Rodger Novak, CRISPR Tx | #1 CRISPR Drug | E06

Biotech great Rodger Novak, Co-Founder and Chairman of CRISPR Tx joins us on the show. In this episode, we chat about bringing the first CRISPR drug to the market and why he thinks everything is wrong in bio in Europe besides science. Rodgers’ is a name everyone should know, having made it big in the global biotech scene. I first interviewed him back in 2016 at Labiotech. It’s a treat to be able to sit down with him again.

🔗 LINKS MENTIONED:


Transcript

Rodger Novak: The other, the other thing, and I always refer back to my CSO at the time in Bloomberg, where a very experienced person, and the way I told him, listen man, we’re not in a candy store, you know, we could all look around and get nice big bright eyes and look and, ah, we could do this and we could do that, but man, the money is on hemoglobin alpha as we need to focus and execute on that.

 At least during the early years. And that’s what we do.

[00:00:38] Welcome

Philip Hemme: Hey, Philip here. Welcome to six episode of the . Flot.bio Show. We’re interview the best Europeans in biotech to help you grow. Today I’m in soup. Just next to Zurich to talk with Rodger Novak, who is one of the co founders and the chairman of CRISPR Therapeutics. And Rodger is really one of the few Europeans who made it really big globally in biotech.

We had our, actually our first chat on stage in 2016. And it’s great to be able to talk with him again today. We will talk about bringing the first CRISPR drug to the market, almost there. And why he thinks everything is broken in biotech in Europe, except science. So let’s head to the meeting room and talk with him.

All right, Roger, welcome to the show. 

Rodger Novak: Thank you for having me. 

Philip Hemme: Great to be in Zurich, it’s quite hot. I think the hot 

Rodger Novak: I’m really excited.

[00:01:45] Bringing CRISPR to the market

Philip Hemme: Yeah, so amazing. So yeah, I mean, for, for today, I think a lot of of topics to cover we could cover, but I, I wanted to start with with the CRISPR drugs and bringing the first one to the market, it’s, it’s think really close.

Supposed to be reviewed, I think December, you know, this year for for one invitation. And you have founded the company that is behind it. And I think my question is how, basically, how did you manage to go faster than everyone else in the space? 

Rodger Novak: Oh, okay. So the nice answer or the not so nice answer? No, I mean, I think, I think it’s a good question maybe to start.

Now it’s 10 years ago. So when we got introduced, or when I got introduced to the CRISPR technology. I think one of the very first things was really the question, how do you translate? So, so you have something in a really innovative, everybody or almost everybody starts to work on it. Many people get excited, but then the big question is, okay, how do you really make sure that you can translate this into some kind of, and I think there were two, three elements to this, which I think I’m not only applicable to CRISPR and the story, but maybe in, in general.

So the very first is we thought, Hey, we need to understand the technology relatively well, or at least better than what we read, you know, from academic scientific publications. And once we have understood this a little better, we also understood very quickly, where are the advantages at that stage of the technology and where are the disadvantages.

And so we said, okay, we need to make sure that we make use of, of, of, of what this technology is really good at and everything else so that we park this, but you know, we don’t put an emphasis on that at the beginning. So. In the end, keep it simple. 

Philip Hemme: Do you have an example around that? 

Rodger Novak: Yeah, the example is relatively easy.

 You know, people were excited in two ways. You know, they were excited that you can knock down something by having a double stranded DNA cut, which then gets repaired, and during that repair you have some mistakes, and with that you get your knockdown. And obviously the other approach is That you insert a DNA template with whatever kind of sequence you’re intending to put into the DNA.

The second one, even today, 10 years later, is still a challenge for various reasons and we understood this and I think others understood this also as well, that you’re young, that the knockdown is easier but I think. What we also did is then we thought more from a translational perspective about how may, how do you make use of this?

So we really ignored the insertion part and said, okay, so if we now knock something out, how can we do this? And there’s a second problem, which was very clear that time and still is a big challenge for FIELD and that was. The delivery is, so we, at the time in particular, yes, you know, we knew about mRNA delivery and LNPs and AAV and pretty much what we know today, I mean, today, I think feels much more sophisticated, but still the same issues, man.

Philip Hemme: And so it’s the same bottleneck. 

Rodger Novak: It’s the same bottleneck. Yeah. And we can maybe talk about that bottleneck at one point, but, but then we also said, Hey, so, why not taking something outside, so, so taking something from the patient, from the body, so cells, and manipulate them outside. And then, again, don’t insert anything, just knock down something, and, and then give it back to the patient.

Because that’s something we understood we can control pretty well. So ex 

vivo, knockout, vivo, in vivo, 

in vivo. So that was the one extreme, in vivo. insertion outside the liver, maybe even more. 

Philip Hemme: Which you are, I think from what I understand, CRISPR Cervix is working on it, but it’s still, even today, it’s still like super early.

Rodger Novak: It’s super early. And that’s something, if you want to talk about CRISPR and not only CRISPR, DNA editing, maybe RNA editing. That’s something we can touch on a little bit, because I think as I said before, the field has been more sophisticated, but the challenges are still very, very similar than what we have encountered 10 years ago.

And, and so, so we said, okay, we combine two elements. One is knock down and one, the other say it’s legal. And so now then look for an indication. And to be quite honest, if you, if you have these kind of two criteria, I mean, there’s not that much left, which then also fits a bit of that. You want to say, okay, I want to have a re approved content.

I want to have something which really addresses an unmet medical need. I want to have something. A market, I put this over here because it sounds a little bit you know, yeah, I would, strange because for sure we are dependent on investors and in particular at this, well all of us depend on investors, but in particular in the early stage, you have private investors.

So you for sure need to also bring them along. But then also how you execute a clinical trial, don’t forget that, you know, often, you know, they say, ah, you know, we, we have an orphan indication and we have this, we have that. And so it’s easy, but one has to be very careful because, you know, either a field is crowded, even an orphan indication, then it’s very difficult to recruit or you have so few patients, you know, that, which are illegible to, to whatever protocol you are.

So it might be an issue. So we said, okay if all these criteria apply, there are not that many diseases left. And one of them was sickle cell and B cell. And so. Which 

Philip Hemme: also other g and p companies also work. I mean like Bluebird 

Rodger Novak: Bluebird, that was an issue, quote unquote with the investors because investors were sure said, can you work on hemoglobin neuropathy?

So, so sickle cell and beath cell, it will be cured by Bluebird. Yeah. And so it was, and maybe that was something where other companies at the time, like Italia, yeahs sure. They considered also hemoglobin neuropathies. But then, you know, maybe they, they got scared and said, Hey, you know, how we can compete against a company and against programs, which are three, two, three, maybe four years ahead.

So we do something different. We want to, we want to be differentiated. And we took a different position. We said, Hey, the most important thing is we want to give this technology a chance. And so we need to de risk it. And we want to do something where in a field where we still feel there is an unmet medical need, despite the fact that Bluebird’s program was further advanced.

Today, we know with hindsight that this was probably a very, very, very good decision, you know and it teaches you a lot of lessons, you know, 

Philip Hemme: it’s crazy. 

It makes me think about, we watched the interview we had in 2016 on stage in Berlin, and you were saying like, We’re trying to go a bit slower, but more like, no, like a bit more conservative, but to win the race at the end and like have a more clear trajectory versus like trying to sprint and then Sprint s Marial, 

Rodger Novak: it’s a marathon 

Philip Hemme: and at the end, I mean, yeah, and look seven years later it, I mean, yeah, it was the right, the right decision was the right pace.

Rodger Novak: I, I think, I think, I think it was the right decision. I also think that, I think that’s important. When, and this has not, I think it doesn’t only apply to, to CRISPR. CRISPR maybe is a very special case because of CRISPR editing, because all of a sudden, you know, innovation, I always say this. At least in the early days, all the innovation or most of the innovation was driven by academia.

So we could benefit from that. We all could benefit from that. So, so it’s not like if you, let’s say have a great idea and you look for funding and you do some experiments, let’s say an academic setting, then you transfer it to, to, to attack, to a biotech setting. But often, you know, maybe you work with a modality, you know, which is known.

But then, you know, often you’re still alone with your ideas and, and, and how you, how, how you make, you know, progress. And then thinking the CRISPR cases was different because so many people worked on that. It made it also more complicated for sure, because also one thing, and this is clearly a criticism, is that people in particular, the academic field, very quickly for sure realized.

That if you want to publish that in high impact journals you just put a CRISPR in the title, and for CRISPR at in vivo or CRISPR and whatever kind of model. And then here we go, you have your nature biotech paper. And like often, unfortunately myself I come out of academia, but, but often many claims also around safety.

 Other aspects which were made through scientific publications, I wouldn’t say that they were wrong necessarily, but they were not to the standards we need in this industry, but they caused a lot of confusion with investors, even with regulators. And I remember many, many occasions where we had to either ignore it, yeah, most of the time we tried to ignore it.

Often you couldn’t ignore it and then you had to do your own work internally. So it was a very interesting time and, and, and a confusing time. The other, the other thing, and I always refer back to my CSO at the time, Bloomberg, where a very experienced person in the way I told him, listen, man, we’re not in a candy store, you know, we could all look around and get nice big bright eyes and look and, ah, we could do this and we could do that, but man.

The money is on hemoglobinopathy as we need to focus and execute on that at least during the early years. And that’s what we did. 

Philip Hemme: Sounds like, yeah, I like that a lot. I mean, I like the fact that it makes me think, I mean, everything you said, which even from an observer, it was crazy. I mean, CRISPR, I think it’s the first time I see this.

And I think even from reading about biotech history, I don’t think this happened very often where. There’s so much attention and hype and money, maybe comparable to like the early days of biotech with Genentech and the like biotech factory and it will like change everything within 10 years and it took a bit longer.

But it’s amazing with CRISPR and even like, you know, even the general public knowing all about about CRISPR and sounds like even for you guys, I mean, you were basically, you had like so much possibilities and then. But that’s also what you say. It’s very challenging to say no, no, no, no, no. And we focus. It’s, 

Rodger Novak: I think it’s a trick and I think, and, and 

Philip Hemme: yeah. And maybe also just connected to also you, sounds like you, it’s pretty clear that CRISPR was going to, like, was going to work or like what was like, that was a huge potential. So yes. Versus like, even MMNA, even though they are now, I mean, it was still very questionable if it was really going to work that big.

I mean, on hindsight it’s possible, but. I don’t know. 

Rodger Novak: Yeah. I think yes. I mean, mRNA is an interesting one. I think there’s another element which, so when I very, the very first time I joined the industry, the biotech industry was in 2006 and within the brief of therapeutics, which was in Austria, it was a small molecule approach and antibacterials.

Comparing that time to what we do today. In the industry it’s very different from a quality perspective. I’m not saying that the companies around that time didn’t meet quality criteria, but I think particularly when it comes to people, so who is working in the industry, whom can you attract that is a different and I think that was another very, very important point that from a leadership perspective at CRISPR in the early days.

So myself, I have a more of a, I would say, I’m an, I’m a medic, I’m. I’ve, I’ve, I’ve been trained as a scientist for almost 10 years as a, you’re professor. Yeah. I was a professor, blah, blah, blah. But you know, with that, you know, I always considered myself more as a translational person. So someone who will see a scientific asset and, and then thinks about how can you bring this into clinical, say you never can do this.

You know? Yeah. And, and I think what is important with these startups also at the time that the leadership. Including the CDO, you know, unless for sure the person is able to build a different team, but. It, I would phrase it carefully, you know, I’m a little over the nose. So why is it holding back a little bit?

I think it makes a huge difference for really early startups when it’s about technology platforms in particular, that the leadership team, in particular, also the CEO understands or has a basic understanding about what it means to bring something into the clinic. What are the potential challenges?

Almost has a respect for that only then. The individual can recruit a team really fitting the needs on the assets or the platform. And that’s something I’ve seen repeatedly, maybe also to a certain extent with. With other CRISPR companies were in the early days, this didn’t have. And that, that’s something I think people and investors should really pay attention to.

I mean, when you think about the leadership changes in editor, all the individuals who have been there, qualified people I respect, but when you really look back and look at, hmm, was that the really right fit for a startup in a highly competitive environment where. You have all the ideas and the dreams about a game changing technology, but in the end it has shown nothing but some, some signs, cell and nature.

And so I think that that’s very important to almost have, yeah, the respect for what is about to come and then be very smart about it and, and get the wrong team to.

[00:17:33] Experience in biotech isn’t everything

Philip Hemme: I think, yeah. Makes me think that you kind of in the tech world, this experience is overrated, but I think in biotech, it’s a very good point, less overrated, at least than I thought.

Rodger Novak: I, I, I have, I have a view on that. It’s a very interesting, I cannot name or mention names that would not be correct. But I’ve, I’ve been thinking about that question a lot. Because I love to support younger people also leadership positions. I think that’s absolutely important. And, and then more recently in a, in, in a company where I’m involved, it’s also a tech platform, it’s stealth.

So nobody could do anything. Then you’re asking a very smart person who is for me, the scientific brain. Founder of Perceive Behind This approached me and said, Hey, you know, I’m going to be the CEO. And I almost fell off my chair. Probably 10 years ago, I would have laughed him out of the room and said, ah, come on, give me a break.

But then, you know, I thought about it and, and it came exactly to, to the conclusion you just made. Because he said, ah, in tech, we do this and you have all these young people. I think experience even in our industry is to a certain extent, a bit overrated in particular when it comes to very senior people out of pharma.

 I mean, we are, we should be a very dynamic environment and I think some people probably have a challenge with that. I’ve been in big pharma, so I know why that is. But at the very same time, Yannick, and, and this is because we are after, I think the aviation industry, the most regulated industry, say it’s nice to have good ideas and this and that.

 But, but you need to do this within a framework, you know, 

Philip Hemme: and even further than legal. And just the complexity of bringing a drug to the patient is, is insane. I can even relate maybe even from like being, being like a bit, I mean, a bit younger than you, less experienced. And my recent experience in Switzerland with Molecular Partners and, and even working with them, I was like, okay, I can still like, I was trying to spin out a therapeutics company.

But when I really put my hands on it, so, so, so complex. And even to see them inside trying to develop a drug. It’s so, so, so, so complex that, yeah, now it’s, it’s obvious that basically it’s a balance. So you’re… 

Rodger Novak: I think it’s usually a balance. It’s a balance. And, and for example, when with CRISPR, maybe RefiBot.

You know, I brought on board in the early days, I think after two years, Sam Kulkarni, who’s now the CEO for a while at Sam was very young and he came from McKinsey, yet very young. For tech, he was already an old man with like 36 or 37 years of experience. Yeah. So he had at least some exposure, but, but I, I, I got a lot of questions from the board, you know, because it was a C, C leather position.

CBO you know, should we do this and blah, blah, blah. And, and then, and so on and so forth. And, and I, I, I thought for sure it, I mean, it’s not that young anymore. But and I think the balance is the right thing to do. Because also I think in particular when you come out of pharma and into the biotech we can learn from people who have not been in the system because they come up with other ideas.

And in many cases where we develop drugs these days, in particular for rare disease, I mean, it’s not detectable. 

[00:21:35] How important is CRISPR?

Philip Hemme: Yeah, that’s right. We could talk about that. I want to continue in that, especially. Yeah, I want to continue on this because I think you are like, what I, what I love with you is that you have like, you know, when you start at CRISPR you had this like pharma experience, this biotech experience, very entrepreneurial mindset.

And I want to like get back to that after and like, what, what, what is that? What’s the lessons there are like a lot of things we can discuss, but going back to the actual like CRISPR therapeutic drug, one thing that even like, I mean, I have hard times to, to really like, you know, understand. is the comparison to, to Bluebird on the drug.

Because at the end, I mean, the CRISPR, I mean, it’s, it’s clear that it has changed everything in like academic, in ag tech, in even in discovery and tools. But then when it comes to actual gene therapy, I’m always wondering, like, how much is it, like, how much is it a game changer, how much improvement, and how important is the tool in the whole gene therapy approach versus a Thailand that is maybe a bit more expensive, maybe a bit more complicated, but from my understanding, once it’s done, maybe it can do the job.

But can you elaborate a bit on that? Like, yeah, for, let’s say for, for me or some similar people in the audience. And I guess you’ve got some clicker results as well to back that up. 

Rodger Novak: Yeah. I think, I think when you look at CRISPR as a technology, you probably have to divide this into different pillars. You know, one pillar is.

You know, more, I would almost say as a tool in the academic world but not only academic worlds in the CRO world where you, for example, use the editing to design whatever kind of animal model, whatever suits you. 

Philip Hemme: And by CRISPR is extremely fast and cheap. 

Rodger Novak: Or antibody production with cell lines. You can do a lot of stuff there.

Yeah. Maybe, maybe for the purpose of this, I think, you know, you’re thinking about CRISPR as a therapeutic. Yum. I think when you, when you look at this, what we have done so far and the field has done so far is mostly a focus on a combination of cell therapy with CRISPR technology, marrying it. So we take an HSC, so hematopoietic stem cell and edit that.

 And then the edited cell is your therapeutic, you know, when you think about immunoecology, for example, you know, same thing, you know, you, for example, take a T cell and design, you know, whatever kind of feature you would like to have with regard to a TCR or whatever surface antigens, you name it, or you do mutations, you know, in the T cell to prevent exhaustion.

Yeah. So many things. All that. Is very easily doable, at least at the bench with the CRISPR technology. You can again, also we use it for sure in the company as a tool to run our models. But then once we understand what kind of edits we have to do, for example, to, to have quote unquote the very best T cell for, let’s say an immune oncology indication then it becomes part of a product, you know what I mean?

So I think, I think, and when you mentioned talents. Or even zinc fingers from a, from a single knockdown or let’s say editing perspective. Yes, there are from a therapeutic perspective, there are indications where you absolutely could use a zinc finger or a talent. But the, I would call this the flexibility the speed, also, by now we understand much better from my perspective, preciseness of doing something. 

Philip Hemme: So, offside, offside. 

Rodger Novak: Yeah, offside, but that’s a very complicated matter and I think some people would disagree with that. We don’t have enough data anymore with Talents and Zeekfinger to really come to a conclusion.

But, but I think more that, you know, like think about small multitudes. When you do, when you work on small multitudes, you want to compare. You know, lots of leads, for example, or chemical matters for a given pharmacological effect. The more you have, the more SAR you can do. The better for you, the better is it in the end to find the right moniker.

The same thing is with editing. If you, you know, in your research have a tool in your hands where you can edit different sites, look for whatever kind of effect, biological effect, whatever it is, read out essays you have, and then pick in this case, the right guide to do this. It’s for sure has huge advantages over.

Not being able to do that and rely on one or two, maybe cuts or approaches. I think this is one of the huge strengths of, of the technology. 

Philip Hemme: But that’s still more in the, like, discovery phase, because once you’re in a phase one, 

Rodger Novak: sure, it’s, this is only to, to in the end, identify your guy. That’s what I, that’s a product.

[00:27:07] How to become best in class

Philip Hemme: But my question then, I mean, yeah, that’s makes total sense. But where, where I’m still like, what’s clear is then once the product is identified, Rubel has a product, and you go into a bit of the simulation. 

Rodger Novak: Well, they’re two different products. They’re very different. So, we have an editing product where we edit a promoter sign, which leads to the up regulation of tetrahemoglobinol.

So and Rupert does is, is kind of, you know, replacing, you know, a genetic default to overcome the J defect. Technically, this is very different and there are differences with regard to, and here you, you talked before about complexity, complexity comes in. Manufacture. So, you know, to manufacture what we do is only straightforward, but significantly more straightforward.

Then for example, what Bluebird does, you 

Philip Hemme: know, cause they also both Alex Vivo. 

Rodger Novak: Yeah. They also, yeah. So, so I mean, the processes are very, very different. And, and so, so in the end and then also you know, I mean, how to put this best, I mean, the reason why we went after the same indication Bluebird went after was, were different than they are today at the time we thought, Oh, it may be safer.

We can produce faster, we have less variability and, and, and these were the reasons we believed in. And try to convince the investors that this is relevant for all the reasons it might have been relevant to, to justify, to go after what some people call the me too. Today it’s, it is totally differentiated, but for other reasons.

Yeah. And so it’s also a lesson learned if you ask me, is that if you really believe in your product, even if another company is way ahead of you and you think you can differentiate, go for it. 

Philip Hemme: Yeah, she can be, let’s say, best in class or like better at the end. 

Rodger Novak: Best in class or, yeah, it has to be best in class, you know, or at least, you know, get it close to that.

You need to be able to differentiate, but shying away just because someone is ahead of you. In particular, if you think you maybe have better target validation or whatever you do, I mean, think about it. I mean, you know, there are always reasons why you still could do it, but, but you obviously need to, to have a rationale for it.

Philip Hemme: It’s, I mean, even just the answer to that question, it shows also the complexity behind, I mean, the whole discussion of complexity and crazy, How complex it is and how, then the, I mean, you have to really boil down to really see like the, the, the difference. 

Rodger Novak: I, I, yes, but I, I think it’s another thing people tend to overthink,

you know, I think keep it, even now you have to keep it simple and you have to believe in something, you know, I mean. Don’t believe it. So that, that’s another thing. You know, once you have made a decision for a key decision, let’s say you go for an indication as a company or talk to your, to your colleagues you, you know, you’re really convinced as a team you know, defend it, fight for it.

But they don’t want to stick with it. Yeah. But, but you need 

Philip Hemme: to work with it as long, as long as possible until you’re ready for it. 

Rodger Novak: I, I, I, I would, I would, I would caveat this a little bit. Make sure that you qualify whatever you want to do as soon as possible. And you don’t keep something alive for the reason for the wrong.

So, I mean, everybody knows this in the industry. It’s not about killing it early that I don’t like this because you can, we, all these drugs. Yeah, also our CRISPR drug died easily 10 times, they all died, many deaths, but then again, experience tells you, can you overcome that death? Can you revive it, you know, in one way or the other, and is it worth it?

 And so that is by the way, a complexity, I think where again, it comes back to the earlier point I made. If you don’t have a leadership, a CEO can really also understand this. And drive it then how can that CEO who doesn’t understand it stand in front of the board and say, listen, I mean, I respect you, whatever, but I, this is what I believe.

And so I think the benefit is extremely, it’s an extremely important point that when, particularly when it’s around these complex platforms that you have a senior team in place who understands what they’re doing. Yeah. 

Philip Hemme: Yeah. No, that’s, that’s pretty good. I think what you just said, I think it, yeah, I think the more complex something is a project is the more you need like robust team and then some experience that even if you take the paradigm, I mean, launching a rocket SpaceX, you need like, Oh, like building, 

Rodger Novak: they’re not jokers.

Philip Hemme: Really good with nuclear power plant or whatever, whatever the. When you have a budget of a billion. 

Rodger Novak: Yeah. I mean, SpaceX is a nice a nice example. Not what I like. It’s a tech example. Yeah. You have obviously in that case with all respect to Elon Musk, a crazy guy with a crazy idea, but.

So when you look at the team at the senior leadership, this is a, this is an A plus team. I mean, I mean, and, and so there is a combination of dreams of vision, innovation backed by professionals. And that, that, that for me is an equation, which, which helps you, which you require for success, for graceful success tells again, how you define success, yeah.

But, but I think this is critically important, you know. 

[00:33:40] The secret recipe for founding a successful company

Philip Hemme: I like it. So do you, talking about this and going back to the story of like, to more, like less experienced founders that maybe would like to help or executives, do you recommend them to go after something a bit less ambitious or like moonshots and something a bit more like, a bit safer, less complex?

Rodger Novak: Not necessary. So first of all, moonshots. I’m not a big fan of moon shots because yeah, I mean, because you, who was it? I think, no, the Indian or the Chinese, I don’t know. Some, some, someone failed right now with the, with the landing on the moon. Anyway. No, seriously. No, I do not think so. I think we need these ideas.

We need also ideas where you think totally out of the box that we are, personally, I even think. Sometimes, and often they come from people who have no exposure to the industry. Yeah. So, and, and the founder, I mean, I heard this many times also when we did CRISPR, a founder is often not the right CEO that, that very much depends.

 But why I am a little skeptical and that’s something maybe, I don’t know if it, if it’s, you know, the, the, the bill or the subject matter is a difference between Europe and the US. What I have seen in Europe. Not always, but there is a tendency, I would say that academic founders, which some of them obviously very good and very interesting ideas very much misinterpret or underestimate the challenges ahead of them because there, there’s one thing, for example, not only about drug development, we talked about, this is another thing and it also relates a little back to crispr.

So you’re not a young guy, young lady, young, young, young man, whatever. And we say, okay, I want to build a company. The problem is you need good people because you yourself, you don’t know. Yeah. So how do you convince people to join you? How do you make sure that people believe you, that you are the person who can lead that effort when you want to recruit the very best?

It’s not possible. Yeah. So why would I join someone where. That person claims leadership and I right away understand, okay, he’s a very talented person, but, and it, it’s nice for the ego and whatever it is to become the boss, but why would I deal with this if I have so many other opportunities because, you know, there are alternatives unless that person, and that’s then the difference.

And maybe that’s a little bit of an advice, you know, understands quickly that being the leader is primarily being a, also a team member. Yeah. And that what we see in, I see in Europe often not at and in the US it’s easier, often academic founders, you know, really commission then professionals to do a bit and with that’s a little bit easier.

Yeah. 

Philip Hemme: I like that. Yeah. It’s a, it’s a good transition to, to, to the differences with Europe and you, and we can talk about what the, the, the people, but I think people is a, is a, I mean, makes a… It’s a key. 

Rodger Novak: It’s key. It’s everything. 

Philip Hemme: It’s key. It’s key, I think. So you, you, you sent me an email, I think six months or so, a few months ago.

[00:37:28] Everything is wrong in biotech in Europe besides science

Philip Hemme: And you told me everything is wrong in bio in Europe besides science. We can talk about it if you want. 

Rodger Novak: Hey, I was very proud to meet that. Yeah, about probably another search where I said, oh my god. Yeah, we, you want to talk about it? Yeah. Okay, I live in Europe, so I have to be careful about it. No, I mean, I mean, I think, I think it’s a little, it’s a little frustrating.

 You know that CRISPR is a, is a Swiss based company, but in the end… It’s in Zug. In Zug, yeah. Yes, yes, here, yeah. But, but for sure it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s almost exclusively when it comes to operations, yeah US based, yeah yeah we have people in Switzerland, but, but from an operational perspective you know, we have our board meetings here, key decisions are taken in Switzerland you know, IP is all of that, yeah it’s just as important, yeah, but, but operations are. In, in Boston or at the west? 

Now, and on the one hand, when you think about recruiting, for example, at the Boston area, it’s crazy because people are super expensive. You know, right now we have a different market. But, you know, during the times where biotech was booming a bit more, let’s say two years ago you know, we we also had issues to get really quantified people, even for a company like CRISPR or other really established biotech companies, simply because people could pick and choose.

You know, but you have a market, you have very qualified people sitting in the U. S. They’re not all American, many of them are European working. In Europe, it’s different. We have a number of challenges, from my perspective, or my, my experience. Let’s start with a positive thing. I think science in Europe is strong.

Philip Hemme: Yeah, yeah. I saw CRISPR, cRISPR in Mandela. 

Rodger Novak: Yeah, that’s that, that’s clearly a European story. For sure we have with Jennifer and others. You know, we, we have, I mean, science is international. We have a U. S. American aspect, but Probably a little less the way the Americans look at this. So I, I consider this at least the early days as a European science talk.

Many other things have been done in Europe. Now, the problem is how, how number one problem is how do you get these, these, this science translated into not only a drug, that that’s one thing as a job for a company, but more so how do you sense, sensitize, sensibilize, sensitize. I think the right word.

People, academics to think about, Hey, can I do, can I build a company? That, that, that is missing. We, we, we miss this a lot and it’s getting better and it’s missing. But these are not the big issues. I come to the big issues a little later. The next thing is you need to, 

Philip Hemme: how long, how long is the list? 

Rodger Novak: The list is long. I tried to make it shorter. The next thing’s for sure. In a entrepreneurial mine theory is very in like a very different, yeah, and it’s in many ways naive, which by the way is not a bad thing because what we experience in the US is not very nice because the very first, I always say a US founder always wants to see the cap tape at first.

As European founder, in 80 percent of the cases doesn’t even know what the cap table is. Yeah, so I know what it is. Yeah, because what is it? Now. I like the European approach much more, not because then we can take advantage of the, of the naivety. It’s not at all. Can I focus on the site? But, but you focus on the assets, you focus on the sites.

But the entrepreneurial mind is different. Also respect for what we do and what we in this industry is very different. I think maybe less than 10, 15 years ago, but I was still in academia where it was considered. You were considered a failure if you entered the industry. Yeah. And I think this mindset is still, still there.

So that’s one thing. Yeah. But then coming back to the very early subject, we had team and people to find European leadership, CEOs in particular, but also chief business offices is hard. It’s very, very hard. Not that we don’t have them. Many of them are in the U S and we do have some, but we can probably, I wouldn’t say can’t get them on one hand, but maybe two and a half hands.

I don’t know are sufficient when it comes not to startups. I mean, this is a slightly different game, but when it comes to people with real experience. 

Philip Hemme: Other, other words, just like the, no. Yeah, yeah. But so to say, having it a little, 

Rodger Novak: my, my, my background, you know, academic background, medical doctor, many years in bionic pharma.

Yeah. You know, mass gymnastic listed companies you name it. Yeah. Long, long, long time, or, A lot of experience with investors, being bankers, B, B, BCs, you name it. In the U S you find, let’s put it on the table. You find a lot of outcasts out of there in Europe. Yes, we have them, not that many. And that’s a charge.

Yeah. Because we need them. We need these people. Yeah. And, and not at my stage or at the stage of my career or end of my career or whatever you want to put this. But at least some on that. Where we can really help these companies move on because we have another challenge in Europe and we can’t change that.

We don’t have a NASDAQ. And, and so that, that’s a tricky thing because in the end, we always have to focus at one point to the US, different models to do that. But actually IPOing a company is one of the key exits for investors. Yes, you have M& A and, and all that, but, but I, I don’t know what the numbers are, but, but I, I do believe that.

An ITO right now, so that’s more tricky, obviously, but it will come back. You know, is, is one of the key exits, which also again, attracts, obviously investors when they see an opportunity. And if you, if you are on a continent, which doesn’t allow you for sure, you can go on, on, on, on, you know, local exchange what is the right word?

It’s a stock market. It’s a stock market. Sorry. In most instances, at least for the biotech industry, be some exceptions, but so you have to be listed at NASDAQ. And if, if that’s the case, you need to have a presence there. You need to not just fly over. Sometimes I meet some bankers or analysts. You need to, you need, you need to have some center of gravitas, which then moves attention away from European side.

So, so it’s doable, but it makes it more. 

Philip Hemme: Oh, it’s surprising. It almost surprises me. So there’s a, there’s a stock market in Europe, but even for biotech, there’s just not a like more European stock market. It’s, it’s, it’s crazy, but I mean, that’s that, but then, I mean, everything you mentioned also then it’s, I mean, it’s really on the structural almost level on the, like on top level, like, I mean, I mean, obviously you will not change that, but like how, how to really change these things.

Rodger Novak: I don’t know. I mean, it’s, it’s, it’s, I mean, obviously stock exchange. That was a word, sorry. That’s super hard and I don’t know. I think it’s almost impossible. But when we look at our industry, not only biotech industry, European industry, for sure there are pockets where we have tech industry and all that.

But, but I do think we do have a different mentality. It’s not bad, but I think our mentality is different, but it’s certainly also in other areas. much less entrepreneurial. And, and I said over time, that’s almost prohibitive when we think about, you know, how, how we, how, how do we, what is, what is the future?

How do, how do we manage this? How do we encourage people to take their life and their responsibility in their own hands and not be too afraid of, of the risk? Because for sure risk is an economic risk. 

[00:46:44] What can a young European founder do to bridge the US gap for biotech

Philip Hemme: I think, I mean, yeah, you’re talking quite a lot on the like. Also kind of micro society level across like cross countries.

Maybe if you look at it more from a micro level, let’s say, whatever, a founder or a CEO is 35, 40 based in Europe, what can he or she do about it? Because I think that’s also, because I mean. It’s basically a very stoic way of seeing it, like what’s in my control, what’s not in my control and just, I do what is in my control.

Same as you, when you started crystal, you and then Sean and Amanda, but when you started Crystal Therapeutics, you realized early on Switzerland is not enough. Let’s go to Boston. IPO direction. That’s like, you never IPO’d on the European market. I think if I’m sure I get to ask most of the team, they’re Europeans, but they’re all us based at the Europeans.

I mean, yeah this was this, there were decisions that were basically your control. Yes. And a European founder CEO could go after the same decisions. Like, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. But I, I’m curious how you, like, is there something more there you would see, like, I mean, what I mean, giving that the understanding the macro and then how can you apply to your to you or whoever’s listening.

Let’s say a founder, CEO, even an investor, how can they apply the micro understanding to a micro, like what’s in their control decision?

Difficult. Because that’s actionable. 

Rodger Novak: Yeah. I mean, I mean, my, my, my view is maybe an example. I work as a venture partner for a sub one, which is a U. S. VC group, obviously from the past from GSK, but they’re independent now, they’re raised now, they’re very successful. I think that the second fund and they have a European presence in, in the UK.

 And I always, when, when you look at, you know, when, when, when you, when you look how they look at European companies, startup companies, I often have the impression to look at them differently as if they looked at the US. And so an actual item, for example, for investors, just to check investors is can they trust these guys, trust also the younger people.

 Encourage them, you know, you don’t have different kind of perspectives just because it’s a European team, you know, yeah, things like that. But in the end, it comes down to ourselves as Europeans. And one thing is from my perspective, very, very clear. We need to be a bit more brave. We need to accept that failure is part of the journey.

 And also. Understand that it’s not about you. Yeah. You could argue Americans are, you know, they, they think it’s about them, but they’re smart enough to understand, you know, I can only win at a team. Yeah. I’m not saying that necessarily better team players. But I think that there is more tradition to this to understand, Hey, I cannot do this alone.

You know? And and with that, I think the system is a bit more, you know? 

Philip Hemme: What I, what I like, for example, if I, if I, if I look at myself, what I quite like it, I mean, I would basically agree with, with everything you said and it comes from whatever. I lived a bit in Boston and working. Once, for me, what I like is once I have this, like, macro understanding, then translating it at a micro level and what I mean, for example, at a micro level, I will work only with Europeans based in Europe who have understood this, for example, or like most.

And so, I mean, it’s not, but usually it is the case. And so for example, a French who don’t speak English, I will never work with like, oh, like very, very rarely a German who doesn’t speak English. So, if you don’t even work in English, Ah yeah, sure. Like, for example, Yeah, yeah. But you can already filter out, like, a lot of people, actually.

Yeah. And a lot of people who are not necessarily the best fit. And it’s not the best fit for me as well. Yeah. Maybe they’re a good fit for us. Or like, I tried to, when I, when I was, I was trying to looking for, for like my academic co founder before going to my co partners and I talked to like 16 of them. 15 of them, after 2 minutes, I wanted to stop the conversation. 

Rodger Novak: Yeah, they only talk about themselves, no? Ha, ha, no, that’s my experience. Themself in the end, like. 

Philip Hemme: Zero understanding of what’s company building was even about what sounds like zero, not even like, you know, being experts that 

Rodger Novak: they’re not. I mean, from my perspective, one of the key issues we have in Europe, the people really not, I shouldn’t say the people because there are always exceptions and fantastic people.

But if, if, if you look at the majority and I’m talking, maybe that’s too much, 90 percent on the academics. Sitting, sorry, I have to say that with all respect sitting in the ivory tower. They have no respect and have no respect for, for what is outside. And that, that they’re, you know, I, I joined just recently last year, end of last year, the Nobel prize ceremony with Emmanuel and a special guest.

So I had the privilege to be pretty much at all festivities, events, you name it. After a week. You know, I said, oh man, it was a life, once in a lifetime experience for sure, meeting the king, da, da, dee, da, da, da. But then, you know, I said, you know, wow, these people only talk about themselves. He had a, for example, a crisper, which was probably a pretty special Nobel prize because it was given early.

It was given to two ladies. And it was actually already translated into something, which was, by the way, the purpose of Nobel, yeah which you know, so not a

fricking single word about this. I mean, I mean, I, I was just sitting there and I was thinking sometimes, I mean, you are all probably bright people, but your horizon It stops very close to your nose, you know, to the tip of your nose or at the tip of your nose. And it was very enjoyable. Yeah, it’s not that, but they should open up because we could, we could need their help.

You know, when I talk and Emmanuel will forgive me for the forgive me that hopefully, you know, when I talk to, to Emmanuel about what we do at CRISPR, what can you do with the CRISPR technology, let’s say an immunology or whatever it is, it’s not a lot. Yeah I’m not even talking about Jennifer Dahl, who stands up at the Nobel Prize ceremony and says, we need to do more with CRISPR because so far very little has happened.

And I’m thinking what is going on here? And they, what are you talking about? And I think. In particular, in European academia, the respect and the understanding of the relevance, even from a scientific perspective of this industry is almost not existing and that’s a huge issue because without the innovation of academia, I mean, at least the startup phase.

We are lost, you know, and I, I have a lot of examples with academic funds where, similar to your experience, where I say today, not having seen a shoe, I’m not working with that, period. I need to be five minutes in a room, or let’s say half an hour. It’s very clear. Because. They only, they only consider their science.

They often don’t even know the science in a broader perspective. They, they think this is a way to get wealthy. This is not the way to get wealth. This is a way to have an impact and to change something, you know, for, you know, with respect to the benefit of, yeah, if you want to get wealthy or famous, well then do something else, go on a sitcom, yeah?

I mean, this is crazy, yeah? And so, so that’s something that there’s a totally wrong perspective about this industry among many, many European academics. And I, I find this is a pity. It’s a real pity. 

Philip Hemme: I hope academics are watching this. I feel sorry for them. But, but coming back to what you just said as well, like, I mean, you, you understand it on the micro level, but what can you do in the micro level, it’s a bit like harder, but on the micro level, even for you.

You know rapidly what kind of scientists you want to work with and you will just 

Rodger Novak: you can build companies by the way Yeah, so we are doing this right now. Do you only think are in the building? We might even in that building and all left in the building Not in this one in the building. 

Philip Hemme: It is like a nylon on my To be honest, by the way, I know exactly from that 

Rodger Novak: are not in this building So we we are currently building up and I think it’s it’s it’s absolutely doable but it’s, it’s harder, it’s, it’s more difficult, you know, and job.

And, and then it does have to do for sure, not only, I mean, we cannot blame everything on academia in Europe, yeah. But, but it has to do with the mindset, which is not only, and this is important. I mean, if an academic founder has a, let’s say, a bit different mindset, fine. Okay. That is not prohibitive for building a company and just makes it more annoying.

[00:57:01] The European attitude can get in the way of entrepreneurship

Rodger Novak: Yeah. What is a problem that many of the ideas we see never go anywhere because of, you know, whatever kind of attitude. What, what is, I think more, more difficult is, in, in Europe is that the, it’s not only academia, which has this, it’s also us as Europeans, we do not respect entrepreneurship the way Americans respect it.

And so even at the level of, for sure, we get good scientists. I mean, I have no, we have no issues to get good scientists in Europe. Yeah. But still, you know, you want to have also people who. It might interact at the more senior level with the investors, this is more difficult. And the reason why it is more difficult, you have less people who have done it.

And there are less people simply answering the poll because it’s not viewed necessarily as, Oh, wow, this is this is something you should do. I have a super nice example. About 10 years ago I had a birthday party. A very good friend comes to me and he says, tka, I need to talk to you. I said, sure, no.

Or you having some beers, and No, it was, it was good. Yeah. But age, he said, what’s up? He said, you know what? I don’t understand what you’re doing. I was at that time, and I was at, at some of. You’re not a manager, yeah, you are an MD. Why don’t you work, he, we wasn’t, or he is an MD. Why don’t you work as a medical doctor?

You should not be in this industry. So I don’t understand it, you know? And so I found this a little strange, you know, it was a job, you know. But then when I left, say, Sanofi, I was a global head at the effective, so a very secure, nice position. And, and, and started with CRISPR, I’d say 90% if, if people cared, most people anyway don’t care.

That’s fine. 90 percent of whom thought they care or thought they have to come and told me, what are you doing? You know? I mean, and and yeah, it’s probably a justified question. But in the U. S. I wouldn’t get that question. People say, Oh my God, how did you come across that? How can I, how can I invest?

Yeah, and we say, Oh, are you crazy? Why do you do this? You know, you can’t do this. Oh my God. You know, you have this nice company car. You have, you have your shares. You have this. And you live in a, in middle of Paris in the Marais. The company pays you the apartment. I mean, you’re, you’re almost God. So why do you do this?

What? And in the US people tell you, oh my God, what a great opportunity. Oh, it’s fantastic. You know, tell me about it. Nobody cares. Nobody cares. You know, it’s a diff big, big, big difference. Yeah. 

Philip Hemme: Yes. At the end, I think you, you don’t regret the decision. 

Rodger Novak: I don’t know. I, I, I don’t regret the decision, but, but I, I, I think it, it’s, it’s, yeah, it’s sometimes. Even at the personal level, it’s sometimes difficult because I, I live in Europe now, I have a twin brother, identical twin, and smart cookie and he decided to, you know, have a career in, in, in big corporate, you know, so he was at a big, big international insurance. I would clearly say that my brother, who’s my twin brother, identical twin, who’s pretty close to me, does not understand what I’m doing.

Yeah. And he’s just an example, although he’s close to me, I have a lot of friends or people that I know really well in the U S. You know what I’m doing, and not only out of the industry. You have a curiosity to understand what this is. In Europe? Europe? The guy made some money. That’s not. Yeah? Oh you know, maybe, you know, he has two apartments.

That’s a lot. Yeah? It’s a ton of… I mean, you have to, in Europe, you have to justify yourself. You have to justify yourself for what you did, and in particular if you have been successful. Yeah? And I think going back to our subject matter, when you think about being an entrepreneur, that’s totally prohibitive because for sure entrepreneurship has to do with risk, it has to do with independence, it has to do also with innovation, you know, and, and, and all these aspects.

And, and I don’t think that. I, I think that many Europeans do not really understand and how important it is for our society. Yeah. 

Philip Hemme: What I, what I like in your example is, I mean, you cannot, and that’s also what makes us European. I mean, your family is European or some people close and that’s how, it’s not that much in your control versus, I mean, your, your friend group is more in your control.

Yes. Even for me, I mean, I just met my dad it took him a long time to understand what I was doing with my life, like, oh, well, okay. Do something in bed, but at some point, okay, it’s working, profitable, 10 employees, oh, okay, I think it’s good, at least it’s secure, there’s a job I wish I never had. See, even now, it’s like okay.

Rodger Novak: You know, I, I don’t have a specialization in medicine, yeah, so I don’t have what we call an internment Facharzt, yeah, because I went into the industry and my parents until, well, still way into the CRISPR story, asked me, how do you finish that, you know, I mean, it’s crazy, yeah, or, or, or now they’re excited, and I think it does fit, for sure it’s not tech, as a cousin, he’s much younger than me, and he has probably some boring job, I’m not exactly sure what he does, but also something with, with an insurance company.

And all of a sudden I see on Insta that he has a food truck. Yeah. So he now, I think it’s part time has a food truck. So I right away text him. What is that? Came and said, Hey, cool. You know, that’s great. Whatever. And others say, Oh, I see doing, can you make some money with that? And I was thinking, Hey, that, that is your, yeah, it’s always, someone does something a little different.

That’s a, that’s, that’s, it’s weird. You know, is it, is it really, does that make sense? And I think we should be more open. Yeah. And, and then, then if we do something, we should. Also push for it and be serious about it. We are not playing around. You’re not playing around with your company. I’m not playing around with my company.

We are very, we are dead serious. Yeah. But we do it in a different context. And I think we deserve, not that I look for respect, I couldn’t care less to be quite honest, but I think this deserves respect. And you don’t get it because people in most instances haven’t had the exposure. Yeah. And so that, that I think is, if you think about Euro, the West, biotech investors, Nasdaq, no Nasdaq, that’s one of our issues.

Philip Hemme: That’s a good one. I mean, on the positive side, I think it’s, it’s changing. And actually, I am positively surprised by how rapidly it’s changing. 

Rodger Novak: Changes. I do not agree with that. 

Philip Hemme: Ten years. And I feel like there’s a lot of vari variation between the countries when comes to mind in the uk that definitely, like I had and salt, like Berlin is the figure.

Rodger Novak: Oh, actually, but tech, the pure is actually this also better and tech, I think we see, I see this, you know, because again, now an approach because of ai. Yeah. I’m Toby Clueless. You know, I’m thinking, I, I, I totally believe that AI will have also our industry, huge impact. I just don’t know how, and I particularly don’t know who, yeah, because I just don’t fully get it.

I don’t get it at all. But I think our industry in particular is, and we have another problem, Vinci, we have one problem and that’s. Economic five minutes left. Oh yeah. You can count this all out. But that, that’s an important, it’s about economics. Yeah. Our industry, even the biotech industry has a bad reputation, a particular bad reputation. Europe. And because, and I think for some good reasons, pharma, the pharma, the, the behavior of pharma, the communication style of pharma. I think once that’s getting a little better. But man, you know, if I wouldn’t be in that industry, I wouldn’t like it either, to be quite honest. And we’re. And once people understand, ah, you work on drugs, you’re fine, but we’re not fine, you know, and that’s something also maybe we, us, as representatives of the industry, biotech industry, need to be, you know?

Philip Hemme: Yeah, that’s a good one. I think we can finish on this. 

Rodger Novak: Yeah, 

[01:06:20] Follow Rodger Novak

Philip Hemme: thanks a lot, Roger, for joining in. Yeah. Basically, I mean, we could talk longer and longer. Maybe if people want to follow you, to know more about you on some social media. 

Rodger Novak: Not really. I’m more mr. Browner. I stay away from this now. No, I, I, you know, I, I don’t do, do, do anything on social media.

I’m, I’m on LinkedIn, I think. Sometimes I updated sometimes, but, but yeah, 

Philip Hemme: they can wait for, I mean, you, you are, you are talking publicly from time to time. You did order to top hello tomorrow. You were on the, actually I forgot to mention actually on the biotech between the biotech waves podcast was shown.

And actually it’s a great episode and for people who want to know the backstory behind this story for the early days. And also you came twice to Labyrinthic Refresh and once 2016, once 2019, 20. Also great like background. So for the ones listening wants to go deeper from that episode, you can, I will link all the, all the I will put all the links in the, in the description.

Rodger Novak: So now I need to, need to leave Europe, you know, 

Philip Hemme: I need to help. Yeah, I mean, I think, I mean, I, I mean, on the, on the positive side, I think, I mean, you showed that it was, I mean, you showed that it was possible to bring amazing science. And right now you are also explaining what’s wrong now, people can work on it and you’re also supporting European funds. Entrepreneurs. 

Rodger Novak: Yes, sure. 

Philip Hemme: Blog members are like, I think, I mean, it sounds a bit, maybe a bit negative to describe the problem, but I think what I like is that you’re really doing something about it and you’re helping others do something about it. And that’s, 

Rodger Novak: that’s one of the reasons I came back from the US was because of European culture.

What I really to is the entrepreneurs in particular in maybe an industry which is not well understood. That’s from my perspective, a problem. And then also academia, but academia, I think the general aspect of academia, it’s the same US, Europe. I mean, this kind of, I call this to a certain extent, arrogancy, you know?

 And, but then the US Americans, again, are more entrepreneurial. In that case, probably more driven by economics and cap tables, which I don’t like so much, and the Europeans less so also because they know less. They know less about that system. And so that’s something I think with education and good examples.

And I’m tired, I’m tired. Yeah, sure, it’s a bit much better today than obviously 10 years ago. But I just said recently in experience with. 

Philip Hemme: That’s when you said music, right? 

Rodger Novak: They chat, probably. 

It’s all mine. You know, yeah.Philip Hemme: Alright, thanks for joining. Okay, thank you.

[01:09:23] Thanks for listening and follow Flot.bio

Philip Hemme: Me again. I hope you enjoyed the conversation and thanks a lot for listening to the end. If you’re keen, please hit the follow button somewhere, maybe. Or the like, review, share button, share it with some connections. It would help us a lot, especially this early in the show.

 And before telling you more, what’s behind the show, I want to say a big kudos and, and thanks to the team. Kieran, web development Taswin in marketing, Marianne logistics, Wayne in editing. They did an amazing job and there’s a lot of hard work. I put into, into, into the show. So now what’s behind? So Slot.

Bio the company was founded in March, 2022. I’m one of the founder and previously I founded Labiotic. eu. And we started the company building a marketplace for the biotech industry. But we didn’t have enough product market fit. So we decided to pivot to a content business. With the first product being, being the podcast.

We don’t want to create, you know, yet another podcast. There’s already a lot of them around. But we believe Europe needs a high quality, long form podcast to help most professionals and biotech enthusiasts be better informed. grow and just be better at what, at what they’re doing. And so that’s why we are creating that podcast.

We are selecting the best UPs in biotech we can find and we are interviewing mostly actually offline so we can have really the highest quality, both technical aspect, but most importantly on the dance and the content and the flow of the content. We release one episode, around one episode per month on all the major platforms.

Money wise, we are financed by our own private investments and our business model is based on advertisement, so it’s very sponsored. Messages, slots that you’ve seen in each episode. And we are sponsored by financial support for individuals and corporate. So anyway, I would not make it longer. If you are, I hope you share a vision and if you’re keen to hear more or you want to reach out or you want to share some feedback, please send us, shoot us an email.

Hi, at Flot.bio. Again, thanks for listening and see you in the next episode.

Further Episodes

Episode 27

Thomas Ybert, DNA Script 🇫🇷 | DNA Printing & Synthesis | E27

Thomas Ybert of DNA Script on the Flot.bio Show
Episode 26

Gunilla Osswald, BioArctic 🇸🇪 | Leqembi, Alzheimer’s disease | E26

Gunilla Osswald, BioArctic on the Flot.bio Show
                           

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