🧬 Venture Studio Model: Building the Future of AI Drug Discovery | Mati Gill (3/4)

Foreign. Startups podcast by Exceda. Join us as we speak with first time founders, serial entrepreneurs and experienced investors about the challenges and triumphs of running a biotech startup from pre seed to ipo with your host John Chi. In our last episode, Matty shared the simultaneous juggle of law school and ministerial politics, the Teva internship that grew into a full career, and how he learned a 45,000 person organization from the ground up, turning a company wide financial crisis into a mandate to build Tether's first external innovation program. If you missed it, check out part two. In part three, Mati talks about the three pillars of innovation strategy that he built at Teva. Academic partnerships anchored at the Weizmann Institute, a talent fellowship program and an early bet on AI in Israeli drug R and D. He traces how Israel's biodivergence policy, Teva's ambition and a German venture studio model called BioMedx all converged at the right moment. And how Matty threw his hat in the ring for the CEO role of what would become Ion Labs. Yeah, and I think there was a couple other things we had to learn on the industry side. We had to learn that we need to have a point of contact, be the point of contact for the different scientific institutions and not replace that person continuously. Because you know, scientific institutions, research organizations and universities, they're there, you know, for tenured and they're there for a long time. And when you are continuously coming in with new people, new roles, new initiatives, new global blah blahs and whatever they're coming in with, you know, that kind of creates a lack of continuity and then you create confusion. And we had a lot of times where we would talk to innovators and they said, well we already talked to Teva. But you know, when I asked them who they talked with, they talked with someone who was in a local innovation role within Teva Israel local market. And that's not Tev R and D. So we then had to get ourselves aligned and make sure we spoke with one voice, with external partners. And that was very important. And the second thing is that it had to be a scientist, because I'll let you in on a little secret, is that strong leaders, both in academia as well as in scientists can be a little bit of snobs sometimes. And I kind of learned that as a non scientist that they want to talk to me about funding opportunities, investment opportunities, want to build companies and you know, have me in the room there, but they don't want to talk science with me. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And I Start to appear or sit in scientific meetings and try to intervene there beyond just having a basic understanding, I lose their respect instead of trying to gain. So hire strong scientists that can then work with them instead of trying to do the opposite. I love that. And I mean it's very tactical and it makes a lot of sense. Like I think this is outside of the R and D collaboration, but every time I think about the best, like business partnerships, I have usually just like one sole contact that is like continuous throughout. The worst experience is when you get like continuously handed off and you're. I got to explain this from the beginning again, like, what are we even doing here? Like we're recreating the wheel and that's a big pain in the butt. And so the third, third aspect of the external innovation group that you started applying AI and ML to this unit, talk a little bit about that. So yeah, I mean, honestly really wasn't a group that I started. It was a program that I started, a strategy that I started led by various people from throughout the organization that did this as part of their roles, but were able to then focus attention and resources into bringing in external innovation into teba. So the third part, which was the last one we started to approach in sequence after putting the other two in play. Both, you know, sponsored research and academic relations and then talent play and the talent forum. The third one was how do we seed the best capabilities in Israel of artificial intelligence and machine learning and new drug modalities, cell therapy, STEM therapies, et cetera, into Teva R and D in Israel. And this was back in 2019, 2018, when these were very nascent technologies for our industry. But understanding that Israel was uniquely positioned to be a relevant source of innovation for AI based drug discovery and development. And the government and I could talk a lot about things the government does wrong. The Israeli government at the time did something absolutely right, which was the Israeli Innovation Authority, a very unique model here. The IA put together a strategy that they called bioconvergence, which was basically taking a look at the pharma and biotech industry and saying, okay, we have all these great scientists, great science, even drugs that have come out of academic labs in Israel, like Copaxone, Azalec for Parkinson's disease and seven other blockbuster drugs that have some level of IP that have come out of Israeli labs and universities. But we haven't really developed an industry and it hasn't forward integrated beyond Teva Pharmaceuticals. It hasn't really forward integrated into building up an industry and startups and building An Israeli version of the Kendall Square. We haven't done it. And why is that a market failure? Because for many reasons, Israel was not competitive in the classic sense of drug discovery and development and the way we used to develop drugs. But they identified the Israel Innovation Authority. I consulted with the industry, including with us, and I identified this opportunity of the new wave of innovation that we're seeing emerge now over the last five some years of what they called bio convergence, which is basically the convergence of engineering and binary scientific disciplines, computational disciplines, of artificial intelligence, machine learning and other engineering based disciplines, with life sciences, of biology and chemistry. And that Israel, with great science, great technology and the capability to build companies with great products, with great entrepreneurs, out of the convergence of those two, could be a source of innovation for the future of the industry. And so our interest at Teva to build up AI capabilities for R and D really came at the same time that the government was starting to build up incentives and programs in the Bioconversions program. And they came out with a call for companies to come build an innovation lab that would build up companies or do projects in the AI for pharma space. And this was back in 2020 when we knew AI would impact our industry, but we still didn't really understand how. And so they came out with this opportunity. And at Teva, same Donna, myself and another friend, Shiri, the three of us saw this as an opportunity and we said this is an opportunity actually for us to start to tackle that third pillar of the strategy and to see the capabilities, because they're going to be able to provide funding, we'll be able to build an innovation lab with partners that have more experience or more data and to do things at an industry wide scale, learn from the best throughout the world. And so we built up a model, brought in a model from Germany called biomedx from an institution in biomedx and together with their founder Christian Tidona, really built up a venture studio model based on building startups that address the biggest challenges in the pharmaceutical industry through computational technology and finding the best talent to be able to build those companies with at a global scale. And then found great partners we were able to then work with on building the innovation lab from the ground up. Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Merck, the German Merck, all joined us as pharmaceutical partners. Four pharma partners, Teva, Pfizer, as Seneca and Merck. We chose Amazon as our computational and cloud technology partner and brought in a venture capital firm called the Israel Biotech Fund and have since Also added Amiti and currently in discussions with other funds to provide the funding and the expertise in how to build and run good startups and together built this innovation lab. And I just fell in love with the idea, the concept, the project and the people mostly that were behind this. I said, you know, I think this is my next career move and decided to throw my hat in the ring and contend for actually the CEO role. And thankfully I was chosen. Very cool. That's like a perfect like culmination of. You're talking about the timing of the government, like it's kind of coalescence, like stars aligning. Like the perfect timing with the government. It really was, it was a perfect timing on three angles. What Teva wanted to achieve, the government strategy. And then on a personal level I went and did an executive mba, right. Which is usually what you do when you want to make a career change. Because I would becoming curious and a little bit more aspirational to knock down a few other ceilings and was really thinking together with a family about potentially relocating to the US for three years to gain some US market experience, even entered into a new role in the US and started traveling back and forth. But then Covid hit and those plans kind of went out the window and this whole opportunity emerged. So the stars really aligned both on a personal company and then national level to be able to say, you know what, let me try this out. That's freaking awesome. And so you had this perfect constellation of the stars aligning and now you're leading the charge over at Ion. Talk a little bit about your guys mission, your guys values and what is it that you guys seek to do. Right. So Ion Labs is a venture studio that was built by this amazing group of partners that all coalesced around the same mission of how do we be part of fundamentally changing the way that we discover and develop new drugs, using and unlocking the capabilities of artificial intelligence, machine learning and computational technologies of the past, present and future. And so basically we have three missions that we all aligned on. Number one is developing breakthrough technologies and computational technologies for drug discovery and development space. Number two is to do that by building and nurturing and growing great startups in a venture studio model. And number three is helping to build up and support the Israeli ecosystem in the biotech space to be a strong, thriving ecosystem that all of our shareholders want to be part of and want to tap into together. And I think one of the core values that is the way that we do things is through a co development model. So basically bringing together all these Partners to be able to support entrepreneurs in their journey and remove as many of the hurdles possible for them in an early stage so that they can build new technologies in the right space as defined by domain experts, so that they're innovating in the right space with the right expertise in the early stages that the pharma companies provide with the best cloud technology out there in the pharmaceutical R and D space, great investors and seed investors at an early stage with the support of the government that helps to de risk everything and the best talent that we can go out there and find and removing all those hurdles so that we can then build startups together. Awesome. And I guess to set the table for anyone who's not familiar, but I guess like how does a venture studio model differ than your traditional venture model? Yeah, so you know, usual venture model is you find a good technology with a team that you evaluate whether or not you want to invest in them based upon your investment thesis and the scope of where you want to invest in. You take a look at that, you scout, you take a look at them, the opportunities flow to you and then you evaluate the opportunity and decide to invest. So what? A venture studio model is systematically being a machine that can build new companies and build new deal flow, including investing in opportunities that come to us, but build new deal flow in spaces that we choose to innovate in. So the way our Ion Labs model works is we have three core elements behind it. Number one is we define big problem statements and validate them, that they are truly industry grade, industry wide problem statements that if solved will be the foundation of a great new startup. Number two is that we are able to locate the best team and technology out there to solve those problem statements together. And number three is that we're the right place to do that. And I think that's the key differentiation because number one and number two, a lot of VCs do. But number three is that we have pharma partners that we ask them, not only is this a good space and great team and technology, but are you willing to actually allocate the time of one of your R and D experts to work with that startup from day zero to get up and running, develop their technology and within the first two years validated through a POC through a proof of concept study that we've already agreed to do for future technology from even before we build the startup and if at least one of the four pharma partners that we work with says yes to that, then all three core elements align and then we can make an investment and help build that new startup. I love that because I think exactly what you said. It feels like you're getting ahead of it and solving backwards. Whereas I think a lot of the time people just do it the opposite direction. Which results in some harrowing surprises where you're just like, oh, the commercial promise here is perhaps non existent and you've already made the investment, you've already. And you're just like, oh crap. So I really like how you've inverted that where it's like before even the company is started, let's talk to the people like does this thing have legs? It's not just like a conversation either. It's like you got to dedicate someone to give time on this, which is like very differentiated. Right. And imagine like we have a company called De Novi which is in the de novo design of therapeutic antibody space which we ideated four years ago, built the company a little over three years ago and launched it. And this company now has direct access to the heads of protein engineering of four pharmaceutical companies around the table. ID under very strict antitrust guidelines. But thinking together what the future of protein design is going to look like using AI tools and then helping that startup get up and running and doing proof of concept studies with all of those from day one. And that's basically the model we decided to develop. And we could start with a problem statement, we can start with a technology and we can even start with a team that has neither of the two. But we so much believe in that innovator that we can hire him as an eir, as an entrepreneur in residence and help him to come up with an idea and technology that then we bring to our scientific investment committee and decide to invest in. And we've done things through all three angles, starting with problem statement, team or technology. But always whether it's a problem statement looking for a technology or a technology looking for a problem to solve, or a great entrepreneur looking to do both. We always make sure that all three core elements always exist. Big problem, technology and team and we being the right place. Very cool. And when you were first like standing this, this model up was all three pillars already, just like this is like our North Star out the gate. Or was this something that you had to kind of like develop it and iterate it over time? Yeah. So we were very fortunate. Don introduced me to Christian Tidona from Biomedics and he was at the time not building startups or building research groups using the same core values and core professional values in the model and Knowing that model, when we learned it, we said, okay, how do we take these same elements and adapt them? And we had to make changes. But how do we adapt them to be the same foundation for a startup venture studio model? And together with Christian and I give him a lot of credit, he's German, but he has some Italian ancestry and some Israeli cultural heritage, I guess, or just loves Israel. So he's more flexible than your common person from Germany. And together with him, we really worked with him to adapt and fine tune his model together with all of our partners and the people from our partners to adapt that model to what could work as a venture studio model. And we're a learning organization, so we remain flexible and we learn from what works, we learn from what doesn't work, especially and try to not make the same mistake twice and continuously adapt and improve on our model going forward. Very cool. So just like double click on each of the pillars, like what works and doesn't work from the problem statement perspective. So from the problem statement perspective, we always want to make sure that someone's going to pay for it, but primarily that it's a big enough problem that could be really the foundation for a future startup. And sometimes we come and get pitched with ideas for problem statements that might be big pain points, but they're too small within the process to actually be the foundation of a startup. It's a nice research project or it can be part of a startup, but not in its own right. That I think the size of the problem and the magnitude of the problem was one area that we had to learn through the other one was how do we test out the technology and get alignment on how to test the technology once it's built and to put that in through the problem statement stage. So not develop a problem statement, build a technology and then think together how we're going to test it out, but actually make that one of the core questions we ask at the problem definition stage. Question if you're like to attach a number if you can, what is a big enough problem and what's a big enough market? It has to be something that venture capital investors would be interested to solve. Meaning that it's going to be able to potentially be billions of dollars of value in a company if built. It can't be a small company. Yeah, and that's, I think sometimes what I see when I talk to like grad students. It's kind of just like a carryover from their grad studies. Not necessarily saying that every, you know, there are some grad programs or whatever you study that turn into kind of like these billion like multibillion dollar outcomes. But I think for anyone who's like thinking about that, just like, you got to go big, like, right? So in the pharma world, if you're able to use the technology to develop a drug. Right. We only deal at Ion labs because we have four competitors working together. Four pharma companies working together. We never build a company that's going to do a single molecule. It's always platform technologies that will develop products. The product could be a pipeline asset, could be a pipeline itself, and then drugs that come out of the pipeline or the products could be a tool for how to navigate successfully the way that we conduct clinical trials to be able to reduce the attrition rate and clinical development from 90% failure rate rates to something much less. And that has again, billions of dollars of value for the industry across that timeline as well. And drugs, of course, do as well when they're successful, especially when you're a platform technology that can spin out multiple drugs. So in all those cases, we're going to be able to develop a product, but we have to make sure that the problem is wide enough and we can envision what that future product is. Even if we don't know because we're in a new industry. We don't necessarily always know what that business model will exactly look like because it's an evolving area and there's great companies that don't bring new drugs to the market, but still have tremendous value and are able to raise big rounds and strike good deals with pharma companies. But we always have to be able to envision that's going to be big enough that if solved, will be the basis of a company and not just a pet project of a startup or even a large company. Another question we ask at the problem definition stage, we say if this is something as a pharma company you're going to try to do on your own, we're not the right place to actually build the technology for that. Like only try to bring to us crazy problem statement ideas that you're not going to do internally and then you can use us as a sandbox to test out new ideas. Yep. That'll become relevant for five and ten years from now. Right. So again, we go back to problem statements. Five years ago, when we started at iOnlapse, AI was not everywhere in our industry. The hype was just starting, the idea was just starting. We didn't know exactly how it would impact our industry. It was very New. So we identified that and built IonLabs around that idea. But now as we enter into our second five year period, we're starting to ask the question, okay, what's of the future? So the steer areas where AI will continuously innovate, but what's next? And that's really one of the questions we start asking ourselves out. And you know, could be quantum theory and technology, could be new biological mechanisms, new chemistry mechanisms, et cetera, or preclinical studies. And the way that we replace those, which is still very unsolved. But you know, that's a question we're asking ourselves now. Interesting. And you brought up like a platform, you know, technology versus like just having like a singular asset. And I guess I kind of see like the pendulum always kind of like shifts between like go platform or get like a de risk asset and then just take it all the way and then flip it. What is your philosophy? Like, you know, we kind of see it now where someone just like licensing one drug candidate that's like as de risked as possible and then flip it versus like going for something bigger, whereas like a platform play. How do you think about that? So you know, you have to build a hybrid platform technology that has products. So if it's in drug discovery, you're going to want a platform technology that can spin out multiple products and then be able to have several of those within your pipeline strategy, advancing it various stages in clinical stages or preclinical stages in parallel. Right. So the best companies at a platform level have some that they are spinning out at early stages and licensing out and then co developing with pharma or biotech companies and some that they maintain internally to develop all the way. And usually being able to do both with enough resources. Absolutely. And you talked about like the second pillar being like the technology. What are you seeing work and not work at that stage. So there one of our key learnings was from the first company that we shut down. It was a company in the preclinical space. Two great artificial intelligence AI entrepreneurs from the best AI company that Israel's built today called Mobileye, which is in the autonomous driving space that these two guys develop some of the technologies that are in the cars that we all drive, including the Waymos all throughout San Francisco. Right. And they were great people, which for me is always a core value. Only working with good people, but great AI entrepreneurs and real visionaries in the area. They had one thing missing. They wanted to build a company in the drug discovery and development space. Specifically addressing a question of preclinical assessment of what drug candidate should go into the clinic. And they didn't have a biologist on the team and they were very resistant even because they didn't understand the value because it came from outside of the industry. This is where I take responsibility. I said, this is our role at ionlabs to actually make sure. And we tried and we encouraged them and we tried to convince them to hire a biologist as their first hire. And they said, yes, we will, but we'll get there in a year from now. And what happened within that first year was they became so frustrated because they didn't really understand the language of the customers and the partners that they were working with because they were not biologists. And by the time they got around to hiring someone with a part time employee that was a great biologist, we just sat down in the room, in the same room I'm speaking with you from, and decided to shut down the company together because it wasn't advancing to a stage. But then when we went to build a couple other companies of ours, like Profit and Renesis, that are within our portfolio that again were built by great AI based or computational based and mathematical based technologists, we said we're not signing the investment agreement until you either commit or identify a top employee that speaks the language of the customers that you're going to innovate for. So in the case of Profit in the small molecule space, we said we want a computational chemist and they found one and she's their third co founder. In the case of Renesis in the RNA space, they hired a top biologist as their first key employee. And so we try to learn from those same mistakes on the team. And bottom line, it was ultimately becoming a multidisciplinary team. And we also wouldn't hire a team or invest in a team in the AI for pharma space that were only biologists. So again, it's a multidisciplinary team that can work across those two scientific disciplines and also raise capital and continue to innovate from. That makes total sense. I see it sometimes like having grown up in the Bay Area where you're almost like solving the problem, but you're not like intimately aware of what that industry is. Kind of like cultural norms, the language that they're speaking. You got to have someone who can be kind of like that insider and you got to be able to have someone who can like actually feel the pain, like properly feel the pain firsthand, which gives you that insight. And it's a different language, right? It's a Different language and skill set. So, you know, I'm blessed to have great partners and board members on behalf of our partners that really accept making mistakes, learning from them and moving on. So at a lot of board meetings of ours, you know, we prepare slides just of lessons learned. Now what have we learned the last quarter and how are we going to build on these learnings in order to make new mistakes in the future, but not the same ones. And that's the only way you can really build and grow. And you see that and that's not specific to what we do here in any organization, Right. You see that in politics, you see that in any organization that I've worked in or work before and become expert. And even in sports, right. We learn how to attack defenses and basketball different manner, then you know, it doesn't work. And that's why sometimes in seven game series, you see, you know, the Timberwolves coming out just last week and you know, beating San Antonio in game one and then San Antonio obliterating them in game two. Yep. As they're able to learn from how they're playing and then adapt it for the game too. Yep, absolutely. And taking that to the third pillar for you guys, the pharma partnerships, what are your learnings there? So there it was a couple things I would say, number one is making sure we have clear alignment with a key person within the organization that can sign off on doing a proof of concept study before we build the startup. The capital is the least important part of that. If the FARA partner is willing to put that in, the most expensive thing for them to allocate for the startup is the time of their R and D experts. And there they really need to be excited about the science in order to allocate the time. And it needs to be strategic for the organization in that sense so that they can actually get resources. So therefore if they then bring a target to a new hit design startup or a new de novo design therapeutic antibody startup, then that company will be able to then come up with a new molecule and that will be the validation study. And they need to be able to sign off on a conceptual POC like that even before we built the startup. So that's learning number one and we get that side off learning number two. I would say there is making sure the contracts happen operationally very quickly and it seems trivial, but if you're a startup with limited Runway and you're going to build a startup and have to take a decision within a year and a half to two years on whether or not you're viable for continuous investment and you're reliant on a model that offers validation for your technology through POCs with these pharma partners, then what we do is we get the startup signed off on master service agreements with pharma partners from day one and have built up a cloud environment that is pre approved by their data offices of these pharma companies so that these heavily bureaucratic legal agreements and data offices to be able to approve the cloud environments are as simplified and streamlined as possible so we can actually get them up and running to be able to conduct the PLC operationally by the time the technology is ready for it. So they don't have to wait for it then. And we start them out in day one as they're building up the technology in parallel. That's really clever. I can imagine it's overlooked because like I was just like talking to some colleagues of mine that are on that journey of trying to get the large pharma partnership and it's always, it is taking way longer than I anticipated and exactly what you said, you hit the nail on the head. There's finite Runway, time is of the essence. And I love again that it's like it started from the beginning. Like let's not burn our dollars waiting for the bureaucratic machine to figure it out. So Our colleagues from AstraZeneca and Pfizer, right, they came to us with templates for sponsored research or master disagreements each. This is where my legal background add some value here again. And they say, okay, here's these like big templates for these type of agreements. I tell the startup entrepreneurs, you're not going to negotiate these. You can't change the letter within these agreements. Don't even try. Completely pre approved FCPA clauses, you know, data privacy clauses. Don't even try. Yeah. The one thing I did was make sure we signed off on the template and there we actually made some changes. But once the template is locked down, the startups have no capability to change the template and they just have to trust that it's fair. But these large 50 page agreements sometimes say little to nothing. Intangible verb. Yeah. But what it does for a startup, the value it brings to the startup, it puts them in the system. Yep. Or gets them into the system locked and loaded so that when they're ready with their technology to do a study or a collaboration or a partnership or actually develop a pipeline asset and it could be huge deals or it could be very small deals, the master service agreement is already signed. They then just need an appendix, which could take a lot less time to just commercially negotiate and, you know, bang out the terms and sign it, and you're already approved as a vendor in the system and it seems trivial. Right? We all like to do scientific innovation and breakthrough things that can potentially even win Nobel Prizes. But sometimes those get stuck when you don't have the legal agreement and the operational framework set up and you can't accept the data that the pharma company wants to share with you because they don't have the confidence that it's going to be protected in accordance with all best practices for data privacy and federated in a manner that they all want to share. All our four pharma partners want to share their data potentially with the startup, but not with each other. They're not allowed to do that, and they're competitors, so they can't do that. So what Amazon did with us, what Amazon Web Services did with us and with our CTO specifically, is actually build up this cloud environment, having direct proximity to the data offices of the pharma companies, understanding what the requirements are, and then building a data environment that they could then review one time for all startups. And then once we tell the Pfizer Data Office, you know, as a, as an example, or AstraZeneca data office and et cetera, that they're sitting on the AWS 10x cloud environment of Ion Labs, they don't need to start the review process every time from the beginning, and it shortens the timeline for the startup and then they're able to get data. I love that. And I geek over these kinds of things, honestly. So do I. As you can. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I seriously geek over these innovations because they're true innovations, like, exactly what you said. Like, my colleagues at the bench, they're like, I'm looking for the glory of the Nobel Prize. Right. Like the scythe. But like, like there are things like this that will impede that, like very easily impede that. And then it'll be such a shame to have technology that has so much promise to just get hung up on things that you probably don't think they're not sexy. It's not sexy. Yeah, there's scientific and technological innovation, there's business model innovation. Sometimes, like I always like to say, Teva grew out of Israeli innovation, scientific innovation, specifically, with Clopaxone from the Weizmann Institute, but also business model innovation, by pioneering the generic drug industry out of a place of need. And it probably wouldn't have been able to be pioneered by Another company, if it didn't have Israeli roots, because as an Israeli company, they had developed the capability to develop medicines for companies that for various reasons did not bring their drugs to Israel. So they developed those capabilities to then develop those and replicate those same innovative medicines for the Israeli market at a lower scale. So when the Hatch Waxman act came out in the United States in 1984, back when the United States Congress actually did bipartisan legislation, you know, seems like a hundred years ago. Yeah. But when they actually did that with incentives, that's where Israeli risk takers and innovators, specifically at Teva, both from the legal side and the IP side, including my former boss and mentor Rich and his replacement David, they saw this as an opportunity to take legal risks, calculate it, and develop drugs that ultimately were generic drugs, but replicating the innovative drugs, knowing that we had developed these opportunities in Israel over a couple decades to develop drugs that other companies innovated in a very streamlined manner, an industrialized manner. So they pioneered an streets business model, up innovation as well as operational innovation and process innovation. Like you said, very articulately. So, yeah, both of those elements. And I geek out about this just as much as you. It's awesome. It drives value. Absolutely. And I guess like a parallel in my head, maybe you could push back if it's a good parallel or not. It's kind of how like Y Combinator popularized the safe. Because like you're like, oh, like we're just like trying to get these companies started, but we don't want to do a priced round. Converts, you know, have their own kind of thing. So let's just create the safe. Yeah, it's like streamlining a process that you psychologically allow a startup and the investor to build up a new startup. But it's more of a psychological innovation than anything else. It's process innovation. Yeah, you're right. Right. Example, obviously that's like innovation that you're honing in Israel. I'm like, damn, this could be awesome in America too, you know. And I know large pharma, they want to work with startup innovation, broadly speaking, but startups just really don't realize how big of a lift it is outside of the science. Like it's freaking massive. But like, why are we recreating the wheel? Like you said, like, you're like, we have a template that is approved. Like it is good to go. Yeah. It requires having a deep understanding in the domain and what really matters. And we learned from it. We didn't know everything and we still don't Know everything. Having a good team, so good, you know, legal counsel in this case for us it's external counsel. Having good finance people, having good scientists and understand the processes as well as good entrepreneurs that we choose that, you know, are able to articulate their name, their needs and especially having good partners and having access to all of their offices, to their legal counsel, their data offices and, and as well as there are obviously R and D groups that have opened up this access for us to enable us to instill these operational processes. And a lot of hustling. Yeah, for sure. And I think what I get frustrated by when I think about the venture model, just like in life sciences at large, is that it's like a capital furnace. It really is. And I'm like, it doesn't have to be like this. It's kind of like your kind of innovation on this side is a way to. Let's not just incinerate capital if we. Yeah, but that's a small money. That's a small money, right? The big money in drug discovery and development is actually in the scientific experiments and the clinical development. And that's where the furnace actually. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Turns out. So we're doing savings mostly in times that we can actually reach a point of validation of the technology and conviction in the technology as quickly as possible so that these entrepreneurs can then raise their next rounds or if it's not working, shut it down. So we built a company at iomaps called Combinable, right. It was in a space of optimization of antibodies, right. At the time we thought it was going to be a big idea, multi objective optimization of antibodies. And when we started to build Combinable, they were probably one of the first companies in that space very quickly because this is an area of optimization. You know, optimization is an area where machine learning and artificial intelligence is very automated, right? Really automated and innovated and people that come in with an engineering background that's kind of their, you know, six sets and that's it. So how do we optimize something? So a lot of machine learning based entrepreneurs went into the space of optimization of processes and antibody and large molecule or small molecules was a place for them to innovate in. So we built this company at the time back in 2022, 2023 when it started, started to IB8 and then get off the ground running. It was a very open space, slowly became consolidated. But again, because they had such a great multidisciplinary scientific and technological team, four people working together, understanding the language of machine learning, including those that wrote books literally on artificial intelligence and machine learning. The CTO wrote a book on the basics and fundamentals of AI and how they could be applied to healthcare. And with a great structural biologist out of one of the best labs in the space from Germany, and they really understood both languages. And those four people with $1 million under two years built the best technology in that space that was benchmarked in objective tests globally benchmarked, you know, with objective. And there's several companies out there that are great companies, all innovating. This one was the best, the best scientifically and technologically. And I say that not lightly because I saw the results from an objective benchmark, from the leading company in that space that tested them all out and then they were acquired relatively very quickly when they were seeking a new home because it wasn't a broad enough problem statement in its own right to build up a company. And they had then either had to pivot and start developing new pipeline assets, et cetera and going more the biotech route, or look for a new home as an acquisition. And in citro medicine that wanted to build up their own internal large molecule machine learning based platform for large molecule development tested out various potential partners, chose this one, this team and bought them again under two years. Innovating very quickly because they were able to develop these technologies with the expertise, with access to the expertise of domain experts, both from our pharma partners as well as from us. Us to be able to develop the technology that would be best in class very quickly. That's wild. And I guess like from the venture model, do you think is going to be a shift where there's like, I think things are moving really, really quickly. Like I don't know, I can't even keep up anymore. Like do you think there's just going to be a wave of kind of like quickly just like innovating, getting the technology kind of like proof, like validated and then just finding a home and then just like kind of like a platform almost like where you're just like like spinning these things out and they find like permanent homes or what are you seeing at the pace of innovation? Yeah, so the pace of artificial intelligence innovation for pharma is very quick. It's very fast. It's a very fast pace. Five years ago it was very innovative. Now it's all integrated AI into drug discovery and development. So what we're seeing right now is either companies that are going to be able to use and unlock value in pipeline development through platform technologies and then to be able to do it at a rapid pace, a little bit faster than in classical methods, and then in the future, a lot faster. And hopefully to be able to. And this is most important, I would say, to develop drugs for previously undruggable targets. Right. So the same in citro medicine, they're trying to tackle als, right? The holy grail of our industry. I mean, that's God's work. Hopefully they'll be able to do that. We all know people that have passed away from als, so I have great admiration for their mission that they're taking on in one of the drug programs. It's not the only one. They're not putting all their eggs in that basket. But I mean, Godspeed. I mean, hopefully they'll solve this. And hopefully artificial intelligence will be able to unlock the secrets behind Lou Gehrig's disease, that we named it that over 100 years ago when the famous Lou Gehrig passed away from it and had to sit out his first baseball game and end his streak according to that, that. So we're seeing the capabilities of AI be applied to scientific innovation in a platform for product development stage, for pipeline, asset stage, and drugs to be able to bring out and churn out new drugs, but also to be able to drug the previously undruggable inshallah. Hopefully that'll work. But we're also seeing that the process innovation, to go to our previous discussion, that it's not just about scientific and technological asset development, it's also about process development. And there we're seeing great companies. You know, just to give you an example, let's say Phase V, right? It's a great company that is helping to navigate the way that we develop drugs throughout clinical trials. And it's built by a company that says there's 90% attrition rate. AI and machine learning is supposed to help us predict and it's supposed to help us to navigate. And the CTO there was on a company called Via that does navigation systems for public transportation, and he was working with a neuroscientist as a CEO. And they have actually developed a technological platform to be able to help lower the attrition rate for pharma companies throughout clinical development. And there's huge, hundreds of millions of dollars per drug in unlocked value that we can then capture as an industry, if we're able to, to build companies that can lower the time and speed and costs, or lower the time, increase the speed, lower the costs and improve the efficiency rates to be able to bring new drugs to the market. And there's huge value just in these technological capabilities for processes. And so we're going to see entrepreneurs coming in in both angles, both to be able to bring drugs to the market by using AI, but also to be able to bring new technological process innovation that can, you know, we're already seeing it cut in half and it'll probably be even lower than that. And that's where you're going to see innovation come. And some of these startups will be bought and acquired and exit. Some will then sell off certain assets and licensing deals and some will go public and become mid to large size companies in their own rights and some will fail and shut down. That's all for this episode of the Biotech Startups Podcast featuring Matti Gill. Join us next time for Part four where Matti breaks down Ion Labs Venture Studio model, defining industry grade problem statements, building multidisciplinary teams and securing Pharma partner POC commitments before a startup is even built, along with the hard lessons from companies shut down and the portfolio company benchmarked as Best in Class globally and acquired by Inestro in under two years. If you enjoy the show, subscribe, leave a review or share it with a friend. Thanks for listening and see you next time. The Biotech Startups Podcast is produced by Xen Exceda. Don't want to miss an episode? Search for the Biotech Startups Podcast wherever you get your podcasts and click subscribe. Exceda provides research labs with equipment leases on founder friendly terms to support paths to exceptional outcomes. To learn more, Visit our website www.excedr.com. on behalf of behalf of the team here at Exceda, thanks for listening. The Biotech Startups Podcast provides general insights into the life science sector through the experiences of its guests. The use of information on this podcast or materials linked from the podcast is at the user's own risk. The views expressed by the participants are their own and are not the views of Exceda or sponsors. No Reference Reference to any product, service or company in the podcast is an endorsement by Exceda or its guests.