Barry Goldman, founder and CSO of Pluton Biosciences introduces the concept of microbial cover crops as a new and innovative approach to improving soil health and sustainable agriculture. A plant cover crop e.g. alfalfa, is typically grown in the off-season and plowed back into the field to enrich the soil before the actual crop is planted.

Barry and his team set out to see whether some bacteria can do this, particularly around nitrogen fixation, adding ammonia to the soil from the atmosphere. He points out that since the 1950s and 1960s the world’s population has gone from roughly 3 billion people to 8 billion. Some part of that is due to the use of synthetic fertilizers - ammonia made from the Haber-Bosch process. That has fed a lot of people. But that process creates a lot of greenhouse gas as well.

Is there another way to add nitrogen to the soil that avoids undesirable side effects? When Barry and I were classmates and labmates in grad school studying Salmonella genetics, We had a saying. “If you can imagine it, a bacterium is already doing it.”

Starting with a soil sample containing about 10,000 different species, the scientists at Pluton Biosciences have identified a consortia of bacteria that will grow in the absence of carbon and nitrogen except for what they can get from the air. The consortia work together using energy from the sun to reduce CO2 into usable energy sources (photosynthesis) and fix N2 to ammonia which can be used to synthesize amino acids etc.

As an additional benefit of deploying microbial cover crops on a large scale for nitrogen fixation, it’s possible to sequester a significant amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

"If you could now take this on a hundred million acres, you removed a hundred million tons of CO2 per year... you can start tackling this and give ourselves more time to come up with even better solutions. We also believe we can put on 30 pounds of nitrogen per acre. So now, if you're on that for that much, you're essentially almost turning the amount of the Haber-Bosch process to zero. That's roughly 20 percent of the greenhouse gases that are being emitted. You put those two together, now you have a massive impact on climate change."

Not subscribed yet? Can we fix that?

Either way, I appreciate you spending time here.

What would it take the bring this potential to reality?

Of course, like anything else in life science, safety and efficacy matter. These consortia need to be tested in the field. Because they are not genetically modified, the EPA would be satisfied to know that the constituents of the consortia have been identified and are typically present wherever they are intended to be applied.

The second challenge is getting farmers to test the consortia in their own field (or a portion thereof). They will want some assurance that they would at least be compensated for any reduction in yield. And to be paid for their effort as well.

Testing in real-world fields is crucial to prove that these microbial cover crops work as expected. This involves multiple phases, from starting with a few fields to expanding once efficacy and safety are demonstrated. Amazingly, the consortia create a visible crust on the soil. Similar to what we discussed in a very early episode of this podcast, drone technology and machine vision can be used to monitor the fields and gather data on microbial cover crop performance.

Oh yeah. What’s the business model? Someone needs to pay for this. If the consortia works, the grower gets value from savings on synthetic fertilizer. There is also the carbon market. Right now that’s at $15-30 per ton of carbon sequestered per acre. Finally, does the soil improve? Does it result in better yields (more revenue)?

Barry reminds us that this is not a complete solution. But microbial cover crops have the potential to put a significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions giving us more time to develop additional remedies for climate change.

Your deepest insights are your best branding. I’d love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand. Or visit my website.

Intro Music stefsax / CC BY 2.5

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com

I traveled to Disneyland Orange County for AACC ADLM back in July to connect with a few folks and walk the floors of the exhibit hall. I was on my way out when Derek Hamre from Launchworks CDMO stood up at his table and got my attention with the best elevator pitch I have ever heard. And that landed him a spot on my podcast. I’ll share what it was at the end of this post.*

Imagine this scenario. You’re in an academic lab or small biotech and you’ve developed a diagnostic test for a molecule or a disease. How do you go about commercializing your test?

Do you need to get a bunch of regulatory approvals? What else do you need to think about? After all, you’re in a small research lab stepping into a whole new world. It turns out there are people who do this for a living and can help you plan out your strategy.

Launchworks is a CDMO for molecular diagnostics. Services range from commercialization strategy and supply chain management through to fulfillment. A company might come to them with a locked down bill of materials and work instructions for kitting tens to hundreds of thousands of units at a time, or maybe they are early in the process and need help thinking through strategy from the beginning.

…one of the reasons that we are pretty present at ADLM, AACC is the RUO kits. Those that are taking an idea from the R&D space and bringing it to the market and that commercialization process is a big, you know, lift for a lot of companies, even if they're bigger. Um, but especially for smaller companies when they have 5, 10 workers that have never gone through the commercialization process.

Beyond that, what level of regulatory approval do they want? In some cases, a kit might be sold as RUO (Research Use Only), but a customer’s customer might want to take it further:

And a lot of our customers, so we won't make those claims, obviously, our customers will go through the FDA filings or whatever, um, but some of our customers will just not want to go through the FDA process, so they'll make their kit RUO and then maybe one of their customers will buy the kit and then go through the FDA or 510K, PMA process… …so allowing another customer or their companies that they're working with to go through that process on their behalf might be the pathway for them.

Regardless of the regulatory path chosen, Derek described the four main areas where a CDMO can help get a product to market.

* Risk mitigation

* Commercialization strategy

* Manufacturing process

* Supply chain

You’d like to avoid surprises in any of those areas. Taking supply chain, for example, it would be important to know if a supplier might be closing shop in the near future. Will you be able to maintain quality as you scale up?

I asked Derek about the logistics of assembling and shipping hundreds of thousands of units from different vendors. Everything is done in-house. Mixing buffers, putting kits in bags, labeling and shipping. Launchworks has about a 30,000 to 40,000 square foot facility in Beverly, Massachusetts.

Prior to this I knew that there were CDMOs for pharma, but not for diagnostics. ADLM was an eye opener in terms of the world of clinical chemistry. And this isn’t the only episode I recorded as a result of that visit. More in a couple weeks.

*I don’t remember his exact words, but it was along the lines of “We’re helping visitors to ADLM become vendors at ADLM.”

Your deepest insights are your best branding. I’d love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand. Or visit my website.

Intro Music stefsax / CC BY 2.5

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com

Dr. Antonio Tito is the Founder and CEO of rEthix in Houston, Texas. rEthix is the world’s first Liaison Research Organization (LRO) facilitating clinical trials in Mexico and Latin America.

A search of clinicaltrials.gov shows that several large pharma companies are currently running trials in Mexico. rEthix is leveraging the ICH (International Council for Harmonisation) guidelines to run these trials in Mexico and use that data to support IND-enabling studies in the US. The ICH sets the guidelines that the FDA and equivalent agencies in other countries follow. COFEPRIS, the Mexico Ministry of Health, assesses the laboratories. rEthix also prepares those laboratories to pass that assessment.

One advantage is cost. According to Dr. Tito, the cost of a trial in Mexico may be 15-25% of the cost for a similar trial in the US.

Another advantage is meeting your goals for testing diverse populations.

While it’s common to run trials in Mexico, it is not common to start them there.

…that is reflected only that only 3. 5 percent of new drugs are generated out of Mexico. And most of that has to do with communication. It's important that we have these type of channels, like the one that you are promoting, Chris, to teach people that it's okay to start your clinical trial in Mexico. You can approach the FDA about it. Be very transparent with the FDA always. But don't let the communication gap, not only the language, but also the culture… the paperwork is very extensive in Mexico.

Don't let that stop you from generating data that you can later use for submitting to your investors and, obtaining more funding.

Antonio also mentioned the opportunity to expand into Latin America with, for example, devices already approved in the US.

For a 510K device that you already have obtained approval for in the U. S., You can easily transfer that into Mexico very simply because you have all the data that you've used, you’ve generated it to demonstrate that it works and is similar to other predicate devices out there in the market.

And you've generated that information for your filing for the FDA. All that information can be then translated by our team and we can pass it on to COFEPRIS and the process is similar to the U. S. as well. But it's... You get the advantage of tapping into sometimes virgin markets where there is absolutely no other alternative to that device or to that diagnostic in Mexico or Latin America.

So you have a winning hand in leveraging tactics to negotiate with, like commercializing agencies in those countries. Whereas in the U. S., you have more competition. It takes longer to get your market traction. So it's a win-win situation.

Not subscribed yet? Let’s fix that right here.

Thanks for listening to the podcast and sharing this post.

rEthix is developing an app…

Let's say you have a new discovery in your research institute, and you've received approval from your tech transfer office to take your technology out into the commercial markets and you have partnered with us to help you get your innovation out. We are, as part of the app, what it's going to be, it looks at all the data that you have, implements AI, And determines what is the best pathway in terms of the study design, the type of protocol that needs to be developed for better for commercialization for your device or your drug or your diagnostics.

Until the app is ready, they are building an incubator in Houston at the medical center to connect life science companies to share ideas and facilitate access to data that will generate traction for IRB studies in Houston.

Your deepest insights are your best branding. I’d love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com

Jamie Gier is the Chief Marketing Officer at Dexcare, responsible for establishing the company as a category leader in modernizing the way consumers discover, access, and choose their healthcare services – from digital search to booking an appointment.

We enjoyed a wide-ranging discussion about marketing beginning with selling high-value products with long sales cycles and multiple decision makers. You’ve heard it before, but no one wants to be sold to. That’s the expressway to the delete button. Jamie emphasized building relationships and educating, showing customers how their lives could be better.

At Dexcare, her team learns a lot from early adopters about why they chose their product and continue to use it. Ask as many questions as you can, just like we talked about last week… We don’t know what we don’t know.

Jamie and her team are taking advantage of thought leadership in a big way.

We happen to spend a big portion of our media budget on LinkedIn, for example, that happens to be the channel where a lot of our buyers are, and there's a lot of thought leadership.

And so if anything, we've really focused our paid media on a single channel and we want to get really, really good at that. And so that's where we're placing a lot of our investments, but it's one of many. We know as soon as we capture their attention, a relationship begins. And that's where we have to start developing even higher levels of trust and rapport beyond just what they see with us in a digital way….we spend a lot of time with our clients simply promoting their own thought leadership on these topics.

That's number one. Two, we do spend time on building content that is education- rich.

Measurement is important and of course. I asked her how she makes the case for the tactics that are harder to measure. Observation and paying attention. When you land a large deal because someone heard about you on a podcast, that’s a pretty good sign.

Not subscribed yet? Can we fix that?

Thanks for spending some time here, either way.

Jamie thinks that because of the emphasis on measurement, marketers have moved away from creativity. That took us on a little side trip to talk about Jimmy Buffett, who died right before this interview, and storytelling. I had written a piece for LinkedIn (not posted) about the impact JB had on my career. (DM me for details).

Besides writing fun songs about pirates and exotic places, Jimmy’s clever use of language to make emotional connections set him apart. Jamie said:

The thing about Jimmy Buffett is he brought you into his world, or he went into yours. And that was the power of the words he used in his songs.

With one top-10 hit (not even close to his best song) Jimmy Buffett built a business empire around his collection of memorable characters and events. We should try to do the same.

What advice does Jamie have for marketers just getting started?

* Join communities where you can learn. (I recommend SAMPS) and

* Don’t be intimidated by people with advanced degrees. They may know a lot in a technical field that took years of study. And you know (and love) marketing! Learn what you can from them, but also show them how you can help them with what you know. Science doesn’t get sold without storytelling.

Your deepest insights are your best branding. I’d love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand. Or visit my website.

Intro Music stefsax / CC BY 2.5

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com

Julie Garlikov is Chief Commercial officer at Sherlock Biosciences where they are developing over-the-counter diagnostics to put answers in the hands of consumers and empower them to make better health decisions.

Sherlock is developing two platforms - a disposable test and a reusable reader for home diagnostics. You can listen to the podcast for some details on the science. Let’s focus here on VOC in design.

Consumer-centric design for me is really all about embodying the methods of design thinking. Which is really making sure that you have a deep understanding and empathy for the user that you're designing for. And that you're solving a problem that they really have, and that you're doing it in a way that fits into their lifestyle or their needs.

This approach involves lots of research, qualitative and quantitative surveys, prototyping and ethnography.

Ethnography is more than observing how they use the product under development. One can learn from understanding how they use any product. Even the buying process is investigated. How do they shop for groceries?

When it comes to the product itself, do they understand the instructions for use?

More good stuff coming in future episodes. Don’t miss it.

Thanks for being here.

If you are developing a diagnostic for sexual wellness, you need to know not just the population dynamics of STIs but also people’s attitudes and beliefs around their sex lives. How do you reach people based on what you know about their behaviors? The results can be surprising.

… one thing that I uncovered in this attitudes and usage study that we did with almost 1300 people, young people in the U.S. was a group I'm calling, it's like a segment of the population, I would call frisky-riskies.

So frisky-riskies is a group that skews a little more male than female and they're a group that's engaging in behavior where they have more frequent casual partners, and they're not often using protection, and they know that they're not using protection, and they know that puts them at risk.

So, what's interesting is that they actually test more than other people because they use testing as a way to mitigate the things they're doing that they know are causing risk for them.

The ability to do home testing for all kinds of indications can certainly reduce the spread of infectious diseases and help move us forward to thinking about prevention and general wellness. In the case of STIs which can be asymptomatic in women, there are implications for fertility as well.

As I think about our conversation, it struck me that we all have an opportunity to make products that will improve people’s lives in some way. But what can we do to make the biggest impact possible with the products we make or the services we offer?

It seems like asking questions and observing the behaviors of our ideal customers offers a big return on a little extra effort.

I just realized last week’s episode reached a similar conclusion about how the early work in any project seems to have an outsized impact. It’s like painting a house. The quality of the outcome is all in the preparation.

Your deepest insights are your best branding. I’d love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand. Or visit my website.

Intro Music stefsax / CC BY 2.5

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com

Cheri Walker and her colleagues started Rhinostics in the middle of the pandemic in response to the massive increase in testing volume required to keep faculty and students at Harvard safe from Covid. That’s a story in itself. The principals never met in person for the first nine months!

We had all of our calls virtually. It was all done telephonically, I mean in Zoom. I basically started the company out of my guest bedroom because we didn't need space for the first year. We now have a facility which you can see behind me and we have, you know, all the normal things that you would have as a company grows and expands.

Make sure you listen to get the details on that.

But those workflows I mentioned…

Remember the nasopharyngeal swabs that ticked your brain? No one likes those and processing those samples in that format is cumbersome.

Harvard developed a new type of polypropylene swab with an active end that interacts with a decapping robot. By developing and manufacturing this new type of nasal swab (no more brain tickling) Rhinostics was able to create:

* A better patient experience with a more comfortable, DIY swab.

* A smoother automated workflow with faster turnaround and

* Potentially reduce turnover of medtechs in the lab

I think that's been the flip side of starting a company in the pandemic is just the supply chains and labor and all those issues. And then when you actually talk about the problem that we're solving and the real pain point that exists in laboratories today. Not only are there the cost structures and things like that, it's just finding med techs and people to work in the lab.

And a lot of them got burned out. There was a small number before the pandemic, but a lot of them got burned out. And med tech now is making anywhere from 125, with 20, 000 signing bonuses. And, you know, retention turnover in the labs is something in the 25 to 30, 35%. So, it's a real issue, um, facing most of the laboratories right now.

The automated workflow removes the manual step of decapping swabs before analysis. Barcoding ties the sample to the patient through an app on their phone and allows for better sample tracking. Both of those make for a better experience for the user and the med tech.

You’re subscribed, right? I have several interesting episodes in the can already. Don’t miss ‘em.

Thanks for being here.

The insight here is that rethinking workflows and a small, unsexy device can have a huge impact on lab productivity, patient health and worker satisfaction. No medtech went to school thinking they would be uncapping tubes all day, rather than looking after equipment and solving problems.

I asked Cheri where sample collection is going in the future. There is definitely a move toward home testing. The pandemic proved that it can be done accurately. There is currently an epidemic of STIs (sexually transmitted infections) for which the option of buying a kit off the shelf at the pharmacy would seem to be a way to discreetly get individuals to seek treatment if necessary while maintaining some privacy.

Cheri also mentioned, for example, having a teenager on Accutane where blood lipids needed to be tested on a regular basis.

You could send our little VERIstic® blood collection device, do a finger prick, send them home with ten of them, and then they can just do it and send it back. They don't have to drag their teenager back to the clinic to stay and wait for a blood draw and keep them out of school…

…it's interesting because everyone, it's not just home health and kit providers that are interested, like the whole hospital health system is trying to figure out how can we use these tools to actually have better health care for people that's more convenient, but still just as accurate and maybe get more compliance.

More powerful analysis on the back end of testing is great, but across life science, I wonder if the real opportunities to make an impact are at the front end of how we do things.

Your deepest insights are your best branding. I’d love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand. Or visit my website.

Intro Music stefsax / CC BY 2.5

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com

Hiring people is difficult, expensive and risky. It’s a skill in itself for which most of us get very little practice. I talked to Ken Schmitt about how hiring has changed and a few things to think about when filling a role on your team. Fun fact: Ken got his first job at a staffing agency by answering an ad in a newspaper!

Ken’s agency specializes in placing marketing and salespeople. I asked him about skills that drive hiring decisions:

…marketing especially needs to have that experience and understand the language of sales as well to be truly effective on the marketing side and be able to understand the broader business, not just marketing… is the center of the universe, but marketing is much less of a linear role, if you will, or a stop along the way. And it's much more circular.

You know, it used to be that marketing did this, this, and this, and then stopped, handed it off to sales, and now sales took it from there. But now it's again, a much more circular kind of collaboration and relationship. And so whenever we're talking to candidates about the senior level marketing searches that we're doing, we're asking them, tell us about your experience collaborating with sales.

How a candidate collaborates with sales is important. There are plenty of good marketers without it, but I’d say actual sales experience would be even better. Looking back at my own experience, it’s stunning how little marketing (marcom at least) was connected to sales in the life science companies where I worked. We could spend a few episodes on that…

When hiring, Ken recommends looking at your team as a whole. What skills do you already have and what gaps are you looking to fill? Are there people from outside the industry who can bring new ideas and new skills to the effort?

We discussed whether and when a college degree is necessary. This is an evolution I find fascinating. I think a fair amount about whether and how much we discount or overvalue our degrees based on many factors including how long ago we attended college or specific classes we took but no longer see how they might have been relevant.

I’ve known great marketers with no science background and we put scientists into marketing roles with no marketing background all the time. I’d love to see your comments about what you think is necessary and or optimal.

I have several interesting episodes in the can already. Don’t miss ‘em.

Thanks for being here.

My favorite part of the conversation was about employer branding. As a content marketer, this speaks to me. Every company has a brand in the eyes of its customers. There is also a brand in the eyes of its employees and potential hires.

Let’s look at it like a marketing funnel. At the top there is what your company does, but also what it stands for. What is the culture like? Does the actual culture reflect the aspirational statements or taglines one often hears?

At the middle of the funnel are job descriptions - another candidate for a full episode. My sense is that many employers aren’t thinking about whether a job description might turn away qualified candidates based on the way it’s written. I often see descriptions that seem to say, “Don’t be like the last person who had this job…” Hmmm. Something to think about.

I understand the description needs to be accurate. Can it be inspiring at the same time? I’d like to think so. Given that the job description is one of the first impressions for new hires, it’s a significant part of your brand. Why not show it to someone outside of your company and ask them what kind of impression it makes?

Of course, the bottom of the funnel is the interview and even the onboarding experience. From personal experience, I’d say these things matter a lot. A small investment of time and effort upfront will pay off many times in the long run.

Your deepest insights are your best branding. I’d love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand. Or visit my website.

Intro Music stefsax / CC BY 2.5

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com

A new antimicrobial cured mice infected with bacteria deemed nearly “untreatable” in humans — and resistance to the drug was virtually undetectable.

The World Health Organization has identified antimicrobial resistance as a major threat to global health. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics only increases over time. The problem is made worse by the fact that the incentives to discover and develop new antibiotics aren’t aligned with the pharmaceutical industry model.

It takes billions of dollars to bring a drug to market and years to recover that investment. Sporadic 10-day prescriptions can’t compete with lifelong prescriptions for blood pressure reduction, cholesterol management etc. in terms of ROI. As a result, only one new class of antibiotic has been developed since the year 2000 and there are few new candidates on the horizon.

In a previous episode, I spoke to Dr. Randy Rohde about methicillin-resistant Staph aureus and the importance of science communication in public health.

In this episode, I talked to Mike Mahan, Professor in the Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at UC Santa Barbara. We talked about:

* The challenges of developing new antibiotics and the need for new business models or societal incentives to pay for them

* A supplement to the gold standard test for susceptibility that can lead to better patient outcomes

* A promising candidate for a new class of broad-spectrum antimicrobial for which resistance is virtually undetectable

Tackling the problem of antibiotic resistance will take effort on multiple fronts. As a society, we need to recognize the seriousness of the problem and decide to invest in the development of new drugs and models that can support that development. For example, a subscription model where companies are paid to develop and have antibiotics on hand whether or not they are used - a kind of strategic reserve. Jason Scharf and I discussed this in a previous episode.

Improved Predictive Susceptibility Test

First of all, are we using the antibiotics we have to our best advantage? Apparently not.

The gold standard test for antibiotic susceptibility is done in rich media (ideal conditions for bacterial growth). If the test more accurately reflected in vivo conditions, would the same results be observed? Mahan and his colleagues have done the test. Comparing the results of the susceptibility test done in either rich or minimal growth media (closer to the host environment) with the ability of an antibiotic to cure sepsis in mice, in ten percent of cases there was disagreement between the gold standard test and the new test in terms of a clinical threshold: Is the bacteria resistant or susceptible?

Using this test, we now check FDA-approved antibiotics that are dismissed by the gold standard test… there were several antibiotics that were highly effective in treating sepsis in mice that are never used by physicians because the gold standard test says it won't work. Consequently, our toolbox for antimicrobial infections is much larger than we once thought.

A promising new class of antimicrobial

In a separate line of inquiry, conjugated oligoelectrolytes (COEs) were being investigated by a colleague for charging cellphones on the battlefield - a bacterial battery if you will, using bacteria and an energy source to drive electron transport. It’s no surprise that pumping electrons out of the cell for this purpose, rather than inward, is harmful to the bacteria in the long run.

Because of this, it was hypothesized that COEs might be candidates as new antibiotics. Mike was skeptical. He thought that these compounds would be comparable to using bleach - great at killing bacteria, and very toxic for humans. “This is gonna be a really short collaboration,” he told his lab manager.

Not subscribed yet? Let’s fix that right here.

Thanks for listening to the podcast and sharing this post.

They tested 17 different COE compounds for antimicrobial activity and toxicity in mammalian cells. All 17 had no problem killing bacteria. And most of them were highly toxic for mammalian cells, as predicted. But one of the 17, COE2-2hexyl, showed promise as being less toxic for mammalian cells.

The next thing they did was immediately test this compound for its effectiveness at curing sepsis in mice. Mice were infected with a range of pathogens, including an isolate from a patient that had succumbed to refractory bacteremia - a multiply-resistant strain of Klebsiella from a community-derived urinary tract infection.

They evaluated toxicity in mice via a blinded measurement of attitude scores (appearance/activity/clinical signs) as an outcome of drug treatment. The compound was well tolerated and able to cure sepsis in mice.

However, the most remarkable observation was that resistance to this compound is virtually undetectable and it is effective against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, presumably because it interferes with multiple membrane-based functions.

Reflecting on this episode, beyond the obvious takeaways here about business models, improved testing and innovation, is the need to allow room for doing some things differently.

I just learned this week that RNA editing is a thing and might be tested as a therapy ( I don’t remember for what) in clinical trials. This is a long way from what I knew about RNA, even in graduate school. But I was not surprised because remarkable innovations pop up every week in our industry.

What is surprising is that a simple innovation that challenges a decades-old susceptibility test is met with resistance (no pun intended) because “that’s the way it’s always been done.” That resistance isn’t really a challenge about the science. It’s one of psychology - getting people to change their habits and ways of thinking.

This has been a summary of the technical highlights. If you want the entertaining story of the scientific journey, give the full episode a listen. I think you’ll enjoy our lively conversation.

Nature Medicine: How to Fight Antibiotic Resistance

Your deepest insights are your best branding. I’d love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com

I enjoyed this conversation with Adrian Rubstein, founder of Ax3.bio, as he opened my eyes to different approaches to valuing startups. Make sure you listen to the full episode. I promise you will learn something valuable.

Adrian inspired me to do some research on my own. So any errors in this description are mine. (A little knowledge is a dangerous thing). But let’s try anyway…

Most biotech companies are destined to fail. That’s no secret. Biology is full of uncertainty.

Outcomes in biotech are binary. A device or a therapy is approved for use or it is not, making valuations challenging. Even after approval, there is the challenge of gaining market share. It’s fair to assume, that growing the market for most therapies is not possible except by encouraging unhealthy behavior which is probably not part of your brand strategy.

Adrian talked about understanding and evaluating the science in addition to assessing the size of a potential market. Ax3.bio employs a modified Real Option framework, modified for binary outcomes, for evaluating potential investments. This is way above my pay grade but I found this article from McKinsey helpful to get a sense of how this works. The article goes beyond using the framework for valuations to how it can be used strategically to understand the levers available to maximize value.

If you just want the TL;DR, industries that require a lot of R&D, manufacturing and marketing investment can benefit from this framework. The example they give is drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea. Once a company has the right to explore blocks of the sea bottom for oil, they still need to figure out which ones might have oil, how much, and what it will take to get it out. All while the price of oil fluctuates over time.

There is a lot of uncertainty at each step, not unlike developing new therapies. The model values the flexibility to make decisions about investment at each step while taking into account the possibility of changing market conditions.

…as my economist friend says, “Models, they don't work it out, but they give you a compass on what may happen.” That's why we do sensitivity analysis and we say those are the different scenarios, right? The first one is that, okay, you get approval from the FDA, and then what is the probability for you to get acquired?

The probability for you to hit a milestone? The probability that, okay, right now the KOLs like your product. What is the probability for you to get exponential sales? Or not. They're totally different scenarios and each scenario has a probability for it to happen. So that's a huge decision tree analysis.

Not subscribed yet? Can we fix that right here?

Thanks for listening to the podcast and sharing this post.

As in the McKinsey article, this analysis can also be used as a strategic guide for the things you can do to raise the probability of success or a higher evaluation at each step.

Many of these are familiar: Relationships with KOLs, publishing articles, letting people know about your progress and milestones through newsletters, podcasts etc. As has been mentioned several times on Life Science Marketing Radio, you can’t wait for approval to start telling your story. At that point, it’s too late.

This got me thinking about the relationship between uncertainty and stories about a company’s journey over time. Many stories are based on uncertainty. Every athletic competition is a story because of the uncertainty of the outcome. And the more uncertain, the better.

Presumably, each milestone on the company’s journey reduces uncertainty by some amount. This can be compared to a team’s progress toward a championship over the season. Just as you resolve one question, attention turns to the next victory (milestone) to be achieved.

There are also individual stories within a team story that can be captivating. Every one of these milestones and individual stories is an opportunity to get people interested in your company.

Would it be a stretch to say that stories themselves can increase the value of your business at any point? I don’t think so.

Your deepest insights are your best branding. I’d love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand. Visit Life Science Marketing Radio to learn more about how I help companies tell their stories.

Ax3.bio

Adrian’s Newsletter on LinkedIn, BioBusiness,

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com

It will come as no surprise that I have talked to a number of people in marketing and sales recently. (That’s literally half of my job.) Sometimes, those conversations all seem to point in the same direction. This month is one of those times.

The theme that has arisen spontaneously is how potential customers become customers. And the assumptions we make around that.

The assumptions are that:

* Potential customers know who we are.

* We have the product or service they need.

* Our product is demonstrably better (on some criteria) and will win the day.

We also assume that we know why our customers buy, and even that they would know, if we asked them, what got them on the path to purchase our product or service.

Some of the things I heard:

* Most people who could buy from us are not in-market at any given time. How do we get into their consideration set when the time comes?

* Our customers are only interested in specifications. Stories shared on social media have little value. (I disagree.)

* A very large, new customer found out about us through a podcast (dark social, I heartily endorse).

* Many companies have no process for leads (contacts?) to be systematically converted to sales. - I suspect many of you feel better about your efforts now, huh?

* Someone needs to set the frame to have a productive conversation. (Thank you Brian Morgan.)

That all leads me to corporate communications. Given all of the ambiguities, even after mapping out customer journeys and measuring every possible interaction, we need to start the conversation somewhere. And the earlier the better.

There is no way every potential customer, investor, etc. knows who you are, why you exist or what you do. Assuming otherwise is leaving money on the table. As is assuming that your specifications can overcome whatever rationale the customer already has in their mind at that very late stage in the buying process.

What are you leaving on the table by not subscribing? Insights? Connections? Fascinating conversations?

Thanks for being here.

Ryan Flinn is a corporate communications expert who knows what makes an interesting story. As a former Bloomberg reporter, his performance was measured on the ability to gather eyeballs.

The fact that people make decisions based on emotion is well established. Those emotional engagements can happen very early with good corporate communications. It happens by sharing memorable stories about how people use your products and services. For example, you could explain who designed them along with why and how.

Or show how the founder’s hobbies relate to the company. Ryan explained that Bloomberg had reporters covering large companies on a daily basis.

I had to find articles that they didn't deem important enough to cover for like a news beat, but that I could kind of twist into an interesting angle. So, like for one, I did a profile on Autodesk, the CAD software company because I found this angle of the CEO… He has the woodworking shop in Berkeley, and he carves tables and chairs and, you know, it's the analog to the digital version of what the software does.

…looking beyond just again, the bullet points of what makes a product interesting or important to consumers. What is the angle that will help the reporter write a story about it or somebody going, “Wow, what a cool example. I wanna learn more about that”?

Ryan shared his insights on what makes an interesting story, how they can create a competitive advantage and how to build relationships with reporters that can lead to earned media opportunities.

As I reflect on this episode and my recent conversations (you’ll hear from more of those folks soon), I think of how assumptions about our audience get in the way of our marketing at one stage or another. We need to do well at every stage. And just because we can’t measure something doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.

What activities grab a person’s interest? If that person isn’t a potential customer, what might make them share it with someone else who could be?

Is our content memorable enough to get us into the consideration set when the customer has a need? Have we made an emotional connection that provides an advantage? Will we deliver a story and an experience that makes the customer confident in choosing our solution?

Marketing is kind of like hosting a cocktail party. It’s a conversation we are having simultaneously with a lot of people joining in over a long period of time. We are continuously inviting new people to that conversation while at the same time introducing some of them to our dear friends in sales.

Your deepest insights are your best branding. I’d love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand. Or visit my website.

Intro Music stefsax / CC BY 2.5

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com