Accelerating Drug Development is a Moral Imperative with Dr. Gabi Hanna, MD

Speaker A: Doctor Gabihana is the co founder and CEO of lamassu Biotech and he leads the development of some innovative therapies for cancer and inflammatory diseases. He is a physician, scientist and serial entrepreneur, having previously founded the first academic drug development center at Duke University. And under his leadership, Lamassu is advancing two novel therapeutics. He also oversees Lamassu pet, which is developing a canine therapy for pancreatitis. And his work is really driven by a commitment to rapid, cost effective drug development. He maintains there is a moral obligation to developing drugs quickly and efficiently. And he has some really interesting insights into potentially redefining how the FDA works, how companies work with academia, um, and maybe some policy changes that could really affect our industry. We had a great conversation. I love to brainstorm on these important topics. So let's jump into the conversation. Welcome to the Building Biotechs podcast. Over the years I've helped over 90 biotech, life sciences and venture capital firms strategize and hire thousands of employees to scale companies that impact human health. We speak with those at the forefront of growing biotechs to learn their tactics on building these companies from the ground up. I'm your host, Karina Klingman. I hope you enjoy the show. Gabby, thank you so much for being here. I'm excited about this conversation. I was really excited to talk to you about entrepreneurship and that's something that's obviously close to my heart.

Speaker B: It is very nice to be with you, Karina. So it is great pleasure.

Speaker A: You're currently the CEO of lamassu Biotech and you're also the co founder there. Tell me a little bit about the mission. What are you doing over there and what's going on at Lamassu?

Speaker B: So Lamassu, we focus on and make need and that's what excited us, you know, I mean uh, myself, my two co founder, uh, Robbie Hanna, my older brother and my colleagues and friend, Greg Palmer. Friend for over 20 years. We are scientists driven by problem solving, driven by excited about data and uh, driven by improving patient care. So that's why unmet need is, is big in our mission. Currently we have uh, two drugs in clinical trial. One target, uh, Rabi767 target acute pancreatitis, which there is no treatment unfortunately. Over 15,000 patients in the US die from severe acute pancreatitis yearly. Uh, and the second drug is molecular targeted, uh, oncology. Uh, also we focus on rare cancer disease which is also focused on P53 which is guardian of genome. So it is at uh, its ongoing phase one Too as well.

Speaker A: Can you tell me a little bit about, about what you did before that because you were at Duke and you really helped entrepreneurs there.

Speaker B: I was the founder and the executive director of uh, Duke Clinical Translational Research center, which is drug development center at Duke. Created consortium within Duke and outside Duke with other universities to focus on translational research and drug development. I was always passionate about how to translate drugs. The knowledge we created in university, which is tremendous knowledge, how to advance it to patient care. So that was in uh, high level what I was doing. We work obviously with a lot of investigator, researcher within academic and we work with a lot of biotech and pharmaceutical companies as well.

Speaker A: I always find that those academic style accelerator programs help the founder. Scientists who maybe don't have the business vision are really instrumental in helping people to create a business around a drug, a therapeutic, a molecule. How did you support that at Duke?

Speaker B: Correct. I believe the university has tremendous knowledge. I mean just if we quantify, think about Duke University as example, which is one of the top universities receiving an average $750 million in research fund every year. So if that is company, this is a lot of R and D funding. So that will generate a lot of knowledge. And the university are magnet for all smart people. So I believe there is a tremendous knowledge there and it should be utilized by, by almost every biotech, every founder and anyone interested in this field. To become successful in biotech science is I would say the core source, the foundation. We start with the patient is where we like to end. But there's a lot other than thousand other consideration and you have to hit hundred percent to make your drug correct. So a lot of smart people and a lot of researchers, we don't know what we don't know. So it was a lot of my job many times to educate and to bring consideration to point. Usually researchers they don't think about. And unfortunately to make it successful you need to get it a hundred percent correct. And to die you need one thing to get a drunk to die. So if you put that mentality, you have to raise the bar very high to get it correct and to consider everything you don't know.

Speaker A: With all that in mind, you were talking about building relationships between academics and companies. And so is that where you're seeing that, that bridge helping those smaller academic companies kind of get into the realm of doing things more correctly and learning from these bigger partners?

Speaker B: I think that is definitely great avenue. Um, unfortunately in our industry and academic field there was old and still existing culture about separation of the science and industry. Uh, for me as a person, um, I think that was something wrong. And it should be to work more closely together. It should be that line between academia and industry. It should be more and in fact also regulatory. If we speak about that. That's also that line. It shouldn't be very rigid. It should be more interactive because again all the goal for either biotech, regulatory and academia, ah, to improve patient care. If you go to see what is the mission of Duke University or other big universities, one of their big mission as nonprofit is improve patient care and in addition to education, another uh, mission. So if we focus on the mission and how we can align our interest in the mission and then we can manage all the conflict of interest and different style in management smart people, with good intention, they can figure all, all those uh, out in an ethical way and focus on the mission and how to deliver the value for, for academic and the patient. And it will draw the value for industry and university as well.

Speaker A: You mentioned that there is a lot of funding coming into academic institutions. And do you have some sort of a trick in these? I'd say more funding restricted times to accessing some of those NIH resources.

Speaker B: As a startup, the government spending hundreds of million dollars in funding. The uh university is funded by the government and that means everyone has peace in it. So I think it should be utilized by the public. The more I think every founder should knows about all this resource and the easiest way usually I recommend always to identify grand mechanism or a program at university. Focus on the mission, on the disease of interest and then you can identify the expert and the knowledge existed or also the work is going on in that disease area and then having chat around it either with NIH or with university and see if there's any interest aligned. If there is interest aligned, I believe then logical people, they could come to agreement how to advance those missions.

Speaker A: Logical people, yes, we need lots of logical people in order for that all to work. But I'm with you there. There's a ton, there's a ton of funding. It's just difficult to find at the moment. And I think that that's what I'm hearing from my clients is where is this funding coming from and how to access maybe some of these untapped sources. Accelerating drug development is something that you care a lot about. Why do you believe that this speed to drug development is so critical?

Speaker B: In simple way, every day we delay is day patient is suffering. That is very simple. In average for us, we develop two drugs, acute pancreatitis every day in the U.S. in average 50 patients die and hundreds of people suffer from permanent side effect. Every day you bring the treatment faster, you're saving at least 50 in the US alone and save an improved life of hundreds more. So if you put that in mind, you will see why accelerating drug development is important. Develop uh other cancer drug molecular target therapy or in average 1500 patients die in every year in the US every day you bring treatment sooner is you save more life, improve and eliminate sovereign. So that's always you keep it in mind. And I believe solidly acceleration drug development is moral duty is not business decision. But for whoever has the knowledge and has the capability. It should not hold any potential life saving or improving for any any other person. And we should try it ethically and safely and responsible to bring those treatments to the patient.

Speaker A: That's beautiful. First of all. And yes I think it is a moral obligation we have to get through regulatory roadblocks often especially when we're talking about newer therapies and frontier drugs. I'm curious how you might make that case for faster timelines with the regulators.

Speaker B: I believe acceleration development and safety is not mutually exclusive. So. So I believe you can do both. There is like everything else there is uh, standard or playbook how to do to manage safety or value safety. But that doesn't mean you have to follow it. You can based on your data. It is again it's uh, about focus on entrepreneurial and science on patient. Every drug is different if you focus on the science and if you approach the FDA in responsible way. Why our drug we can create the very uh, novel and creative design to accelerate the development in a way doesn't cut corner, doesn't eliminate safety. No, you keep that in mind. But you create smarter design, more adaptive data analysis and you approach the FDA in responsible way. I think usually the FDA will be responsive to you and it can be more uh, dialogue and you shouldn't be afraid of approaching the fda. Uh, there is also a lot of culture usually when you approach FDA that FDA will tell you no. No is usually considered as beginning of discussion know why. And then you have that discussion. Then you come to because again if you are thinking responsibly for you keep the patient safety and accelerating the trial and bringing new treatment to be especially for unmet need. I believe there is uh. And you're bringing very novel and smart design. I am focused on that. I think there is some point how to advance it. And we demonstrate that in both programs we have for our oncology programs we were able to design the Clinical trial focus only on escalating the dose based on just one patient. And that was focused against the traditional rule three plus rule three plus three. But we were able to get that based on our existing data. We have tons of data. There is other companies in similar stage and the more important the big unmet need. So it is uh, we spoke about the ethical about acceleration and the same times it is unethical to deliver sub therapeutic dose to the patient. So when you make those cases to the FDA that we're treating patients, especially when it comes to cancer, you have to bring, give them therapeutic dose as soon as possible. Why maintain reviewing and um, monitor the safety. So that's allow us to, to have design more uh, escalate the dose faster than what has traditionally been done.

Speaker A: How did you go about making that case? Was it, was it in person? Was it letters? Like what is the process for saying hey fda, here's the reason.

Speaker B: Uh, so FDA changed a lot after Covid. It used to be a lot of uh, in person meeting during COVID pre ind. This was, this was case we submitted through the ind so we didn't have chance. Now it is mostly in writing. So you make the case, uh, most likely in writing. I would rather more to have meeting in the old day but, but you have to adapt and you have to write it in writing and put reference. Uh, for us for our case we had a lot of safety data, we had reference for a lot of other companies who done phase one. So you put a lot of reference things in writing and you put your rationale and you put the case for. Also when for us we focus on rare disease, uh, rare oncology disease, you put the need, you mention about the current status status quo and uh, the unmit need portion of it where patient doesn't have good treatment currently and they're looking for newer treatment. When you put that mostly in writing, if the FDA accept, but it's okay to accept meeting in FDA in person or through video chat, maybe they will accept. If not move on and write it.

Speaker A: And did you do all of that yourself or did you have a regulatory consultant or somebody who has a lot of knowledge of how to navigate that?

Speaker B: We do this is mixed exercise between scientist, physician and regulatory. So you have to always, you have to have regulatory to write things where should be uh, written. Because this, those application as you know those are uh, hundreds of pages if not thousand. So it is very important to put the information where should be. Otherwise it's difficult for fda. You should respect that and you shouldn't think this is not unimportant. It is important for them to maintain their timeline and review and make it easy. So always you focus on regulatory and you always having reference for their regulatory and their policy. And also you add on top of that your scientific uh rationale and also you, you add to that your current practice code from physician and what is the potential. So it is mix of all of those people with respect to the current regulation where you should meet and where the new design should be acceptable. And why for our uh drug for acute pancreatitis Rabi 767 uh we are the first drug for therapeutically to be injected in the pretranium in the abdominal around the pancreas. Uh when we initialed the throughp IND when we talked to the FDA initially the FDA was resisting to that mechanism through that method of delivery. They thought the traditional way is through uh obviously pill or IV and they thought we should try that. But based on our science we strongly believe we shouldn't try that because we believe this would not lead to any success. We argue against it. We conducted more experiment and eventually the FDA accepted uh accepted our method uh of design. And currently we are at phase two with the with other company as a partnering and we are in uh multi centers over 10 center in the US at phase two. And this will be the first drug to be injected directly through endoscopy and injected in the prettium in the belly around the pancreas through the stomach.

Speaker A: That's amazing. So no was just the beginning of that conversation.

Speaker B: Exactly, exactly.

Speaker A: I'm curious, you have some strong thoughts on the FDA too. If you could just tear it down and restart like how would you design the FDA differently for today's drug development environment?

Speaker B: I believe the best knowledge and um. The most knowledge is it is in the fda. FDA know it all. Every they see the data from each company. They see the data from around the world. They know what you don't know. Whatever this experiment you design, maybe they know the results even before you do it. So I believe fast and clear interaction with FDA I believe it will tremendously change how we develop a drug. Uh again if our north star is the patient care and acceleration I believe FDA can play big role how to facilitate that because it is the vault of all information there and FDA demonstrate they can do play a huge role and we saw that during the COVID So uh, I believe FDA has a big role how to do it.

Speaker A: I think the fear is sharing knowledge and the legality of that. How how could they share Knowledge about all of these things in development without crossing those legal lines.

Speaker B: Regulators are uh, some of the most knowledgeable expert in the field. They see the data from every company in the specific disease area. They see what work, what doesn't. They could share it de identify aggressive insight and best practice about clinical trial, biomarker selection, patient recruitment stages. That would not be about giving any specific company any advantage but about raising the bar for entire field. There they could be act as knowledge hub sharing the trend and common pitfall which would benefit patient and save a lot of cost in development. So we have again real example Covid. There was several uh companies developing COVID vaccine. And the goal was not to pick uh winner or loser. It was more how to get the treatment faster way to the patient. And you can share information responsibly and raise the bar for all company. What's what they need to meet is uh, what would be the end game. And it has to be shared to be identified. It has to be shared responsibly. I think there is already FDA conducted that ethically, responsibly and uh, legally I think it can be optimized but something done and I believe it should be optimized. It shouldn't be considered one time off. Uh Covid was a clear case. There was thousands uh of people die every day. But cancer there is over again. Over a thousand people die every day other med disease. Every life is precious when why we have the tools and have the information. If we can improve, I think we should improve.

Speaker A: There's a great business case too for that. Beyond quick acceleration we waste a lot of money going down similar paths that have already been shown to be not successful. And what a huge change that would make for drug development if that were really the case.

Speaker B: I solidly believe in that. I had this discussion with these people who were in the FDA and I believe everyone I spoke to them and they hold very high uh office uh position in fda. I think everyone was believing this mission. Uh especially with a uh, fast evolving economic and global threat from competition and expenses, drug pricing lengthy of treatment. So it can improve in multiple front how we do it. If the FDA play uh, active and creative roles.

Speaker A: I'm holding out hope. I love your vision. That's a really good segue into what's going on right now with the politics of the US And I'm curious what is at stake if we lose our biotech edge.

Speaker B: Us enjoyed to be the leader in biotech for years and um, maybe since the biotech uh industry started in the US So we enjoy that advance. But usually because we are the leader and we have been the leader for long time, that doesn't mean we are going to stay the lead. So to stay in the front there is. It should be active movement to advance. We shouldn't stay still. So I believe um, uh competition and changing the world and changing pressure on multiple front. It should be more active for our regulatory, for our business community and for our entrepreneur to change how we were doing things. So how we were doing things business. You speak about the funding. The funding is becoming tough. The old model just throw more money, raise more money, hire more smart people, pay them more. That's model we saw. You cannot keep raising money until you get to the end. It should change. I think there is urgency about changing the business model for biotech to keep us in the leads.

Speaker A: I couldn't agree more with that one big shift that I've seen. I used to help my clients create massive talent maps in advance of getting ready for a funding cycle. And these included huge build outs all the way through, you know, manufacturing, doing their own manufacturing, getting a manufacturing facility up and running. None of these things are in the plans now we think really seriously about building lean outsourcing certain things, making sure that we have fractional experts. So we're definitely seeing those, those changes in order to be competitive for the current funding. And other than that uh, we're both entrepreneurs here. I like to think about the hidden possibilities and the sort of hidden opportunities when things get tough. Are there any other hidden opportunities that you're seeing in our space now that funding is a little bit tighter.

Speaker B: So number one I would say cut cost. I think biotech is spending a lot. I usually love to run efficient operation as you mentioned and not because of there is no money. It should be that should be the standard because the more efficient the more you can do. So I think that is usually I would say number one cut cost, optimize relationship with partnership. Uh change model about um we spoke very early about focus on exit size. If you try to do earlier partnership share resource uh how to work more smoothly with hospital if you are in clinical trial with other CRO production. We spoke about NIH academia uh there's other nonprofits. Sometimes they follow drive funding small funding but can be very meaningful. Um and someone think also I would usually we need money to transfer it to knowledge and service. Sometimes you can get access to service and knowledge without having money. So be sure you can access to this knowledge and to the services sometimes through without exchanging money. So there Is multiple way. And that's uh the focus on entrepreneurship and the focus on problem solving. How to get to your goal. If you put that the focus. I think a lot of smart people entrepreneurs they know they were going to find ways other industry they founded they found the way entrepreneurship how to create big companies. We shouldn't play the uh playbook about how much funding you do. You do the CRO, how much money you spend. It has to change that the principle of the game should change and bringing more focus on get to the finish line and how to get there.

Speaker A: What would you do differently if you were setting current policy for science in

Speaker B: the US I will I would focus a little bit more on the root problem of as example on drug pricing, on why drug take long time IP uh issue regulatory issue. Uh, I wouldn't will focus on the root problem to be more healthy environment. Long term. Uh, I will try to encourage and create more incentive to work with different shareholders. From university to biotech to to big pharma. The culture in UH university and usually intend university the leaders to be I would say more older generation who they believed in separation of industry and academics. I think there is change of culture and having also from industry better understanding uh what's the regulation that uh big university which they are nonprofit. What is their regulation and what is their mission and how to align with them and understand their uh business model and understand again what they can do and they cannot do. So I think the more understanding it will bring that collaboration uh closer and it will eliminate a lot of burn time to get to that uh agreement. Because I can tell you from experience there is a lot of company approach academia and there will be actually smaller percentage that yield to real uh, real outcome collaboration. Because everyone has different expectation how that agreement should be. So there is the number come in and the number come out real time. Actually it's two different things.

Speaker A: What would be a couple of quick approaches to that? Would you say things like industry, uh postdocs that are in close collaboration with academics. Or are there other solutions that could bridge that gap? In terms of personnel, I think having

Speaker B: usual person always benefit. Uh, but I believe it's more maybe from the sponsor research agreement office. Uh more the licensing office. Um more um the conflict of interest management from university uh more the legal department. So there is little bit more uh higher burden or higher obstacles. Usually from research level or PI or physician. Usually they have no knowledge about it. So if you can see the physician or researcher they are very excited about such partnership. But there is lack of uh, knowledge about the other obstacle could create it in the structure of university or the structure of academia or, uh, biotech. There's things biotech cannot do as. Well, you, uh, know as example, you cannot give your ip, you cannot give material and ip, and then university can claim other new IP on top of your ip. So there is a lot of, uh, uh, business acumen and the strategy, it should be a little bit more closer and it should be. This policy should be reviewed in the eye how we can focus both on the mission to serve the patient. Again, it's not about the financial return. What is the legal risk? That's something we can take care of it in the process if we agree on what we should do.

Speaker A: Yeah. As you're speaking about this, I'm thinking about the folks that live in the office of Tech Transfer and the legal departments for the universities that I've worked with in the past. And when I've thought about recruiting from those sources, those individuals rarely have any biotech experience. Um, they haven't worked in industry. And so I can certainly see that being a roadblock to their understanding. Then, okay, well, how do we form these licensure deals? How do we think about partnering more deeply with institutions and vice versa? Right. So we have a lot of folks on the biotech side who really have no, beyond maybe getting a degree. Right. They have no idea of the inner workings of the actual academic institutions and how they actually get funding through the IP that they have created. So that's, that's a really interesting problem. Certainly something not we won't solve it quickly. But I can see that, that if, if we really tried, that could be a really nice bridge.

Speaker B: When I was Duke, I used to say, university are not in the business of selling drug. Until, um, then we have to work closely with the drug companies because at either early stage or later stage, you have to work with pharmaceutical or biotech companies. So. And usually the earlier the better. So I have to find that linkage, uh, between the academia and between biotech. Again, to serve the patient better.

Speaker A: Yeah, I really like that. The strength of our academic institutions and the strength of the research there have really driven our, uh, biotech industry. But it's always been pretty siloed. And so I, I am liking that. I'm seeing companies working closer and staying closer to academia for longer. We're seeing less funding, so that's necessitated that. But I do think that staying more in close proximity to academia and maybe not siloing and saying, okay, this only academic over here, and then it's biotech and biotech is expensive and it's a full blown company solution to go to market. I think that there is a really smart middle ground in there and that that could be directed by policy. So you wear a couple of hats at the moment uh, as most entrepreneurs do. Can you tell me about the hats you wear? You're kind of part time scientist, part time entrepreneur, part time advisor, part time CEO. How do you balance all that stuff?

Speaker B: I think that's inherited for every entrepreneur has to do that. Um, we solve that by surrounding uh ourselves. And I've been lucky and blessed by having smarter team around me. So I have smart scientists. I can discuss the science, understand it. I have financial team, business team, regulatory team and usually my job many times is how to link and making bring new consideration, bring regulatory consideration to the science, bringing scientific consideration when we speak to the business team. So I think that is usually the main role for us is surround yourself with smarter uh people in every category needed and try to having synergy and consideration from each department to the other. Don't create silos for every department.

Speaker A: How do you hire for people who also value the same things as you as you're building your team? So obviously speed is one and uh, a culture of patient centric development. How do you hire for those things?

Speaker B: I mean I think sometimes if you focus on it, you see it is a lot of people will say patient centric environment, chemistry but unfortunately not everyone mean it. Uh so I think you can see that very early if that is truly your focus when you have simple chat or case or even if you don't find it out during the hiring process when you start the project you would, you would find that I uh will add to that the chemistry among team is important. I put a lot of focus on it even if I have chemistry with such person. But they don't have chemistry with the lead on that project that create usually problematic. So that's will be other strong consideration uh when you start to hire because again for us uh in biotech is about value added. It's not about task performing. It is about how to value added. And no one can have extra value added unless they feel comfortable and they have, they feel they are solidly part of the company.

Speaker A: What other values are you looking for in your team members? Do you have kind of a guide for that?

Speaker B: Everyone has to have that capability the basic technical aspect of it. But I would put also that the ethical ground is very high because, because we are uh, we working with patient life, uh, you know if there is something for all my team always I will tell them. If you find something concern right away you come to me. That is you don't care about culture, nothing. Patient safety comes first. Any concern about science. So ethical. Ethical always is important. And it has to be part of the structure of the person. Is not something as a policy you have to say it. But people has really to believe in it. And you uh. Can see it. In my past experience I can see people. You can feel. Feel their pain when they see something wrong. It is physically painfully when you see something is done wrong to. To someone or something. And you need those type of people. They feel so passionate about the mission, the work. And that's where creativity comes and this is where advance of the company will come.

Speaker A: I'm curious, why do you think so many founders focus on their exits and not outcomes when it comes to starting their companies?

Speaker B: I believe this is systemic issue. It is byproduct of how uh VC model is structured. And uh. Unfortunately and I will believe falsely create um environment where the primary goal for many people is the uh exit metric. This is as main metric for success instead of to be uh patient care and problem solving. And the reality we see invest in uh biotech because of their capabilities and abilities to solve a problem and improve patient care.

Speaker A: I agree wholeheartedly and a lot of times I think we lose track of that patient centric care. How do you actually build companies or how have you tried to build companies with the patient central to your mission?

Speaker B: I will quote you my older brother, which I consider the smarter brother, Rabi Hanna. He is uh, oncologist. He's the chairman of pediatrics oncology at Cleveland Clinic. He always telling me cancer keep us honest and keep us humble. So when you treat, when you see the eye of the patient, especially pediatrics patient, either you improve their life, you save their life or not. If you keep that in mind every time you improve your drug, you look at the data, what you do, you shouldn't lose that fact in any steps in your development.

Speaker A: And uh, we do need money to do research and to start companies and to keep them going. So how do you keep all that in mind when funding pressures do hit?

Speaker B: So the more pressure, I would say the more pressure financial pressure. That means the more value you should provide and the more value is the value for the patient. So again that is the principle why investors and VC and all invest in uh biotech because of the capabilities and abilities to solve existing problem, which is disease, which is cost healthcare, which cost patient and there's someone willing to pay for. If you go to that you improve your value. You improve the value create to the patient. There uh. Will be maybe a lot of companies do me two type of drug development improvement. Maybe it is marginal improvement, maybe it's not gonna make the cut anymore. So you have to focus on real innovation, on real game changing for the patient.

Speaker A: What's one belief about biotech startups that you think is just dead wrong?

Speaker B: I would say the notion that you need uh. Drug development need over 10 years and billion dollar to develop and you need tens of people to start company. I think that is not true. It could be true, but doesn't necessary. The pyramid didn't start build it right away. You always focus on the first stone to build and the strongest stone to build on top of it. So I would say to uh. Entrepreneur always surround yourself with smarter people and uh. Equally smart at least and with very passionate people. This is long journey and tough journey. If you are not passionate about creating value and solving a problem and those are tough problem to treat disease. So if you have that strong passion, create yourself with stronger passion. And I believe the combination of strong passion and capability and smart it will create a lot of new things.

Speaker A: What's one lesson you learned the hard way?

Speaker B: Never estimate the power of status quo and the resistance to change.

Speaker A: Is there a backstory?

Speaker B: When I was in early years of my research always I was very much excited about new research and always was thinking how to take these data and knowledge to improve patient care and how change the practice of care. But very soon you found usually it's difficult to change the practice and the status clock even if it is for something better. System is built around the status quo. So you need very big force to change it. Even if people agree with you on the change. But usually change comes slowly. So that's kind of one things I learned and that's maybe a lot of my career at ah. Duke University of Oxon Translational how to to bring this knowledge to patient. And I used to joke publication in Nature doesn't treat patient. You have to translate this knowledge in practical way to put it in the hand of community physicians and to know how to. And it is the job of researcher and the people who has the how to translate this knowledge.

Speaker A: A really good lesson. Um, if you could give one piece of advice to a first time founder, what would it be?

Speaker B: Focus on the core value of the patient. Don't be drawn in the financial and the burden. Focus on the creating value on the patient, on the life you would save. Mhm. Just keep that focus and keep your passion and advance your skills to solve the problem and everything else it will be solved. That will take care of itself.

Speaker A: This has been such a fun conversation. I so appreciate your time and energy and all of the thoughtful things that you've said. I think we have a lot to think about as a country and how we're going to adapt, how we're going to think about biotech going forward, how we want academic institutions and companies to work together. And you give us a lot of food for thought. So thank you so much.

Speaker B: Thank you, Karina for having me and having this wonderful conversation.

Speaker A: Oh, it's a pleasure. And how can people get in touch with you?

Speaker B: So you can, uh, go to our website, uh, lamassobiotech.com or they can find me on LinkedIn. Gabbie Hanna. Uh, very simple. I will try to be responsive.

Speaker A: I'll put all of that in the show notes so people can click right through. Thanks so much and we will talk to you soon. Building biotechs is brought to you by Recruitomics Consulting. You can find building biotechs in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or anywhere else podcasts are found. Make sure to click subscribe so you don't miss any future episodes and join our mailing list for a weekly dose of biotech news and a podcast overview. And if you need to install a recruitment engine that saves time and money for your growing company, reach out for a free strategy session. I'm always happy to share my expertise and show you techniques to simplify your hiring process and maximize returns. On behalf of the team here at Recruitomics Consulting, thanks for listening.