Transcript

[00:00:00] Intro

Marina Udier: A good vaccine has to have three things coming together. One is a good platform, then you have put the right payload into that platform. And the third thing was, where do you put it? In which patients do you put it? We were just by chance planning our fundraise at the year. JP Morgan 2023 and the top line data went out at the end of 22.

So that was quite a nice message to start with. 

Philip Hemme: The world was a bit less open, Croatia was not part of you quite so. We’re 

Marina Udier: coming out of the, out of the 

Philip Hemme: war. 

Marina Udier: If I knew at the time all of this, I would probably maybe be intimidated. But when you’re young and you just don’t know any better, you’re kind of naive and you’re like, well, that sounds like a great story.

It’s cool. And I have good grades and you know, I will go and take a couple of tests and fill a few forms and go for it.

Philip Hemme: Bienvenue to a new episode. I’m your host Philippe. And on this show, I’m interviewing the best Europeans in biotech to help you grow cancer vaccines well through a hype cycle. They were super hot 7 10 years ago in the immuno oncology wave, to get out of fashion, to now back hot again. In 2015, Newscom was founded and a few months later Marina joined and ultimately has been CEO for several years now.

So, I went to Basel to talk with Marina. Marina was recommended to me by one of her investors and she really has an inspiring story from growing up in Croatia just after the war, to studying and working in the U. S. to now being, in 2024, one of the 11 percent female biotech CEOs in biotech in Europe. So we talked about, you see, cancer vaccines and Newscom by a platform.

And we also talked about the importance of focus. And capital letters, as well as her career. So here’s my conversation with Marina. And if you’re enjoying it, please hit the like follow button.

All right. So welcome to the show Marina. 

Marina Udier: Thanks for having me. 

Philip Hemme: It’s great to meet you. And yeah, we talked, we tried it. And it’s great to meet you now. 

Marina Udier: Yeah, it worked. Third time is a charm. 

Philip Hemme: As we said, a lot of traveling in the traveling season. Indeed. Indeed. Indeed. 

[00:02:18] Cancer vaccines & Nouscom

Philip Hemme: So, I want to start with the, the cancer vaccines field.

I mean, I think you are one of the leading company worldwide and especially in Europe. There is also NyCode, where Agnete was on show. We talked about you guys since the episode, and also BioNTech, I think they just announced it. positive results on one of the mRNA vaccines at ASIMO. So I’m just wondering if you can, yeah, how do you position yourself compared to the others?

Marina Udier: No, that’s a great question. And I’m thrilled to be here talking about cancer vaccines when the vaccines have been finally validated for different technologies. I’ve started working in a space back in 2016 when I joined Nuscom and, at a time the field was very hot, right? Because after the past, you know, not very great successes we came upon the field of new antigens and checkpoint inhibitors.

And the synergies between the two and a lot of new companies were being formed around that time, including BioNTech and Moderna focusing at that time on cancer vaccines so much before they became famous for being, you know, these big COVID companies. And then it took a while to, you know, for those to find the way and what I usually tell to investors and you know, general audiences.

A good vaccine has to have three things coming together. One is a good platform. And here is where different technologies differ. And I don’t, never thought, and I don’t believe that there is one platform that is going to be it. The winner takes it all, but there will be always space for more. We have a platform that differs from both NICOD, obviously, and RNA.

We can talk about that in a bit, but that’s important, right? You got to have the good platform that can induce good immune response. Then you have put the right payload into that platform. And here is also where different companies took different approaches to select the new antigens. The first selection is either off the shelf or individualized or personalized.

Exactly. And we did both and we actually did it in a, in a different order than most other companies. So most companies actually went with a personalized program first and then build various off the shelves program. We actually did it in the other way and, and I can elaborate on that shortly. And, and we also tested a personalized vaccine.

And the third thing, which I think people really didn’t think of in the beginning was where do you put it right in which patients do you put it? Because you can have a great drug, but if you put it into the wrong patient population, it won’t work. And I think some of the vaccines that are out there that have shown.

great activity in, in, for example, adjuvant setting, didn’t show similar levels of activity in metastatic setting. So really the place for vaccines, at least with some technology seems to be in this lower disease burden. So like if you look across those three areas, then, then various technologies differ between.

Which platform they use and why that platform induces good quality immune response and what kind of new antigens they present to the immune system and then where do they actually test that. 

Philip Hemme: I remember we talked about where the most efficacy is in the patient section, and that seems like on very late stage patients seems to be working less well.

This is going early, but that going early is also very hard from a clinical trial setting and enrollment. Huh. So how do you And how do you do it for your phase two? 

Marina Udier: Yeah, no, that’s a great question. So we actually run a phase two study at the moment in first line in the frontline metastatic.

Cancer patients who are positive for a mismatch repair deficiency. So that’s a subset of colorectal cancer patients. And we went to this population based on very encouraging phase one data that was published and which was basically used in our recent fundraising. So again, because our platform is, is really potent in inducing, strong and durable and.

specific phenotype of T cells, we have found mechanistic evidence that shows that you can induce vaccine specific T cells in the periphery, which then traffic to the tumor and, and kill it, right? Even if the mass, if it’s a significant mass is there. So of course the phase one, it’s a phase one, you find your dose, you determine safety and immunological activity.

And a hint of efficacy, a signal or a signal of efficacy and then you have to demonstrate it that the proof is there. And that’s exactly what we’re doing right now with the Series C. So that’s on one hand and, and so on the other hand, we have with the same asset, which we called NUS209, this is an off the shelf program that is built on the selection of 209 new antigens.

We also, It’s a lot of neo antigens. It’s a lot of neo antigens. Compared to others online. Exactly. And, and this is one of the things that really differentiates us from pretty much anybody in the field. Most companies go for 20, I think Moderna goes for 30 some, 33, 34. We can deliver 60 in each of our vectors.

So, our platform is Vital Vectors. Two different viral vectors which are specifically engineered so that they are replication incompetent. They basically are used to deliver the payload. And the capacity of those vectors is larger than most other modalities, most other technologies in the field.

And with the two on nine, we actually, develop this program to have four of these vectors made and then mixed as a one, one vaccine. So the patient still gets one vaccine, but it’s from the four vectors and they’re four times 60. Well, exactly. Minus space for some other things that, that make the vaccines work as well as they do.

Exactly. And there was a lot of discussions early on before we, we even went into the clinic, you know, do you need more or do you need to perfect these algorithms to give you? A very good subset of 10 or 20, right? Because the first vaccines went out with even 10, and then eventually 20 and 20 is I think the, the most common number.

And our approach, or you can even call it philosophy, was Well, if you give more information to the immune system, you have better chance of actually catching the immunogenic ones. And various algorithms were developed. I think each company has its own flavor of how you predict these new antigens. And by that, I mean, are they going to be immunogenic once they reach the patient?

And one thing that I think can be said with certainty for all of them is that no algorithm is perfect, right? They, they do. They do their job and their job pretty well, but no algorithm will give you 20 out of 20 immunogenic neoantigens. So our approach was always, well, the more you give, the more chance you have to really hit the right ones or the really immunogenic ones.

And we have seen in some of our clinical data later that. even your antigens that are selected or prioritized down the list close to 60, in fact, were immunogenic. So if you cut your selection in 20, you wouldn’t have caught them. 

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Okay. 

[00:10:39] Bioinformatics algorithm

Philip Hemme: Because you’re talking just for, or maybe also for the audience, the algorithm is when you go for a personalized approach, you try to predict, or you try to, I guess you go for, from a sample to predict which and the antigens would be the most potent.

Marina Udier: The most potent. 

Philip Hemme: And then you’ve got some bioinformatics behind. 

Marina Udier: Exactly. Exactly. But, but in fact, the same principle applies to, in our case at least, to an off the shelf selection. The only difference is that, in addition to the algorithm being different, you pre select and then you use that selection for all patients of a certain class.

In the personalized, you Do the vaccine for every patient as they come, but the principle is similar. We went for this wide selection of 209, not believing that every patient will have 209 active active frameshifts or, or these frameshift neoantigens. But in fact, that the sharedness of these neoantigens will be sufficiently high that the vaccine will truly be off the shelf, but universal for this population of patients.

Philip Hemme: And it’s, I guess, from like for, for cell therapy, I guess, the. Or as a personalized approach, I mean, it makes sense from an efficacy point of view, but from a CMC and I mean, then becomes rapidly high cost and quite tedious to, to, to, to, to do. So I guess for you guys, it’s an advantage to be able to go off the shelf on the beginning is.

Marina Udier: That’s one of that certain, yeah, it’s one of the advantages because the, as, as, as you rightfully say. You pre make the, the, the lots and then you fill the vials and then you ship them and patients who are coming into your trial, as long as they have the biomarker, which is this mismatch repair signature, they are candidates for the vaccine.

And we expect to find, and we do find a subset of the 209 in all of them. 

Philip Hemme: Yeah. Okay. And then. Okay. The, the trial I saw that it’s, it’s a pretty, I mean pretty large trial over a hundred patients and a global trial, I think you have 40 centers, something in, in the U. S., mostly U. S. and Europe. Yep. And it’s a combination with Keytruda, right?

Like, so, can you, I mean, tell a bit more about the trial of what’s at least, what’s public? Sure. 

Marina Udier: Yeah. Yeah. We can, I’ll, I’ll try. So you’re right in that our trial is a combination of the vaccine and Keytruda versus Keytruda. Yeah. And the reason for that is because Keytruda is an approved standard of care in this patient population of newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients who have the mismatch repair deficiency.

So in immune oncology, the sort of single arm trials, the It’s get you only so far, right? You can learn, as I said, some of the early stuff about the safety of your product, the activity, immunological activity, and the signal of efficacy but if you really want to demonstrate efficacy, you have to go for a randomized approach.

And so we, as you said, we are running a global trial in U. S. and Europe with a little over 40. sites, I believe six countries. So it’s quite a meaningful clinical operation. And we are doing quite well operationally, executionally. The, the proceeds from R series C have certainly allowed us to push that and to, bring that operation to where we want it to be so that we can see.

The data readout next year. 

Philip Hemme: Okay. Yeah, because the data readout, you Was it planned for Q1, or? Oh, somewhere I read it was March 20, 25. 

Marina Udier: Yeah. In the Q1, Q2. Yeah. Sometime in the first half of next year. We are on time. You’re on 

Philip Hemme: time. Yes. Like a Swiss clock. 

Marina Udier: We’re like a Swiss clock. Although we’re a global biotech, but we have some Swiss DNA.

Philip Hemme: Swiss DNA. That’s something we could, I heard you a very A lot of Swiss are very famous for being focused, but I think they’re quite serious for being focused, but they do a very focused and lean operation. So, and I want to, to jump on this a bit, a bit later.

[00:15:16] Hype cycle in cancer vaccines

Philip Hemme: Maybe to, to zoom out a bit, one thing you mentioned about that the field was very hot and then it’s a bit less hot.

I think there are some, if I remember well as well, like I remember CureVac at, I think it was JPM, 2017 or something, they had like a phase 2 cancer vaccine that didn’t work, I think, at all. And there were some setbacks, but I think recently you had some more positive news as well, I think, at least Moderna, combination results.

I think it was also a sketch reader, right? Cause like seeing that head back, I don’t remember the results, but it was, it was like really significant activity and significant combination. So can you tell a bit, a bit more on the, what, like on top of that, of like, what were the specific, not, I don’t know if it’s catalyst the right word, but the specific things that happened.

Marina Udier: No, that’s, that’s a great question. So in my experience, as I said, I started this journey when the field was getting really hot because of the neoantigens and in fact, for a while and, and a while is like a couple of years, two or three years, people were talking only about neoantigens. And I remember telling everybody, you know, But you need to have a platform to deliver those neoantigens, right?

Like neoantigens are one part of the equation, you actually have to have the right platform. So the early, clinical data with neoantigens were not so positively received because you could see immunological activity, but there was no clear correlation with clinical activity or efficacy. And that’s what confused, right, the field and the investors.

And then people try to find reasons for that. And, and one of the reasons was that either You don’t induce the right type of immune response and in, in cancer vaccine, you need to have CD8 T cells, so called CD8 neutron killer cells that kill the tumors and you need to have the CD4 or the helper T cells and they need to also have a certain capacity.

memory phenotype because you want your protection to be long lasting. So again, some of the early, questions were, well, if you activate immune system, but that doesn’t lead to clinical activity, what do we do with this? And part of the solution of that problem was for some companies, well, maybe you need to test it in the different patient group.

So in the metastatic population, if you have a technology that that is maybe not so potent, then your cells are not enough to kill this tumor mass because these tumors can be quite large and also multiple. But if you go to, for example, adjuvant situation, which is after surgery. So for patients who are candidates for a section of the tumor, then the tumor is either completely resected where some cells, residual cells are left, or, or.

Resected in a, in a, in a meaningful way. And then your cells have to act on a, you know, much sort of smaller target. And the Moderna data that you mentioned was quite important, I think for the whole field because Moderna has shown for the probably first time that you can demonstrate clinical activity or efficacy.

With a vaccine. So they had a positive so called proof of concept or a phase two trial in adjuvant melanoma. And that really lifted the whole field because somebody has shown that you can do it. And for us, this was quite meaningful because we were just by chance planning our fundraise, at JP Morgan 2023.

And this data, the top line data went out at the end of 22. So that was quite a nice sort of message to start with to say, Hey, you know, the cancer vaccines are validated as a, as a modality, right? And then within that modality, there are different ways that you can tackle that. And again, I never believed that this is a winner takes it all kind of a game and you can find different ways to address different stages of disease.

And some, technologists have really embraced this, this adjuvant or resectable population. We believe that we can make a difference in the metastatic population because, again, of the both potency and payload. And we have a very interesting, population that I believe it’s quite unique to the field where we don’t treat patients after surgery, we actually treat patients before the disease even shows.

That’s our so called Lynch program or the interception study. That’s in phase one. That’s done in collaboration with NCI or the National Cancer Institute in the U. S. And we have been very fortunate to be able to test this technology in this group of individuals who have a genetic predisposition to have mismatch repair deficiency because they have a mutation in one of the genes that control mismatch repair.

Basically your DNA gets Broken, quote unquote, all the time, and then it gets repaired. And if that machinery for repairs, it’s broken, then, then, you know, mutations usually lead to cancer. And so these I really didn’t I wasn’t aware of Lynch, even though it’s a quite prevalent 300 people have it.

So the population of prevalence is quite high. Most of the cases are. not diagnosed. And one of the reasons for that is because there is really nothing to offer to these patients other than surveillance. The, the, the thing about this mismatch repair deficient tumors is that they, they are not discriminating between organs.

So, They can give you colorectal cancer, they can give you endometrial cancer if you’re a woman, they can give you gastric cancer, ovarian and others, but those are the most common ones. So GI and GU. And if you are an, you know, lynch carrier, then you could have more than one cancer of the same organ or of different organs.

And so what these individuals usually do. Is undergo annual colonoscopies for colon, and then to monitor closely. And then women often undergo prophylactic surgeries after they, have decided not to have children anymore. And those are pretty terrible choices if you ask me. And so the idea that you can intercept, right, it’s, it’s not prevention, it’s really not prophylaxis, because it’s not.

a vaccine that you give to everybody, but you’re really targeting people who have much, much greater chance than of getting cancer versus normal population. And you give them the vaccine so that you induce T cells that will do the surveillance for you and then catch cancer with the vaccine. Or even pre cancer situations like neoplasia in case of colon cancer, which will then be kept in check and really reduce that incidence.

Philip Hemme: And in this case, it’s, it’s still an off the shelf approach. It’s an off the shelf. But it’s not in combination, I guess. Exactly. It’s a monotherapy. 

Marina Udier: It’s a monotherapy, exactly. 

Philip Hemme: And I think you will have some results on that one also. Soon though, you will announce soon. 

Marina Udier: We will announce soon results. So we have published the first set of 10 patients at the CITSI conference at the end of last year.

And that was an oral late breaking abstract that we received very well. The, the quality and the breadth and the potency of immune responses that we have observed. has really been unmatched with anything that I have seen, including our own metastatic data, by the way. And, and that has, and, and it was it was incredible because after that presentation and, and publication, we we started getting calls.

We just closed Serious C. We actually announced the close of the Serious C. Around the same time in November of last year at Jeffrey’s and, and people started calling like what is this thing? Can you tell me more about it? So we, we were busy, the, the lynch kept us busy both on the execution part because we of course wanted to see what the final data set will tell us, but also on the sort of looking forward side.

It’s an incredibly exciting topic to talk about. When 

Philip Hemme: I looked at your pipeline, I thought, okay, probably the phase two is the most important already, like, and close to a prior readout. But from what you said, it sounds like the two pillars, it’s two pillars, pretty. 

Marina Udier: It is the same asset, right? It is the same compound.

So it is the same. This, this, this you know, conglomerate of, of the collection of frameshift peptides or neoantigens. So these frameshift peptides are in our view quite important because they are, foreign to the immune system. They are they come as a result of a mutation that leads to a shift in reading frame.

So, you know, you lose a, a, a, a letter, you lose a base, and then as a consequence of that, you start producing. gibberish, right, which the immune, which your system doesn’t recognize. But it is foreign and foreign things are usually good, right? Immune system recognizes something that’s non self, right?

And then starts activating the right type of cells against it. So it is the same, information that is given, but in two very different situations. One. Where you treat a patient who has a disease, and in our case, this is in combination with Keytruda because Keytruda is the standard of care.

But in the other way, you can actually, you know, go into the high risk population and, and intercept that disease and lead to a lowered, potentially lowered incidence of that disease in the future. That is an incredibly. exciting possibility that we are quite actively exploring. Yeah. 

[00:26:04] $72M series C

Philip Hemme: Talking about the fundraising that’s, that’s one thing that I saw.

I mean, it was 72 million end of last year in 2023. Out of my memory in, in Europe, I mean, there’s not that many rounds of that size, especially. I mean, there was a vector, I think was probably the largest one was, I think it was a series a plus above a hundred million. But otherwise, I mean, it’s really large round and you have a long list of investors and top investors from before coming in the round.

I mean, one thing I can mention, I think I mentioned to you as well, is that Sophia from Andera came in, which. Yeah, I know her quite well and I, I, I like the company she invests in, the people she invests in in general but can you, yeah, tell a bit more on, on the, maybe even the, the investor story because I think it started, I mean, I think Vincent was pretty early on, Abingworth was pretty early on and then there’s a long list of other VCs.

So can you, yeah, talk about it a little bit? 

Marina Udier: No, I’m happy to. So, yeah. Nuscombe was founded in 2015 and it was founded by Versant and then LSP now EQT. And Versant and LSP were also investors in Okairus. Okairus was the company that has the same scientific co founders at Nuscombe and that was a great story also and, and success for the company.

For those two investors, in addition to a few others so Okairos was acquired by Glocks. So just a couple of, a year or two before Nuskum’s story began. So this is. Maybe also a rare story of repeat entrepreneurs in Europe. And so when the founding team came back and said, we have an idea to, you know, optimize technology, you know, cancer neoantigens have become sort of a hot commodity.

And Versant and LSP sort of jump on that and founded the company. I was actually a member of the Versant investment team at the time. So I heard a story about this. It’s phenomenal. Okairos you know, a success and Ricardo Cortese, who was the founding CEO of both companies. And, you know, that was kind of a myth, within, within Versant.

And I was, you know, doing my thing, minding my own business for the most part. And then I was approached by a partner who was sitting, a Versant partner, Guido Hermani, who was sitting on a board of Versant. newscom and say, do you want to, you know, they want to get involved and help out. My role was at the time both looking for new investments and working with the portfolio companies.

And I said, sure, you know, that sounds great. I came to this office and I spoke with Ricardo and I sort of said, well, you don’t need help. Like you need a full time somebody. It was a, you know, very much research organization at the time, maybe 15 people, all of them in Rome. Ricardo was the only one who was here.

So I said to him and to Versant, well, this sounds very intriguing, but I think they really need a full time help. And so one thing led to the other. I became that full time help. I was hired as the chief operating officer at first. Versant at the time and LSB put in 12 million seed funding or series A, I think it was 

Philip Hemme: called.

Full time was. Small, but not that small. 

Marina Udier: Not that small. Yeah, it was meaningful. I mean, it, you know, it lasted for a good couple of years or even longer. And then sadly Ricardo passed about a year after I joined the company in 2017. And Alfredo Nicosia, who was the the CSO of Akairos and he was then the CEO of Newscom Alfredo and I really you know, hold hands, held hands and raised in 2017 the 42 million Euro Series B.

That’s where Abingworth and 5AM came in. And we then didn’t raise. until last year. So that was quite a long time. And the reason for that is because A. we had non diluting funding from a collaboration that we have with Janssen or J& J. J& J Innovations, I think it’s called these days. They were quite fond of our technology and our approach and our manufacturing capabilities.

And the this, this is disclosed now, but we have had a multiple collaborations, license and manufacturing collaborations over the years. And one of those programs actually entered a clinic in 2022. So that combined with our capital efficiency really allowed us to stretch the, you know, the money and actually generate clinical data.

I think what was, you know, we went out really at the you can argue at the worst possible time in, in biotech industry, but you know, you need money and you know, you have to go and get it. So I think the few things came together for us in that fundraise one was that we actually had clinical data. I think if we were a sort of a, a tell me story, then it wouldn’t have gone that, that well.

We were a show me story. So we had clinical data, we had good plans. As I mentioned, we, we wanted to run the right study. To really show that a compound can work. We had a team that’s with a track record of execution. And we had supportive investors who carried us not only through all those years, but actually actively participated in new financing.

And so we were very pleased when in spring of 2023, we got a term sheet that was a big deal. And we brought in as you said, a long list of investors because once we got one term sheet sort of everything started coming together and, you know, all the investors we talked to and who were interested, but kind of, you know, decided either to sit on the sidelines or were taking their time.

They all of a sudden jumped in and said, well, you know, I want to be a part of this story. So we upsized the rounds from the original target. We, we, we were up to raise a little. But we closed at, as you said, 75 million. And actually this was extended earlier this year to, to something like 83 plus, with the addition of of Angelina Ventures.

So we, we are quite happy that a. We were successful in in closing the round, but not only that, that the round was upsized and allowed us more capital to do potentially more things. And last but not the least, the quality of investors, as you mentioned, Sophia and Andera partners, M Ventures, BPI, France, Indacost, Angelini.

XGen, I mean, these are really really good quality European investors that, that sort of nicely compliment the, the syndicate that we have in place. Yeah. 

[00:33:35] Managing a biotech board

Philip Hemme: I said, yeah. And I saw you I mean, coming with having a long list of investors, you have a lot of board members. 

Marina Udier: We do have, we do. 

Philip Hemme: I think you are one of the board, the largest board I’ve seen in quite a few biotechs.

I think it was how many, like 12 or something. We 

Marina Udier: have nine we have nine board members and then we have a few observers. 

Philip Hemme: That’s why they’re all listed on the website. 

Marina Udier: Yeah, exactly. So they’re all listed, but the board is technically nine people. I mean, the, the serious thing is, B board was eight. So you know, from eight to nine, it’s not that big of a deal, but, you know, you’re right.

And, and I was just on a panel this earlier this week related to another event and, and it was about biotech boards and, you know, the questions started with you know, how do you choose your board? How do you compliment the expertise? And the first thing I said was, well, when you’re a private company, your shareholders are your board.

We are lucky to have in addition to our shareholders, also an independent chairman. Who who I work very closely with and, and who has been really fantastic support over the last years. And we also have, another independent scientist who has been with us basically since the beginning of the journey and, and who really, really understands our technology.

So it works. I guess that’s the most important thing. It’s big, but it works. 

Philip Hemme: I’m curious about the boards of other, of the other lessons. I mean, some of, I think, at least Abingworth, they’re not on the board anymore. No, no. So you have replaced over the years. Even if the investors, you have prioritized new investors, I guess.

Exactly. 

Marina Udier: Yeah. I mean, this, this is more of a shareholder matter as, as I believe is, is common. So you can not just add and add and add but you know, we, we did keep most of the board members from before. We have replaced some and we added more. 

Philip Hemme: Can you, yeah, share a bit more on the, on the board dynamics, because I think, I mean, board in every, every company, most companies have a board, but it can mean like very different things.

I mean. in a publicly listed company, like whatever, Fortune 500 is very different than in a biotech, private biotech, than in a startup, than in whatever. But in biotech, I think at least my understanding is that the investors are also pretty active, pretty hands on boards as well. So can you elaborate a bit more on like, what’s the dynamics for, for your board and how, what were some of your lessons there?

No, no, no, no, no. 

Marina Udier: Yeah, there certainly are a few. So we operate through, through subcommittees we have three subcommittees that are looking at different areas, RR& D. clinical strategy, finance and audit committee, and we’re having an enumeration committee. So the committees do the work and we, we really quarterly, right?

We update the committees on what’s going on and where we need decisions. And then The chairs of those subcommittees then with the team, right, with me, and it’s a subset of the team then present to the board. And for the most part, this works reasonably well. Of course the new board brings in new dynamics.

So kind of the board has to get to know each other because some of the relationships are known, but in that context, rights. Some of, most of the relationships are new. So in the beginning I had to put an extra effort to just make sure that we are on one hand comfortable with the, you know, information and communication.

And on the other hand, this doesn’t become sort of a problem. My only focus because you know, there is a balance to be made there. And I think when you, when you talk about a series C company that is running a global phase two trial, you have to believe that you have a management team in place who knows what they’re doing.

Right. And the board’s role is to, oversee that and govern that and, and, and pressure tests, but actually not around the company because that’s the management job. We have a management team of seven. It’s a quite fine line. It is a fine line. It is a fine line. And, and at times there have to be perhaps some reminders of that.

But again, As long as we actually do what we say we would, then that trust, right, starts building. And then You create the trust over time and so on. You create trust over time, right? If you’re credible, if you do what you say you will do and you do it consistently and over time, right, then the Board, different board members become comfortable.

And of course, some things are easier done than others. You know, there, there, of course, are always questions, you know, how about this? How about that? But you mentioned word focus a couple of times. I do remind occasionally board then, well, we can do all of that, but you know, our priorities are one, two, and three.

So it was funny. There was one board meeting when I literally said we can do. Three things, well, and you want us to do four and you’ve got to choose, right? And we chose. 

Philip Hemme: I 

Marina Udier: like 

Philip Hemme: that. 

Marina Udier: And we chose. I mean, again the board is here, I think nobody on the board is here to be intentionally unhelpful or disruptive, not at all.

But they are curious, right? And they’re excited about their new investment and they want to see data and, you know, they, they, you know, they, they want to be in the loop. So, so it all comes really from good place. And again, my job is to kind of. Consolidate all of that and say, all right, we are going to address this and this.

It’s 

Philip Hemme: funny. I’m laughing because I have a similar experience with Applied Biotech with my balls, where when you, I, at least my experience, when you bring a lot of smart people in the room, obviously everyone has smart questions to ask and everyone has smart inputs, but you can rapidly discuss things that are not quite, so we, we learn quite a lot of like, what do we, Even put on the agenda or put on the slide because once it’s on the slide, it’s on the screen and there’s everyone watching for sure you will discuss it.

Exactly. It’s not necessarily the most important. So that makes me laugh. 

Marina Udier: I had maybe I had some training early in my career to, to prepare for that. And that was from my days at McKinsey. So I I went from grad school to, to a consultancy and of course this was a very different world. And the way that the teams operate within McKinsey, you have sort of a team that is a full time on the study and, and, you know, they kind of collect everything, they, they’re in the positive of all the knowledge and then you have partners who waltz in, you know, a day, a week and, and kind of, you know.

Give support to the team, senior support to the team. But to your point, right, like these people are smart. They have seen a lot of things and unless you’re careful, they can easily become a firing missile. And if they’re undirected, then that leads to explosions left and right. So, one of the things that I was trained on is to control for that or at least try to aim for that in the right in the right way so that you get your attention to where you want it.

Because we, you know, we do have, as antibiotic, we do have hard questions to solve. I think it would be quite, interesting, right, to claim that you can do everything yourself. Not at all. There is a reason why you want all these smart people to help you. So what I am trying to do is really focus people on the problem that I have.

Sometimes that requires answering the questions that they have, but you know, I, I am not shy in asking for help whether that is on the content or on, you know, I want to talk to so and so and you know them or whatever it is. I think the more you can use your board in a ways that they help you the better.

Because if not, they’re going to come up with questions of their own and, and then you will have to deal with that. 

Philip Hemme: That’s a good one. 

[00:42:22] Personal story of Marina Udier

Philip Hemme: It’s also a really good transition. I wanted to go a bit on the, on your personal background. I mean, you mentioned McKinsey. You, I think you are originally from Croatia, right?

Marina Udier: That’s right. I was born there. Yeah. 

Philip Hemme: Yeah, you’re born there. And then can you elaborate a bit more on you went, you, I think you started, Oh, you, your undergrad, I don’t remember where your undergrad was, but your grad, you went to the U. S. So you got, can you, yeah, a little bit on the, on this transition? How did all that 

Marina Udier: happen?

Yeah. So I, I was born and raised in Croatia and I actually finished my undergrad there. And my major was computational chemistry. And that was a pretty new field 25 years ago. And I was eager to, you know, go and learn and study under somebody who was. World class, so I was very determined to, you know, do something with that.

And so it was a very interesting process back in the day when, you know, internet was still, I mean, emails existed, but I remember having all these envelopes on the table with all these paper applications, et cetera. Long story short, I was accepted to quite a few actually graduate programs and one of them was at Yale with Bill Jorgensen, who was, you know, quite a name in the field of computational chemistry.

And so I didn’t. Yeah. And it did take a lot of arm twisting to, to make that call. I mean, it was a big decision to pack up. It must have 

Philip Hemme: been really hard to get this graduate position. I mean, I can imagine, at least also a bit my experience of finishing my studies in the U. S. and I’ve seen it’s, it’s possible, but it takes 

Marina Udier: It’s a fairly selective process.

Philip Hemme: Selective. And I can imagine the 2000s must be 

Marina Udier: Yeah. This was the 99 actually. Not 

Philip Hemme: just internet, but also Maybe the world was a bit less open. I mean, Croatia was not part of Europe. You have quite some We 

Marina Udier: were coming out of the, out of the over in the, in the early nineties. So yeah, it was, I mean, if I knew at the time, all of this, I would probably maybe be intimidated, but you know, when you’re young and you just don’t know any better, you’re kind of naive and you’re like, well, that sounds like a great school and I have good grades and you know, I will go and take a couple of tests and fill a few forms and go for it.

And I was thrilled I still actually remember the day when the Yale letter came and I was like, Oh my God, this is happening. And those five years at Yale were probably one of the best that I remember because you’re, I haven’t just been growing as a, as a professional actually. literally was discovering the world you know, beyond this small country sort of in the middle of Europe.

And, and this was fantastic. And you know, of course I didn’t know what McKinsey was not only when I came there, but not even after. But they showed up on campus one day when I was you know, close to finishing my PhD studies. And, I kind of got intrigued by the value proposition that they put out there.

So. I went through another fairly selective process again, probably I didn’t know any better. I was just, well, let’s see what happens and what this fuss is about. 

Philip Hemme: Maybe it was less big than it is now, Mackenzie, maybe, or like, but still. It was 

Marina Udier: pretty big deal, but I think what Mackenzie was doing at a time is putting more emphasis on recruiting non MBA students and, you know, sort of putting focus on so called APDs or advanced professional degrees.

That’s why they want to. Some schools and their Ph. D. departments or law departments or med school students and they figured that the training that you get in those disciplines actually is quite useful in business. And it just offers a different way of thinking than candidates and people who just kind of grow through, through a business school.

So I think they, they were trying to increase that football. Yeah, more technical as 

Philip Hemme: well. 

Marina Udier: More technical and 

Philip Hemme: just You did it for, I guess, for some projects or strategy projects. 

Marina Udier: Yeah, it 

Philip Hemme: More analytical, you mean. 

Marina Udier: It was analytical, but it was also just the whole problem solving process, right, is different for a scientist than for a non scientist.

And I think McKinsey believe that there is a value in that when you have some knowledge and you learn business, that that can be a very powerful combination. And I, you know, the, the five years that I spent at McKinsey in Chicago were, were also a great learning. I really look at those as, as training, really.

Training on the job. So instead of going to business school, 

Philip Hemme: Training over training over training. We keep learning. 

Marina Udier: Indeed, 

Philip Hemme: indeed. 

Marina Udier: And so, but consultancy is a consultancy, right? You are kind of a guest somewhere and, and you you know, work on a problem, but I never got to see any of my projects being implemented.

And so after some time I, I wanted to actually work in, in the industry. I wanted to have an operational job and that’s when Novartis sort of came into the equation. I also wanted to be back in Europe for personal reasons. Yeah. So you did 

Philip Hemme: 10 years in the US 

Marina Udier: and 10 years in the US. And so it kind of felt like it’s time to, to come back at least on the continent on the same continent.

So that’s what brought me to Basel. And Novartis was a really, a great part of that journey. I, I spent now 14 years in Basel seven were with Novartis and the rest was with Vercent and Nuscombe. Yeah. Yeah. 

[00:48:17] Transition from Novartis

Philip Hemme: And how, how was it, did the, the transition from big pharma to, to ver, I mean, to cent, to , I guess, must have been also a pretty big decision for you, right?

Marina Udier: It was I I love Novartis, you the 

Philip Hemme: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Cent, they have quite a few ex 

Marina Udier: excellent 

Philip Hemme: Novartis ex pharma. 

Marina Udier: Yes. No, the 

Philip Hemme: Gado was also. 

Marina Udier: No, Guido was ex Roche but he, he was at Versant for, for quite a while before I came, but you’re right, Claire and Carlo and, and Gerald have been either at both McKinsey and Novartis, or at least at one of them, I don’t know if that was by design, but I was actually recruited by one of them out of Novartis, which, which I liked.

I mean, I, I learned a lot. I worked in areas of. Neuroscience and oncology. I was in commercial roles. I was in development roles. You actually learn how the whole thing works. But a big company is a big company and I actually was starting to get a little bit irritated by constant push to choose your path, right?

I was selected for this executive female leadership program that David Epstein sponsored and caring about very much. And I was being given advice that I should really. Choose whether I want to be a commercial person or developing person. And I was like, but I kind of want to do both. And that, you know, that was one of the factors that sort of kept on coming up in, in, in all the discussions.

And it was really the opportunistic, right? Verson was growing their office, their presence in Basel. At a time, I believe they, they thought that the science in Europe is of very good quality and they can do good deals here because of the, you know, different valuations And so it was a big decision to, to do that switch.

It wasn’t maybe that difficult. It just felt very natural. I was very intrigued by being able to think about science again because, you know, I didn’t really think about science. It was more about. You know, commercial and putting things together, navigating the big organization, getting your stuff done within that context.

So I really, I was lured by this, okay. You work with different, with smart people, but a good team, you, you do a lot of interesting things, earlier stuff, science. So I was lured by that. And I’m also glad like the transition to Newscom was, as I said, a no brainer almost because I knew the team, and, and I liked them instantly.

There was a very good chemistry between us and we’ve had a lot of fun on the journey. 

Philip Hemme: That’s amazing. I like how always and often when you look at, look backwards, how things connect. And after things, I guess how things make sense always backwards and in your story. I mean, there’s so many things that are very connected.

Marina Udier: It is. And in hindsight, it’s easier to explain and some, some choices and rationale. At the time, not everything was so obvious and you, I had to be a bit brave and, and a few of these cases or crossroads and just believe that you can do something. You know, both moving across the world, right, was the first one and then You know, leaving everything, you know, behind, right and, and going into this world of business was, was a, was a shock at first because you just, you know, you’re, you’re an expert of something and then you’re kind of in kindergarten the other day.

It’s you know, it’s it takes some humility to, to go through that. 

Philip Hemme: I can imagine. So I think it’s a great inspiration, great story for us so far. It’s a younger audience, so someone in their 30s or still is dating or where to go. But I think what I’m thinking as well, I mean, also in my case, it can be a bit intimidating as well to, to see, okay, or like to already know how this past can work.

But I think for your case, what you mentioned is like, you didn’t know. Or you didn’t calculate, okay, I will go first to McKinsey and try to do consulting, and then I go to a big corporate, and then I go to start, I mean, at your time, maybe there was less access to information as well, but I think sometimes a bit of naivety and not knowing too much, maybe can help.

I don’t, I mean, I don’t know. 

Marina Udier: I mean, I think you have to have also a little bit of luck along the way for the right thing to happen for you at the right time. I mean, luck is also useful in, you know, in fundraising, you have to have, you have to have a little bit of luck there. As I said, we really went out at the right time, but it’s funny 

Philip Hemme: when you, when you mentioned the, some of the, the Moderna data.

I, I wrote down like timing that we could discuss those because, 

Marina Udier: no, it’s you know, People ask me, what’s your secret, right? I got a lot of calls and a lot of questions, like, how did you do it? And you have to have the fundamentals, right? You have to have a good story. You have to have good science. You have to have data.

You have to be a good team who, because investors are investing in, in technology and teams and people, right? Somebody has to actually execute it and you have to have a little bit of luck. 

Philip Hemme: I 

Marina Udier: mean, that’s something that I don’t know how you quantify, but. You know, it kind of has to happen and doesn’t always work in your favor, but in our case it, I think it did.

[00:54:00] Luck and timing in biotech

Philip Hemme: The quantifying is a, it’s, it’s a topic I’m thinking about quite a bit at the moment. I mean, just as we discussed as well, I mean, the podcast. Just, and what we discussed, the market in biotech right now is, is not great. And so even for the podcast, I mean, having the guest side some guests are not in a good situation.

They don’t want to talk at the moment, but that’s okay. But more like for us, so advertisement budgets are just basically not there at the moment. So that’s That’s tough, but it’s very hard, I think, right? Maybe you can elaborate on this as well, or you’ve had this experience as well, when you, when you have been lucky, then you can recognize it was luck, but when you’re Let’s say unlucky, unlucky sounds more like an excuse and sounds more like, it’s, I think, I feel like it’s hard to, and to find that balance and to quantify it.

Marina Udier: Yeah. It’s, it’s really hard, but you know, I think the word that I used when I was describing this was a tailwind. It’s, you know, it’s sort of like a nice. Nice, you know analog from our daily life, because we’re on airplanes all the time, right? It’s a tailwind or a headwind. You just get a little bit of a push.

I mean, still, you can have all the luck you want if you don’t have a good fundamentals and a good team and a good data. It won’t work either. But some companies, to your point, today or these days are in a difficult situations and, and there is nothing they’re doing wrong. 

Philip Hemme: Yeah. 

Marina Udier: It’s just that, you know, investors are being peculiar, they’re, they’re looking for more specific things, they’re taking their time.

You know, we, I think we did raise our round in a reasonable amount of time, but you know, the B round was much faster from big meeting to a term sheet to, you know, a contract was faster. Okay. It was a smaller syndicate, but still you know, decision making process was different. So it is tough out there and some are not going to make it and, and that’s maybe not due to anything that they’re doing.

[00:56:10] Headwinds, Tailwinds

Philip Hemme: Yeah. I like this tailwind, tailwind. I like a lot to do the fundamentals and do what’s in your control. Do it well. Then the rest is, I mean, Inshallah, whatever. It’s tailwind, headwind. A lot of things are out of control and you can put that, like, out of control as luck. I 

Marina Udier: mean, as an entrepreneur or, or you know, a biotech executive, you kind of have to have that mentality because.

By definition, you don’t control everything, right? You don’t control the markets, you don’t control investor sentiment, you don’t control interest rates, you don’t control geopolitical, you know, nightmares. There are a lot of things you don’t control, so you kind of have to really believe that if you do things that you can control right, that You know, this will lead to something and it helps to kind of have and focus on near term things.

And it’s really like every day you kind of get up and you do stuff until you, you can’t, right? Like, you know, if you come up against the wall, then you either find a way to break through or go around it or you don’t, right? And, you know, it’s a, it’s a, Different mindset than in a big company. And I found this environment to suit me better.

Some people are struggling with making that transition because there is something about the comfort of the pace of the big company and support, right? You’re a phone call away from anything that you want. Whereas we have to be a little bit creative in how we. find information and how we figure things out.

So in some ways it’s a bit, it’s a bit personal. 

Philip Hemme: Yeah. It’s a good, that’s a good transition to one thing you control is focus, at least I think. 

Marina Udier: Yeah. You decide what is the priority. 

[00:58:13] F O C U S

Philip Hemme: So can you, I think you, you mentioned it a few times and I think you are Well, I was quite surprised that you have a pretty small team for such a, running a global trial.

And I guess this comes automatically or you have to be more focused, I can imagine. I know. Can you elaborate a bit on, I don’t know, you yourself or some examples of yourself where was focus or of the team? Yeah. Where are some examples that show that you’re Or some learnings on the focus side of things.

Marina Udier: Yeah. So we, we, I mean, we are now a team of about 60. We grew since the, the financing closed, but to your point, right, if you’re on a global trial in six countries and 40 sites, then, you You know, this actually is not a lot but we do have most functions, most functions that you would expect to have in a company of our stage from research to clinical to technical to finance and business.

And I’ve been incredibly proud of of the organizations that we have built and the team that that is in place now. And, and most of them have been with us for, for years, So, so that’s been terrific. And the best example of focus I can give you was last year, right? We. We had to raise money.

And that was the only thing we had to do. And we were doing that and running the trial, right? Like we sort of put everything else a little bit on hold and put all of our energy into executing the trial so that we have, because that was part of the story the, the investment story. Just having this, you don’t want to pause a trial.

How long? You don’t wanna, you don’t wanna pause a trial? No. Because we really believe that it’ll work. And going in a very disciplined way after investors and telling your story and moving that process forward. Following up not being discouraged or disappointed. Right. Because this was even with our.

ingredients that I believe were good that we had. It was not everybody’s cup of tea, right? For some we were too early, for some we were too late. It’s just the, the nature and so you just kind of have to, you know, let that go and don’t be discouraged and just keep on going. So things were simple. Simple, but difficult.

Philip Hemme: Yeah. 

Marina Udier: We have a little bit different problematic now, which is we have possibilities and we have capital that we can put to work behind those possibilities and you have to make choices. And here you have to, as I mentioned, one of the discussions I’ve had with the board this year was, you know, they wanted sort of everything and I said, time out, right?

We can do this and this and that. So that’s what we can do and that’s what I can promise. This doesn’t work, right? So we need to think about, right, how do we do that? And what do we not do instead? And they understood that. So prioritization is something you have to do in biotech. You have to always say 

Philip Hemme: no to a certain, 

Marina Udier: always make sure that you’re spending your time on the right thing.

And in my case, I always have to spend time on things that nobody else wants to spend time on. Either because they, they won’t or they can’t. I think you’re self selecting a bit in this job for, you know, dealing with problems which are not always fun, right? I mean, sometimes they are, I sometimes get pulled into fantastic discussions, but sometimes you’re left with, you have to get it done and if it’s not get done before it comes to you, then, then you sort of have to tackle it.

Philip Hemme: But I, I, I, one, one, one thing I like a lot on, on Focus are on sentences. Saying yes to something is saying no to something else. And when you think it that way, then if you take the list of four things, if you say yes to four things, you say no to, or like, you say no to something else, or then, 

Marina Udier: because you know, the, in biotech execution is really key because it’s, it’s time, right?

Time is your worst enemy in a way, because everything is always, you know, are you on time with this? Are you on time with recruitment? Are you on time with data? And if you’re not, then it’s a problem so time is, is a precious commodity and we are very mindful about that our, our CFO there was a meeting in which our CFO, she actually calculated how much it costs, a meeting, like it was a two hour big meeting.

It was a preparation for something and, you know, sort of unprovoked, she said at the end. Well, This just cost us X, you know, I don’t remember what it 

Philip Hemme: was. Thousands of viewers at a two hour meeting. 

Marina Udier: Yeah. So she said like, let’s just be clear. This is what this costs us. So it, you know, you better turn up.

You better make the most of it. And we also value in person time. You know, we are a, we’re a global company, right? We are present here. Our, our footprint is in Italy. Lab and manufacturing are in Italy. We have a finance team is well, part of the finance team is in us. And we have a few people also in UK.

So we are a global company. And some, most of us met this week in Rome. And we do. treasure this time in person because so much can get done effectively when you’re actually sitting like this and looking at something and, you know, drawing on the whiteboard and, and not just staring at the zoom screens.

Same for the 

Philip Hemme: podcast, like having a conversation offline is like, it’s not comparable to, I do a few online, but it’s really not the same. 

Marina Udier: Yeah, no, nothing. It really cannot replace but I think we learned to, to also leverage the, the virtual meetings in a better way, right? And before COVID, you would get on a plane for an hour meeting in, in the U.

S. And now you Expensive meeting. Especially in time of the pandemic. Very expensive meetings. And some meetings you probably should, but maybe for some, maybe not for all. It’s good 

Philip Hemme: to have the options, I 

Marina Udier: guess, 

Philip Hemme: to 

Marina Udier: Yeah. Hybrid. 

Philip Hemme: Hybrid. For the, for the funny story and for such a topic that I, I, there’s a company, I think it’s called Shopify in, in the U.

S. and in their agenda They put the cost of every meeting automatically. I don’t know how precise it is, but basically every meeting, one hour, you will see if you invite eight people, we’ll see the costs. And then you think first you will think before sending the invite. I remember, 

Marina Udier: I was in a meeting at Novartis with David Epstein.

It was, it was some sort of a, you know, presentation to the public. to the PEC, the Pharma Executive Committee. 

Philip Hemme: It was the CEO of Novartis Oncology. 

Marina Udier: He was the CEO of Novartis Oncology, but then he was the CEO of Novartis Pharma. 

Philip Hemme: Yeah. 

Marina Udier: And he calculated that in disease area X, that was discussed that a patient dies every, I don’t know how often.

And at the end of the meeting he said, a patient just died, you know? And What, you know, what are we doing? I mean, you know, he, he was I think rightfully calling the people and instilling the sense of urgency that, you know, running around Basel and sitting in boardrooms and flipping through PowerPoints is, you know, needed to, to bring people, but, you know, he was really trying to say, this is real, right?

People are dying every day from this from this condition and we have something that might help and. You know, how are we getting it out there? I think he was, he was real. He really lived his passion. And I think he still does. 

[01:06:33] Gender diversity in biotech

Philip Hemme: Maybe one kind of last topic before the last part, I want to talk about gender diversity as well.

I’m, for the podcast, I’m trying to bring a bit more, I mean more diversity on the show. And it’s been not that easy but I’m glad I had amazing female and also ethnic diversity on the show. And one, one stat, and to be honest also with you it’s not easy to find, especially on CEO positions, female CEO.

So I was super excited to talk to you as well. And to hear what you, what you like, yeah. How do you, how do you feel about it? How, how is your experience like, like, yeah. 

Marina Udier: I think Dooscom, it’s a very special company in that way because not only is a female led, but most of our management team is female.

We have two male executives and five female executives and the vast majority of our people, of our employees are female. I think it’s 80%, something like 80%. And so this is a bit going in the, in the other direction. And I have to say, I, I didn’t, like, I didn’t, first of all, start that when, when I joined Newscom, it was already like that.

You know, Ricardo and Alfredo were around, but most of the people in the company were women. And I remember asking Alfredo, how come? And he said, They’re great. And, and some of, most of them actually were his former students or postdocs or people that kind of followed him around. And as we built the company I, you know, I was always focused on getting the right people in the job.

But I was happy when, for example Tiffany joined us our CFO she actually recruited her when she was in Basel. And Loredana, our, our head of manufacturing and, and CMC, and they have, they have started recruiting. You know, women and we are even have been even joking to say, well, are there any men qualified for this job or what’s going on?

So our environment, I think it’s quite special. And we have created, you know, place and conditions that can support that because our organization is also quite young. I think the average age is about 40, and that carries with itself, right? Of course certain things that you have to work with and, and, you know, have flexibility for.

The, you know, that is, of course, in contrast with most funds that you meet with most you know, investors that you meet. So I, I kind of, you know, have seen both sides of it. I have, I have not in, in the early part of my professional journey, I really didn’t think about it too much because McKinsey, for example, was such an, you know, meritocracy.

That all that matter is what you have to say about something, irrespective of your, your tenure, irrespective of your gender, irrespective of anything, right? All they cared about is can you add value to this problem solving and actually push everybody. It was, but it was very specific also to the culture of the company and the focus on people.

So I, I really didn’t think about it a lot at the time. And then as I said, I was quite fortunate when I was at Novartis to be You know, selected and recognized for this program that I mentioned, this executive female leadership or EFLP, where you know, I, I connected with a group of female leaders and we each got a sponsor.

I’m usually a male sponsor because that was the composition of the executive team who was, whose job was, and it was deliberately called a sponsor, not a mentor because their job was to sponsor you. In the organization. So I felt quite privileged to have had opportunities to work in environments that either recognized or cared for, for equality and for diversity.

Biotech is a little different because again I think, funds are still predominantly male, although, you know, there is some diversity there. I was actually just this week with one of my investors and I was happy to see that they’re 50 50. That’s quite unusual. Yeah. But they are predominantly male, especially the senior level, exactly the partner or the managing partner level.

And, and, you know, whether we like it or not, then you kind of, you, you support what you understand or like or, or know. So I think the change has to also come through, you know, in the, in the investor groups and communities. even before or in parallel as it comes to biotechs and private biotechs in particular, because you don’t have any NASDAQ rules or you don’t have any other, you know, government mandates what, who you have to need, have on the board and, and, or the management team.

So, you know, I have kind of gotten into a situation where you know, diversity is not only welcome, it’s kind of a way of life or it’s, or it’s even dominant. But it, you know, I was in a situation where this was not the case. And so I was made aware of that. I have two kids that are both girls. So I think about that also in the context of, you know, the next generation and, and, you know, what the world will be like for them.

And, and hopefully. easier than what it’s been for me on what is for me. 

Philip Hemme: It sounds like it’s still overall a pretty positive experience, because I heard some stories where it’s really not that positive and it’s very sad to hear actually. 

Marina Udier: No, I have to say I was, I was fortunate in that sense that for the most part I was supported and, and you know I think it comes from, again, your credibility and your ability to actually get the job done and deliver.

And once you do that, then, then this kind of comes a little bit a little bit to the background. 

Philip Hemme: It comes, you can, we could have a focus on the fundamentals, whatever your gender thing, if you focus on the fundamentals, I think it probably helps. Yes. Yes. I wrote down as well, I heard from at bioequity, there was a, I think it was from McKinsey actually, a report that in private biotech in Europe, only 11 percent of female CEOs, which I found first, I think was pretty representative from accurate to what I’ve in mind, but it seems very low.

I think it’s also, I mean, how do you feel about the change also? Because I think it’s, It’s changing, but maybe not changing fast enough, but I feel like there is some change. 

Marina Udier: It is. There is progress. I have, I have, a network of, peers in Europe and in U. S. and of course you kind of self select, right?

And, and it gets developed over time. And it’s very helpful and it’s very helpful to have. Peer group full stop, right, of, of of CEOs in general, because it is a very peculiar job. And, and when people, I remember when I, you know, was earlier in my career and I was reading like, oh, it’s lonely.

I was like, well, how lonely can it be, you know? But it is lonely at the top because there are some things that you really cannot talk about with anybody, you know, not your team, not your board, you kind of have to figure out how you’re going to. Approach certain things or how are you gonna, you know, solve certain situations or even how you yourself, how you give yourself energy to go through all of that so that every day you break through walls and, and, you know, not sort of get, get stopped by them.

Yeah. And so it’s helpful to to have that kind of support group, that peer group where you can call somebody and they know exactly, right, what you’re going through. And I have a few of those where I can just text and say, can we talk? And, and, you know, they immediately know, okay, you’re up to something and you just kind of have to get it out.

And at least hear that you’re not completely insane and that, you know, you’re thinking about things in the right way. But yeah, to your point on the, on the female numbers, I, I think, I think we could do better, in biotech in general and in private biotech in particular. And I, I, you know, I, I really welcome welcomed Sophia’s participation in the board.

Not just because she’s a Vaughan, but she’s actually a great board member and she is you know, helpful in, you know, sparring and thinking through some ideas. So again, it’s just a different way of it’s a different dynamic sometimes. 

[01:16:01] Quick fire

Philip Hemme: It’s great to, to finish. I have done that for episode 20.

So you will be the second time. It’s kind of a quick fire, just some yes and no simple questions and some, or one sentence answer. What’s your. What’s your favorite biotech book? 

Marina Udier: My favorite biotech book is Bad Blood. 

Philip Hemme: Bad 

Marina Udier: Blood. Wow. 

Philip Hemme: Quite a story. That’s quite a story. The Stalinist story here. Yeah. What’s on top of your mind at the moment?

Marina Udier: What’s on top of my mind at the moment is actually our Lynch study and how do we turn that possibility into a real opportunity for, for us and for patients? 

Philip Hemme: What’s the let’s see here. What’s favorite? But what’s the most impressive drug on the market for you at the moment? 

Marina Udier: At the, well, I mean, obesity drugs are certainly making a lot of headways.

Not exactly my area of expertise, but they seem to be quite popular. 

Philip Hemme: Is Bazel, is Bazel the is Bazel the best biotech hub in Europe? 

Marina Udier: I would say yes to that even though I was I was told ahead of time, do not get yourself fed into yes or no questions. I would say yes to this one I’m, I’m actually involved with a biovalued organization here.

So. It’s pretty good. 

Philip Hemme: Yeah, I think 

Marina Udier: if not the best it’s pretty it’s at the top

Philip Hemme: How much do you sleep per night 

Marina Udier: seven eight hours? Yeah, I’m trying to keep a healthy balance 

Philip Hemme: for serious, but she’s good and who is your but one of your biotech heroes 

Marina Udier: ah It’s hard. It’s hard to choose to choose one. There are 

Philip Hemme: There 

Marina Udier: are many, there are many. 

Philip Hemme: I 

Marina Udier: mentioned David, like who is of course very famous, but I’m actually going to add another one who is a friend and maybe not so well known, but Paula Reagan.

She has, I met her when she was building the company that was spun out of Sanofi and she actually has put a drug on the market. So I’m very inspired by her story and she did it in a, again, very, 

Philip Hemme: you know, 

Marina Udier: in a, in a typical Biasic way, but she’s my, my personal my, somebody that I admire a lot.

[01:18:37] Thanks for listening

Philip Hemme: Great. I think that’s a great way to finish the 

Marina Udier: Thank you for that fire drill. It was fun. 

Philip Hemme: Great. Thanks a lot. 

Marina Udier: Thank you, Philippe.

Philip Hemme: I’m impressed by Marina’s story. How it mixes curiosity, perseverance, humility, and a dose of luck. I’m also impressed by the new SCUMM platform, especially the, I mean, the Phase 1 and the Phase 2 running. And I can imagine in 2025, there could be a big value inflection point, especially if the clinical results are positive.

So keeping my fingers crossed for her and for the team. If you have enjoyed this episode, please hit the like. below review button. Any of these actions would help more people get access to this podcast. If you want to see similar videos, please check out the channel where we have many more. I would be also curious to hear what you think, so you could comment wherever you are or shoot me an email at philip at flood dot bio.

All right, thanks for watching to the end and catch you in the next episode.

SHARE

Further Episodes

Episode 20

Harpreet Singh, Immatics 🇩🇪 | PRAME, TCR Based Therapeutics | E20

Harpreet Singh Immatics
View Episode
Episode 19

Dominik Schumacher, Tubulis 🇩🇪 | Founder-led ADC Biotech ⭐️ | E19

Dominik Schumacher of Tubulis in interview with Flot.bio
View Episode
                           

Never miss a new episode 💌

                           

Trusted by 250+ professionals from top companies like Argenx, BioNTech, or Genmab. No spam, no noise.

                                           

Watch & Subscribe

Flot.bio on Youtube                 Flot.bio on Spotify                                    Flot.bio on Apple Podcasts