Latest / Diagnosing Dx / Can Strategic Partnerships Save Diagnostics Innovation? Robert Carlson
Transcript
- David Filby: Welcome to the show this week, Robert. How are you? Robert Carlson: I'm doing great, David. It's good to see you again. David Filby: Fantastic. Where in the world are you? Robert Carlson: This morning I find myself in my home office in San Clemente, California. David Filby: Lovely, lovely time of year to be in California, I'm sure. Robert Carlson: You know, it's actually beautiful, I gotta say. Very fortunate. David Filby: Yeah. I actually love that. We've got a really nice focus, which I think today is going to be really relevant to lot of the conversations I'm having in the industry around partnerships and partnering, which is just a fundamental part of success and seeing companies continue along their life cycle. But before we do that, It'd be great to get an introduction to yourself, your background and career and everything that you've been doing. Robert Carlson: Awesome. Yeah, thanks, David. You know, I'm Robert Carlson. I'm Founder and President of Life Science Dx Consulting. I've spent the last 30 years of my career in diagnostics and life sciences. I began as a scientist on the bench and progressed through commercial, corporate development, and executive leadership roles. Over the course of my career, I've done, zero-level startups bring us. all the way defining products, all the way to market, including leading more than $300 million businesses with teams of greater than 200. You know, I focused a lot in diagnostics, specialty pharmaceuticals, and over the course of my career I've been fortunate to, evaluate more than $3 billion in different licensing acquisition and strategic partnership type options, I would say. Today I work really closely with diagnostic companies, particularly in emerging businesses, even in the international side, really focusing on translating strong science to commercial strategy. And that includes like looking at the clinical value proposition, reimbursement, market access pathway, adoption models, and including partnering, if you will, as part of that strategy, to ensure that you have both I would say the time to get to market as well as the tools in your tool belt to be able to drive adoption into the market. David Filby: So during your time in diagnostics, what's the focus been with regards to product and sort of the subsets within diagnostics that you've been most aligned to? Robert Carlson: You know, in that long amount of time it's been quite varied. I started as a scientist doing really oncology diagnostics development and breast and prostates, again through the tools enabling kind of discovery of biomarkers through that, including, biosensors and flucytometry, to even working at Dako where, we launched the very first companion diagnostic test, which in fact was with breast cancer and HercepTest and Herceptin. You know, I've spent a bunch of time in the hemonch space as well as in the molecular space when it comes to that, and also quite a bit of time in gastroenterology. David Filby: Quite varied then. Exciting. Robert Carlson: Yeah, I would say, well, you know, when you look at a bunch of time, there's a lot of things to be exposed to. David Filby: And the most recent companies that you've worked for, what were the roles and functions that you were performing at those companies? Robert Carlson: My last several roles have been chief commercial officer. And so some of that has been, extremely interesting, looking at, for example, volatile organic compound studying, looking at the ability of breath to be a biomarker, and I think that's a fantastic frontier where the technology is now ripe enough and the tools are now there to be able to harness, part per trillion type analysis, part per billion type analysis of volorganic compounds as a signature of disease. I think that's super interesting. A little bit on the immunology, quite a bit on the immunology space, quite a bit on digital pathology as well and AI. You know, at Dako we launched a platform back in the 2005-2006 era. And back then limitations, we called it machine learning actually at that time, not AI, but we launched a product where, it was very novel to the marketplace. So there are only a few large vendors doing it, and I'm very happy and pleased to be working with several companies who are now advanced past that. And we're looking more at adoption limitations, right, in terms of integration of data into health systems, etc. Whereas before we were worried about the cost of data storage, you know, for an 8GB type image where, you know, now we've moved basically beyond that. David Filby: So today, because of your experience on the commercial side and how you're supporting early stage companies, when you and I were connecting and we've connected many times over the last few months, talking about the challenges in the industry and what we're seeing at early stage companies and obviously the capital immediately takes a lot of attention. But we both mentioned partnerships and partnering and how varied the approach can be and how almost shocking it can be how some companies completely avoid and fear this, Robert Carlson: Exactly. David Filby: maybe for the fear of some sort of dilution of revenue, dilution Robert Carlson: Absolutely. David Filby: of company, so anyway. But it was such a great topic to connect with you on and it's great to be able to talk to you about it. Why don't you give us an introduction first to partnerships objectively in diagnostics and early stage diagnostics and how it typically works. And then we can go into the benefits and the challenges that we're seeing in the industry around this topic. Robert Carlson: You know, again, I think it's a great topic, very interesting topic. People think of partnerships as you said as dilution or selling the business and whatnot. And I think that has to be reframed along the lines of what I'd say synergy, right? And I think if you have the mindset of synergy and looking for synergies, I think that's a fundamental start. You know, especially when I work with smaller companies and founder-led companies, they've spent their own 30 years in regards to, novel biology and chemistry and developing biomarkers for unique signatures. And again, that's fantastic, right? That's what changes the world, that's how we change health care and impact to patients, etc. But the consideration has to be on the commercial side. Is how are you going to ensure that your product actually gets to market? And what are those barriers or just the I would say the rules almost of the role that you need to pay attention to get there? And some of that is just about timing because the market changes. I mean the market, in my opinion, has been pretty unfriendly to diagnostics investment for the last several years. You can see the trending. And this happens quite a bit if you look at the long-term scale, we go through different cycles But when it comes to partnering, the key thing I would say is having and being surrounded by objective voices, which talks about what partnering should be, the strengths and weaknesses of that and the ultimate objective or the needs of the company. And that's important because considering partnering should be something early stage, it gives you more strategic flexibility, I would say, versus when you need partnering, say you're in a funding crunch or you need to raise within a short amount of time, you've lost a lot of your, ability to be strategic and open to different ideas. And so to me I quite often find companies that have reached kind of a very late stage and now they're almost in a crises of a fund raise and then they're looking at either, divesting assets, divesting the company, or selling more equity than they possibly would want to. And we have a market that's not really looking forward to that right now or really open to that investing. And so some companies unfortunately are just running out of those funds. They're running on a runway, David. And that's a big problem. And so overall it just starts with understanding what it is you need. And then there are different elements to partnering. You know, what one unique thing that companies can do, especially in a market which is not necessarily friendly from a venture capital side or even some of the criteria for private equity, is looking at, strategic partnering, I would say almost project based partnering. say you have a unique technology you developed, you may be developing it for application wide. Let me generalize this. Let's say you're in you're an AI based company and you have a fantastic model that you have created and it's going to support an application, let's just say it's an imaging application and we can say pathology. So digital pathology, AI based. Well one of the things that you could consider is the knowledge base and the power you have with that AI approach and perhaps partner with another company, perhaps a pharmaceutical company in their pursuit of biomarker development. Or perhaps your unique approach is in a say a unique application, unique oncology state where they may be looking at that project. And so there could be an opportunity just to raise revenue. To partner in that context to do joint development, which again is income for the small company. And you do that milestone-based, right? That could turn into something, you know, larger projects. It could yield clinical studies, a larger clinical study, very very long term. It could lead to even a companion diagnostic concept. The key here is what I'm saying: you don't necessarily have to go that way, but be open to that. Be open to the value that you have in your own company knowledge base and products to be able to use that as a means to raise funds versus a pure raise from outside investors. And that could yield different things. Now, when in fact you are going to private equity for a fundraise, I think one of the key things is having your messaging straight, having your story straight, having the understanding of those commercial impacts. And that's another thing I run into quite often when it comes to partnering, is companies who don't have a firm grasp of the kind of commercial roadblocks or the commercial requirements run into, I would say unfavorable funding conditions because they can't answer some of the questions or they haven't developed in certain areas. And that's another area where I like to work with them on is understanding the marketplace, understanding the realities of commercialization, and using that to both measure how much funding you're going to need, but also to be able to have a very attractive deck and presentation in regards to what it is when you're presenting your business to seek funding. David Filby: So that last point, what you're saying is when you go into a fundraise with a deck that essentially has a lack of proof of concept, partnerships can bridge that gap if done early enough and done in the right way that still aim towards your end goal. It can be an avenue to collect data to somehow prove a commercial viability. And if you're bringing that from that partnership then into your deck, that fundraising round can be so much stronger and the terms more favorable to you because these partnerships have put you in a position where you're bringing these added facets to that deck. Robert Carlson: I think that's a fantastic way of looking at it in regards to strategic partnering strengthening your bench as well. It gives actually some use cases to your technology and company, and there's value there. The whole thing at the end of the day is value. The reason you want to have that commercial story strong, whether again it's relationships that you have, that proof of concept, understanding reimbursement pathways, really adoption pathways, is that frankly, no one knows your technology or your focus probably better than you. I mean, again, as the founder or scientist, right? But you need to translate that into commercial realities for people that are going to invest in your company. And that means value. You need to present the value to your investors, return on their investments and that's kind of that partnership on that level. I think ultimately there are several paths forward. It's just important to be able to have these discussions. We can talk a little bit about having a strong board of directors around you to be able to give you some of that input and their expertise for this. I work quite a bit with boards in regards to not necessarily being technology savvy, but to understand, say, the technology itself and that bridgeway to the commercialization side, which again has oftentimes helped investors reinvest, right? Help the boards even connections and sum up small investors to re up their investment in small companies as well, just in terms of a translation of that value. David Filby: You've mentioned the sooner the better a number of times. Where do you think the reluctance comes from? What is that fear and maybe the misconceptions that early stage founders or C-suite have when thinking about how early it is or fearing partnerships as we mentioned it at the top of the show in terms of the dilution and whether that's dilution of the company or dilution of the profit or revenue they could generate but where do you think that comes from and what is it that founders are getting wrong when they're at that early stage and they're not not doing these things early enough? Robert Carlson: Quite often it starts with intellectual property, right? Quite often starts with a fear of that intellectual property, and that being I would say borrowed, used in other ways. It can be dilutive, right? Taking a left term with limited resources, it can be dilutive in terms of those efforts, but I think that's a little bit myopic. And frankly, the biggest reason I see for not looking at it early enough is these founders and small companies are extremely focused on this one mission. Right? They're very focused or too narrow siloed in this one area. And the problem is it isolates them. Instead of looking at partnership as expanding their portfolio in the horizon, it ends up limiting them and putting them in a certain space. And the example I like to give about that is if you isolate yourself and your it's not even true competition, but someone in the same lane is in fact partnering, is in fact growing their name and their technology, they're getting access to resources. They're getting access to companies, whether that's exposure or finances or particular projects, and that can create value. If you refuse to even consider that, like I said, that's more of an isolation, I would say. It's very natural. That's why it's important to have business people around you to kind of talk through that. You know, the one of the biggest things, David, is to go through a strategic exercise, an analysis of a company where you are, you may be on track for A, B, and C to commercialize your product. My recommendation is that even at that time early stage, you are considering what are our partnership options? Are they even attractive to us? Should we be spending any effort on this? And my answer is typically always yes. There needs to be some portion of time beyond your walls, beyond your individual targets, to be open to opportunities which may not obviously present themselves. And again, we come back to digital pathology, but there's an evolving space, spatial genomics or spatial biology. And this is really the combining then of digital pathology or kind of the morphology and staining of a of a section of tissue, combining with the genetics and epigenetics or even the expression level of protein interactions behind the scenes, so sequencing that. But more importantly, you talk about, the tumor microenvironment, or it's that cell-to-cell interaction. And this is really novel, but this is kind of a combination of sequencing and digital pathology coming together to create a whole new, in my opinion, industry. It's advancing beyond these two technologies by themselves. In fact, it's using the strengths together, right? It's using the actual morphology or expression, the cell-to-cell interaction that may be expressed in, for example, a tumor, with understanding the genetics and epigenetics behind it, the actual protein expression and what's happening there. And that truly is power for kind of a three-dimensional relationship that benefits pharmaceuticals, it benefits diagnostics, and ultimately it benefits patients, because we increase our ability for prediction. It's better observation and it allows us to have better prediction of the future. And that's kind of where we need to go. And that's partnering, right? That is two different technologies coming together and that's a true synergy there. David Filby: To go back to your point on IP, that fear, is that a genuine challenge that founders need to address? Or is that just simple in terms of how partnerships are set up and drawn up in terms of the agreements? Robert Carlson: Yeah, it's more of you're starting with A, you start with the letter A, which is IP, right? I mean at the very basis. And to be frank, thankfully, most of my engagements, IP is well secured and taken care of early on before kind of even the foundation of the company, which is fantastic. Obviously you wanna make sure you have freedom of use and whatnot for whatever you'd be partnering with, etc. and that gets very complex. But I agree. It's more of a honestly, it's more of a fear of the unknown. And sometimes there's some pride in that, right? And there should be pride, but there's sometimes a belief that what I've invented or created is the best and the only way to do something like that, and therefore it's the only way we're going to do it, and everyone else shouldn't be involved because we're gonna do this. And that could happen. but you need to look at strategic means to get there. You may have to take a little bit of a side turn to have some additional revenue to be able to support that drive. And that's not a dilution of effort. That's a strategic strengthening of your ability to continue to the next stages in the market. And that is a fear, right? There's both a fear in terms of our technology is superior, why would we mess around with anything like this? And often then comes further down the line when we have products that are super elegant, but the market doesn't adopt them, or the market won't adopt them because the market doesn't understand them, or there's really not a reimbursement pathway to pay for that. And so this fantastic technology which combines all these different things is great and it gives data. But in healthcare, if there's a way to do it better, faster, and cheaper, the market rewards that. And that's kind of just understanding then ultimately your customers and how you're gonna drive adoption or gain adoption, I should say, that needs to dictate your product development. David Filby: Yeah, that makes sense. And then is there a fear of being locked in? Signing a strategic partnership too early and then regretting it down the line, that sort of, again, it sounds like the fear of unknown again, but I feel like I've got the sense of this from early stage founders, typically first time founders who they fear them partnerships because they don't truly understand the commercial value of their product and they don't want to give it away too early and then regret it, in time to come. Robert Carlson: Yes. The truth is yes. I mean you have to go in this with eyes wide open, correct? I mean a partnership is two parties coming together to better their individual needs, correct? So this is another reason why you want to do it early. If you are pressed, you can make decisions, reactions, you know for a means to an end which may limit your ability in the future. Doing it early allows you to be very selective on what you do because again it's a future perhaps expansion. It may be non-revenue in the beginning, it may just be technology. But the value may not be in dollars in that case. It could be in your own knowledge, your own exposure to a different marketplace. But yes, it goes towards the reason of the importance of the exercise in addition to just looking at commercialization of your core product. Is this awareness of kind of outside of your box where you're not limited? And you're right, you could get into a unfavorable license or something like that, where you're given away rights that you shouldn't be. And I've seen that where technologies are licensed for certain markets or certain applications, which eventually become limiting for that company. They think they could make a go of it with a limited thing, but they had to sign off this just to get money. That has been typically reactionary, in my opinion. That has typically David Filby: Right, right. Robert Carlson: been further down the line, we tried it, I don't know how to get there, and now I just have to do something. And that's unfortunate, right? But that's what we're talking about today. It's again, David Filby: Yeah. Robert Carlson: this should be done with an advisor. Having a strong board of directors who have done this before, who are your friends, right? Who I mean, they're there to give you the strength and just to basically translate these further stages which you don't know yet. And David Filby: Yeah. Robert Carlson: the earlier you do this, the better you are in terms of strategic options. We talked about this before and it's one of the big take-home points, David, though, is going through this exercise and deciding we're not going to partner. We're not going to do this. Is a great outcome because you've gone through the exercise to actually evaluate this, provided you've done it, with real effort and whatnot, to do the evaluation of a true partnership. Because it's not just signing paper, there's a lot of analysis that should go in there. But that analysis itself is value to a company. And the strength to say we evaluated this and chose not to partner, to be honest, that is a very strong message to an investor, I mean, provided it was done again rationally. But that exercise and just going through it is power to a company versus not doing it at all. And when I say that, people are like, what are you talking about? That's a waste of time. I disagree. Because that is part of knowing your business, evaluating the marketplace beyond what you may be siloed into, and then making sure that you're open to opportunities which you may not see right now. David Filby: Yeah, that makes sense. You have to learn some lessons along the way, right? And get some benchmarks. If I flip it then Robert, so what is wrong with novel science being developed, validated, launching an LDT, generating revenue, funding a clinical trial, getting FDA approval, educating. Robert Carlson: Nothing. I mean that's what we love to do. I mean that's what I live. I mean as a former scientist, and I have to say that now I think I've lost all credibility. That is the dream. I mean that is why we do it. That is why we create this. The problem is it takes money and time and market forces. And those are things outside the picture of the concept you described, which is just let's develop a novel fantastic pioneering way to impact patients, and everyone's just gonna come and pay for it, and it's gonna be great. That naivety is what kills technology. That naivety forces people into bad partnerships. That myopic focus or siloing is what I'm just trying to bring to say this is an important exercise to look at. It doesn't have to be huge, but it is an important part of managing your business for the short term and the long term. And the offset of that you know again is value. It's value to people who would be attracted to your company both in partnering and investing. And in very simple terms, you know, your eventual marketplace who is buying and selling your product, again in this case in the impact of patient care. David Filby: I completely agree. think naivety is the perfect word for it. Right. Because every time I speak to an early stage founder and this is so common at the moment, has been for a while. They say, yeah, we spoke to some VCs and they weren't interested because we were not generating any revenue or they want us to go away and achieve some sort of FDA approval before they would be interested and the founder is sitting there going but we need the capital to generate Robert Carlson: Yeah. David Filby: that revenue or to get that FDA approval through a clinical trial, which obviously everyone knows is expensive So where are we and it's always naivety on those founders part where maybe they're a first-time founder and actually the opposite with experienced founders and CEOs obviously I won't name names, but I can name really experienced founders who still work in early stage companies and they are signing partnerships left, right, center. And you're seeing the compounding effect of that business. And ultimately the adoption of their test is just going up and up and up and they are hitting milestones and they just know that they have their sort of eyes on the long term mission and goal, knowing that that's the best way to get there. But what's your thoughts? that is a sticky position to be in at the moment. The market is definitely saying there's no capital if you haven't generated revenue right now. That's a challenge, isn't it? Robert Carlson: Can't generate revenue because they don't have the money for the commercialization side. You know, David Filby: Yeah. Robert Carlson: listen, it's a difficult business. I think having that understanding number one is really important. unfortunately the thought that I have something so unique everyone's just gonna pay for it is I wanna say not valid, but it's very tough to argue value for when you say, Trust me, this is great. Correct. David Filby: Yeah, yeah. Robert Carlson: And I've never worked with a founder or a company, large or small, that doesn't believe in what they're doing and have the passion behind it and the intention for that, right? I mean, and this is what's so important. It's all that work and knowledge to get to the stage they are understandably is for that. The idea is translating that, right, into practical commercialization route is where value is formed. A lot of companies I work with are ex-US David, and looking at the US market and they think we just launched and it's great. And I can seem negative almost to them. And I'm like, listen, let's just talk through this straight in terms of what you're going to need. Let's start with just understanding the terms, right? Let's just understand about what it takes to get reimbursement. We can talk a little bit about that because typically that starts at the same time as your regulatory pathway. Is this really an FDA pathway? Is this a level to where we can get a clearance or do we need true approval? We can look at that. Is there another regulatory path? Can I do this as an LDT in a CLIA-based laboratory that has to be considered because that dictates how you're going to present your product to marketplace. In one aspect, you need the FDA's permission to market it, which is necessary for patient protection. The other thing is a quality thing in terms of a unique assay in regards to being able to offer it in a single laboratory reproducibly in a quality way. But neither of these talk about reimbursement, which is who's going to pay for. You can have FDA approval and not get paid a dime for your test or your technology. You can launch it in a CLIA lab and use a current code right now to try and bill for that and argue for that and that is a potential strategy, but you're subject to the marketplace there. There are ways to go about developing a code, and that whole pathway is there. And again, I don't blame the investors either, because when an investor pushes back as you don't have FDA approval or you don't have revenue, that's a very easy pushback, right? I mean, that's very easy to push back without understanding the big story. And that's a challenge then to the company. Say, well, we don't, but here's our pathway, and that's what's key. We don't, but here's how we're handling that. Our strategy is not to go through the FDA right now, it's to do it this way, and here's how we're getting to revenue, here's our long-term plans. It is those nuances which are extremely important when it comes to that. David Filby: And so where do you see the current sort of hottest places for early stage companies to find these types of partnerships? What are the sort of really, you know, buoyant avenues at the moment that early stage founders could research and sort of seek? Robert Carlson: Great question. I don't think there's a a bright spot right now, I would say, that's outshining. You know, I talked about spatial biology. You know, that's still really up and coming. Even digital pathology. We don't have good reimbursement for it, but there's a lot of great science behind that. And there are, you know, associations like Digital Pathology Association, we even have temporary codes, etc. proposed for that. Everyone talks about liquid biopsy and circulating tumor, free DNA, etc. Very interesting concepts. There is some traction there. There's a lot of different spots I would say, David, but I don't think there's one that's exceptional in my mind right now. I think I'm looking at it more ubiquitous and trying to keep generalized. It does move on to though in understanding again how reimbursement works. Reimbursement is typically based, not only on outcome but on the technology. So if your outcome is very general and I just came up with an immunoassay and I can use an ELISA-based procedural code, I think that's really interesting in a way to do that. The problem is it's very difficult to run a business on that because that reimbursement is extremely limited. We won't get into specifics right now, because there's a lot of complexity there. And when going to an investor and that is your value route the reimbursement is small, so in that case, you better ensure you have volume, right? So this would mean this would need to be something that is so needed that our volume is going to make sense with the lower reimbursement, and that's our trajectory to marketplace. Most companies it's the opposite. Most companies I work with say we have this unique molecular signature. We see no problem charging $2500 for it, and it's gonna be really interesting. I work with a company trying to commercialize a prostate diagnostic. And again, the hardest thing I said, well, how is this different, or what data do you have to say this is superior to PSA and free PSA? And a PSA test is just a few dollars. What is that bridge? And you know, I'm not being negative, but you need to answer that story of why this is unique. What is that patient population and why are you commanding in your mind $2,500? Those are difficult questions to cross. And those are the same questions that may seem like a commercialization question, like, we'll deal with that when we get there, or we're not gonna do that in that market. But that's not appropriate in my opinion. You should have that worked out because when you go to your investor, that's when you say this is our vetted strategy to get reimbursement, and it's solid because of this, this, and this. And that is value, right? That is beyond that, and that's again another concept just like partnering, to make sure you're aware of what it's gonna be required to get your product onto market and stay afloat as a company. David Filby: So then is your final thought is it's for early stage founders to surround themselves with the right advice commercially to ensure that good decisions are made and ultimately that combination with humility and an open mindedness early to what can be achieved and what partnerships and strategic partnerships can be put in place because if you're open-minded early, you're in a good position. If you get the right advice, you won't go too far wrong. And from there, things can grow. And that's how you're gonna be best positioned to ensure the long-term success of your product and hopefully achieving your mission. Robert Carlson: Yeah, another way of looking at that is there's a lot of ways to say this, but I'll start with saying it takes a village, right? There are different knowledge sets and different strengths. A lot of the technology founders are brilliant scientists. Brilliant. I mean, again, they think in terms that I just wish I could. My mind focuses on numbers and commercialization and the things which we have to get through. I shouldn't be the lead scientist, and this person maybe shouldn't be the commercial person. It's those two things together which creates synergy. And that's in my opinion in early companies, again in very small, why you have a board of directors, right? With lots of experience in different areas, that they are functionally fit to be an advisor on that. Why you seek outside advisors, if only just to say this is my idea, and your experience advisor is this sound? What are the roadblocks? What is that? It's to basically Do that early in the process and look at it as bringing you strength and not weakness. The problem is time, right? These things, to me, to go and discover a biomarker, I would say, how do I start? where do I start? I understand the concept, where do I start? It's the same thing in terms of commercialization. I'm just gonna develop the product and the product will take care of itself. Both of those are not good ways forward, right? For me to discover a biomarker, I would have to say, Who is my smartest scientific team in this area that understands where I want to go? I'm gonna come with my idea and expect to learn something that I don't even know. Expect them to apply these principles to take us somewhere where I'm not even I don't even understand right now, but that sounds great. It's the same thing on market access and commercialization. Take your concept, talk about it early, and then work with those people to then open up your mind. Start with the end in mind and that's commercialization, right? And that answers those questions, whether it's funding, reimbursement, and the commercialization strategy. One more thing. Deciding your actual market is actually really important. It's another thing which I don't want to say it's assumed. What I will say is the complex differences between, say, the UK, Europe, and the United States, Australia, Asia, each of those markets are very different. To bucket them or say that the drivers of value or reimbursement are the same, is not true at all. I would say again, those kind of assumptions can get you into trouble. And it just comes from how can people make careers out of just understanding those individual markets. There's complexities there, which basically mean that this doesn't translate from one market easier. On the flip side, this is a really important discussion, decide where to commercialize first. Certain areas have more favorable reimbursement conditions for certain things than other places. Coming back to digital pathology, again, it's come up quite a bit in the last year. there are marketplaces where governments are more favorable about reimbursing digital pathology than say in the United States right now. Even in in the UK, in terms of some of the exploratory grants, France, Germany, Switzerland. There's at least discussions at a government level in terms of that reimbursement. And so there's a strategy there in terms of timing of market and understanding where you need resources. So I think that's part of understanding this complexity too, is where you launch. And that's an argument for investing, right? If you have a solid argument to say we're going into this market because of this, this and this, this is why we want your investment, this is how we're going to use it, that's value, in my opinion. David Filby: Robert, this was awesome. Thank you for coming on and giving so much insight and thorough detail into the perception of partnerships and why they're important because ultimately I think we've hit the nail on the head that it's the most naive that need the most help and they really need to hear this. And I think it's such a big challenge in the industry, especially the industry that's built on so much really exciting innovation and science, but unfortunately also led by, first time founders and C-suite who you know, need more help and are potentially naive in how they approach things. Robert Carlson: I mean, that innovation is the core of the engine which drives it. We just need to make David Filby: Absolutely. Robert Carlson: sure it gets to patience, right? We just need to make sure it has the ability to get to market and have impact. To me, and that's the biggest, that is the biggest thing when impactful technology just gets lost. That to me is unfortunate. By looking at these things, David, I think we're actually fostering innovation versus stifling it. The idea is to foster innovation. How do we enable innovation versus stifling it? If you look at this black and white, we've got science and we got funding. To me, that seems very stifling because the investment profile is not we're gonna, hey, invest into this diagnostic company. There are some that look at it that way, I think that's fantastic. The reality for investors is they'll tell you is the big payoff isn't necessarily there, right? If I invest in a future pharmaceutical, I'm looking at a multi-billion dollar market versus, you know, a several million dollar market for an assay. Those are the realities, but that shouldn't again that shouldn't stifle innovation, right? That shouldn't stifle the need. And that's where we look at partnering now and even partnering with diagnostics and pharmaceuticals to get novel pharmaceuticals on and whatnot. That is emerging. That market is developing still. But again I think it's start with the end in mind, understand there are roadblocks there, and the whole idea is to foster innovation and bring new impactful technology to the marketplace. David Filby: Well said. Thank you Robert for coming on the show. Robert Carlson: Hey, thanks David. Pleasure to see you again and look forward the next time we get a chance to connect.