Latest / Making Medicine / Inside Biotech Leadership: Bill Newell on Innovation, Capital, and Policy at Sutro Biopharma

Transcript

Inside Biotech Leadership: Bill Newell on Innovation, Capital, and Policy at Sutro Biopharma · Making Medicine

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: At Making Medicine. We're reporting on the headlines, not making
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: medical recommendations. For personal health questions, always consult a doctor.
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: Nothing in this episode constitutes investment, financial, or legal advice,
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: and please consult your own advisors before making decisions. Hello everyone,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: and welcome back to the Making Medicine Podcast or Science
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: Policy and Innovation Meet. As always, I'm your host John Stanford.
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: This week we were joined by special guest Bill Noule,
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: who has recently served as Sutro's chief executive officer from
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: two thousand and nine to earlier this year in twenty
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: twenty five. He's got a lengthy career of experience that
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: we get into the show, and has even been an
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: advocate testifying before Congress, and has leadership roles at a
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: number of trade associations. He's just the right person to
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: talk about today's policy environment. So with that, let's get
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: into the show. Bill, Welcome to the show.
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: Thanks John, delighted to be here.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: Well, our listeners. Number one ask is always about people's
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: paths into the industry and then pads navigating industry, and
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: with so many people coming from the investment community or
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: the scientific community, let's start by saying what led you
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: into the biotech industry and what were some of the
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: pivotal decision points along the way that went into your
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: years leading SUTRA.
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: You know, I had a prior career before getting into
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: the industry. I was a corporate lawyer representing companies in
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: a variety of different industries, and I felt like I
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: was not fully realizing the full potential of an impact
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: that I could make as an attorney. And in the
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: Bay Area, which is where I live, the biotech industry
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: really offers people a mission driven business model, and somebody
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: with a legal background, not a scientific background, but a
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: legal background can play a very important role in the
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: development of companies and in the medicines that those companies make.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: And so I would say I was drawn to the
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: industry because I felt like my skill set could help
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: in a way that I couldn't as a lawyer. My
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: skill set could help others make medicines that reach patients
• 2:25
  Speaker 2: and have a profound benefit on their lives. So that
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: was really the primary motivation. I had the benefit of
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: working alongside some great CEOs early in my career in
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: the industry. I've been in the industry for twenty seven years,
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: and I didn't start as a CEO, but in two
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: thousand and nine, I had the opportunity to become the
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: CEO of Cuitro Biopharma. Sutra Biofarma at that point was
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: a nineteen person company, early stage venture financed and had
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: a disruptive platform technology, self repro and synthesis that we
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: thought could offer a way to make better medicines for patients.
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: And to the challenge, and this was in two thousand
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: and nine, was how do you keep capital in the company,
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: How do you keep raising capital, how do you figure
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: out what you should do with your platform technology, how
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: do you find partnerships that realized full value for the company?
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: And then how do you make a medicine when a
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: company that is a platform company really doesn't know how
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: to make medicines. And so those were some of the
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: challenges that we had to work our way through. Now
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: you don't work your way through those overnight, it's a progression.
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: And I was privileged to lead Sutro for sixteen years
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: as CEO. And you know, around the end of my
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: time at Sutro, we had about three hundred and fifty
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: employees and we had two pivotal Phase three trials ongoing,
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: and so it's a series of steps you take along
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: the way, and you need a little uck, and you
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: need good science, and you need to have a rationale
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: for why your medicine is going to be impactful. And
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: if you have that, then I think you have the
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: wherewithal to make a difference in patients' lives. And that
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: was really my raison dutchra for being in the industry.
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: Which I think is a good call out because I
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: would say some of the you know, use the word
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: mission driven. You probably could have gone on to be
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: successful in any sector, but you picked this one. And
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: I think that's something that gets lost. And another thing
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: that gets lost that I want to spend some time
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: with is you know, if I I think if we
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: went to the layman and said, I want you to
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: have a conversation with Bill about his sixteen years running Sutro,
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: you know, I think in the layman's head they'd say
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: must but it must have been five or six drugs
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: that came out during that time. And the reality is
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: that billion billion plus later, still moving forward on these
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: out of able assets, but not across the finish line yet.
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: And I would just like your perspective because people short
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: change just how long a career long effort to even
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: bring one medicine forward. So I wonder if you have
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: thoughts on that.
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: No, you're you're absolutely right. I think Sutro is one
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: of the more fortunate companies because we were able to
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: move very far down that pathway. A lot of companies
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: never get that far and they run out of capital.
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: We raised through financings and through partnerships about a billion
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: six during my tenure as CEO of Sutro, and even
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: at that lofty level, we still did not have the
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: wherewithal to get a drug of medicine across the finish
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: line because even more capital was required. Now. That medicine
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: that was in phase three was first studied in the
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: clinic in twenty nineteen, so six years from entry into
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: the clinic, you're starting a pivotal trial. And you know,
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: in our industry, phase three trials are not one hundred
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: percent successful. As a matter of fact, the success rate
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: is about fifty percent. So along the way, we had
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: to build the platform technology, We had to build a
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: manufacturing capability, even though we didn't have a product to
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: sell yet, we had to hope that our science was
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: right and that this medicine would actually benefit women with
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: a variant cancer as well as a very rare form
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: of pediatric AML, And we had to find ways to
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: capitalize the company, and that is a very expensive, long,
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: high risk undertaking. And whenever I actually have a chance
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: to talk to people about it, especially members of Congress,
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: I let them know that this industry is fundamentally different
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: than any other industry in the United States, and it's vital.
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: It's a vital strategic industry for the United States. But
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: you need to understand why we're different, and the capital
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: requirements and the risks that investors are asked to take,
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: that your partners are asked to take, and then you
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: ask your employees to take. It's not for the faint
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: of heart, but it has an ultimate goal of improving
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: the lives of individuals who are suffering from serious diseases.
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: That last point there about employees. Next week I'm heading
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: off to Japan to meet with some of their sort
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: of ministers about what it would take for them to
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: have a more robust ecosystem. And one of the points
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: there about their labor protections, which are very a key
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: part of sort of their culture, but they don't allow
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: people to grow and shrink and grow and shrink, and
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: so you know, for a biotech if you miss on
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: a data point, you might have to substantially reduce the workforce.
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: And then as things heat back up or you find
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: you get some good data, you scale very quickly. And
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: so that's always sort of been an anathema. Do you
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: think you could have led the company if you didn't
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: have the flexibility of your size of workforce. I'd be
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: curious if reducing that headcount is a critical thing to
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: make it through such a long period.
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: You know, capital is so vital to any biotechnology company,
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: and capital seems to come in waves. There were times
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: when there was an abundance of capital, and there were
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: times when capital was pretty hard to come by, and
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: you have to really navigate as you build a company,
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: as you grow your portfolio, as you try to achieve
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: a regulatory approval for your medicine, you really have to
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: be mindful that at the end of the day, you
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: can only do what the capital you have allows you
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: to do. And so if it comes to a point
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: in time where you don't have adequate capital, then you
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: have to make a tough decision, which is we'll have
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: to trim back. We're going to have to focus, and
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: we're going to have to unfortunately let some people who
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: are doing very good work have to go and find
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: another position. And that's a difficult decision to make, but
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: it's fundamentally important that you be able to make that
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: decision because otherwise you'll run the company into the ground,
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: and if you run the company into the ground, no
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: patient benefits at all. So it's at tension and one
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: that you have to take seriously and have a long
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: view of so that you can avoid that to the
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: maximum extent possible. But as you know, many many companies
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: in the biotechnology industry over the last three or four
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: years have had to trim their work staff, had to
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: focus down on a particular asset or two, and SUTURE,
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: by the way, is no exception to that. So it's
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: part of the era that we're living in right now.
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: But it's a reality of the industry that we're a
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: little bit like an accordion. Sometimes we can pull it out,
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: but then there are other times when you have to
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: press it back in.
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: You know, the tough decisions aren't appreciated that market based forces,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: and I know you've had some of these conversations with Congress,
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: and we'll get into that in a second. But you know,
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: from some stakeholder's perspective, there's just this glut of funding,
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: and if that were true, why would we have to
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: make tough choices? Why would we have to leave somewhat
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: promising assets on the shelf and really say, look, all
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: we can afford is being laser focused on this one
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: or two programs that we're doing. Now. You took over
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: in two thousand and nine, certainly not a great time
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: in the economy. The biotech economy the last several years
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: has been very tough. How do you compare the two
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: windows of really challenging fundraising times? And did lessons coming
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: out of two thousand and nine allowed you to shepherd
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: Sutro from say twenty two to twenty five that a
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: lot of biotechs haven't made it.
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think two thousand and nine was not a
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: great time to be raising capital. I was fortunate that
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: the investors who had seeded the company in the early
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: venture rounds believed in the promise of the technology and
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: gave me enough money to last for eighteen months and
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: try and focus the company. In that eighteen months on
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: something that could ultimately grow to and achieve what we
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: did at Sutro. But the key question you really always
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: have to bear in mind is how do I make
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: certain that I have the right people doing the right
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: job at the right time. And do they always have
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: to be employees or can they be concerts where we
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: have some flexibility? And then how do we look at programs.
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: I'm going to use this word ruthlessly because I think
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: that's what you have to do. You have to say
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: is this good enough? Is this going to make a
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: difference in patients? Yes, there is risk all along the way,
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: but you have to be very clear sighted in the
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: opportunity and not see it with rose colored glasses, but
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: really make certain that you have fully understood, to the
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: best of your ability, what that medicine is capable of
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: doing and whether it's worth continued investment. Because even if
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: you believe that, you then need to persuade others who
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: are going to give you capital to believe that too.
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: And so you know, by being hard on the programs
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: to ensure that they're making a difference, you give yourself
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: the best opportunity to continue to raise that next out
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: of capital that gets you to the next milestone.
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: In addition to navigating all of these challenges of being
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: a CEO, and I think they inform the question I'm
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: about to ask. You've also worn the advocacy hat very
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: heavily through organizations, You've testified before Congress, You've regularly met
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: with these folks. You know, the topic du jour for
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: the last couple of years is should we be embracing
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: price controls from a access and affordability standpoint? And you
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: know in the IRA, those price controls manifest themselves after
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: nine and thirteen years. We've talked a lot about that,
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: this most Favored Nation concept that President Trump is putting
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: out there. You know, they're all different shades of price
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: controls that would not let the market set a price,
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: but let the government set a price. I'm curious, in
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: a world of price controls, how would what would be
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: What are the consequences of saying we're going to put
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: a price control on Sutro's eventual product. How would that
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: play out on hiring, the go no go of programs,
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: trial design, and even your ability to recruit investment or partners.
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: You know, I use the word ruthless before, and I'm
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: going to use it again here the capital markets are ruthless.
• 14:25
  Speaker 2: And you know, if you see a medicine that's a
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: potential benefit to patients, you have to have thought through
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: how much it's going to cost to develop it, how
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: much it's going to cost to commercialize it. How are
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: you going to do those things? Are you doing it alone?
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: Are you doing it in collaboration with a partner, or
• 14:44
  Speaker 2: are you handing it off to a partner to allow
• 14:46
  Speaker 2: them to do that. You have to ask yourself what's
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: the ultimate return on investment at the end of the day.
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: And the market is ruthless about all of those things. Now,
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: the Good and Suture, like many other companies, had some
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: marvelous partnerships with companies like Merk Stellis, sell Gene back
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: in the day and others that we were very proud of.
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: And they provided the lion's share of the capital. That
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: one point six billion dollars that I referred to our
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: partners provided the lion's share of that capital. Now, where
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: did that money come from? That came from the profits
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: that they made in the selling of the medicines that
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: they were out there selling. And if you put price
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: controls on the industry, what's going to happen is there's
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: going to be less profitability for those pharmaceutical partners, which
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: means they'll have less money to invest in companies like
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: Sutro and in medicines like the ones we were delivering,
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: which means I have less money to be able to
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: do things. Instead of doing a pipeline of five or
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: six program which is what we had as I was
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: ending my term as CEO, you might have a pipeline
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: of two programs. Now there's no reason why you should
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: have that constraint on you, and I am very worried
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: that the extent price controls come into play, the market
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: will discount the potential economic opportunity that investment in a
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: company like Sutro represents, and discounted in such a way
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: that you frustrate our ability to actually do the work
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: that's required to demonstrate that this medicine has value to
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: patients and that it's got a good safety profile given
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: the underlying condition that you're trying to address. So I
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: can't think of anything worse than price controls. Now, we
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: can argue about access and affordability. I think there are
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: ways that they can be handled different from price controls,
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: but fundamentally, capping what you can charge for a medicine
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: is a recipe for disaster and really will drive many
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: companies into the swirl where you swirl down, down into oblivion.
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: There are three pieces of that really great answer that
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: I want to just sort of restate on. One is
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: we get the sense. I'm curious if you picked up
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: on this in your times coming to Washington, or I
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: know you do some work in California on AVAC, the
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: idea that you can beat up on big pharma but
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: preserve small biotech. You know, it's funny some policymakers put
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: them in two camps, and I think your point of Hey,
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: these R and D partners that were coming in murk
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: estellis others they're in the large pharma camp. But the
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: partnerships that they enable and they put their funds into
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: directly develop this not small, mid size biotech of three
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: hundred and fifty people in Sutro and so one is
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: just another great example that that's not true, but they're
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: kind of two death knells. Price controls off. For one
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: is if you price control drugs now that the large
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: pharmas have out there, and you cap their profit, you
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: are capping their ability to do these R and D
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: partnerships with small biotech. But you're also telling the investors
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: separate from the large pharmas, hey, this may not be
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: worth it. Down if it all works out and they
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: start selling a product or get acquired, it may not
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: be worth what you needed it to be for your NPV.
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: So two actually distinct threats posed by that. If that
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: is that a fair way to say.
• 18:43
  Speaker 2: Exactly right, John, you know you've got it, And that's
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: the that's not appreciated well by policymakers and members of Congress.
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: That's just not appreciated, and our job is to do
• 18:54
  Speaker 2: a good job of communicating that well.
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: I think this conversation here today, we're going to make
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: sure it gets in front of a handful of them.
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: I want to do a quick round, Robin. You've been
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: very generous with your time. Another one you've spoken out
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: on is the importance of intellectual property. We're in a
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: very strange world of intellectual property proposals, including a concept
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: of percentages of equity or patent fees or others coming
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: out of our Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik. These seem a
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: little far flung and not fully baked, not fully baked,
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: I'll just say it. But if they were put in place,
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: what are the consequences of weakening IP or increasing patent
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: equity or patent fees? How do you see those playing
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: out or having consequence?
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: I think those are incredibly bad ideas, and let me
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: give you a few reasons for that. One is, in
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: order to raise capital, investors need certainty, and they need
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: certainty on your intellectual property because if you can, if
• 20:04
  Speaker 2: you can just take someone's intellectual property away prematurely, then
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: the value of my investment in creating that intellectual property
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: gets reduced dramatically, And why would I do that. Secondly,
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: I think that I've seen instances where people have a
• 20:25
  Speaker 2: really interesting product concept, the medicine concept, but there's no
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: intellectual property protection for that. And it may be a
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: very good medicine. Guess what happens. No one gets that
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: medicine because it never gets developed, even though it should.
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: But there's nobody to step in when you can't make
• 20:43
  Speaker 2: any money on selling a medicine because there's no protection
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: for it. Thirdly, we pay patent fees all the time.
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: It's a well established regime and it's predictable and We
• 20:56
  Speaker 2: know what we pay in the United States, we know
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: what we pay in Europe, we know what we Payepan.
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: All of that is well understood. But to try and
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: extort a company because it's got a patent that could
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: be valuable someday is just ridiculous. I mean, Sutro was
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: founded in nineteen eighty three and so some of our
• 21:18
  Speaker 2: patents go way back then, and you know, to be
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: charging exorbitant thees on patents that were foundational to the
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: company is just a recipe for disaster and a recipe
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: to blow up the whole industry. So, you know, I
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: think half baked is the best way you can characterize
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: those those ideas, and I think they're just not worthy
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: of real consideration.
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: Well, price controls IP concerning like to leave on a
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: positive note, you get the magic wand of policymaking. Is
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: there a change at FDA, at CMS in the process.
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: More broadly, is there something you wish could change that
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: would speed up development or increase access? What would you
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: do proactively to sort of benefit this space.
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: You know, I'm going to say that I wish I
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: had fifty magic wands because there's so many things to
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: point the magic wand at the pill penalty for example,
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: as one. But let me tell you what I think
• 22:26
  Speaker 2: we need to make certain of and that really has
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: to do with FDA. Hey, we need consistent policy and
• 22:34
  Speaker 2: a review procedures at FDA, and when you change the
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: team there in dramatic ways, consistency is at risk. And
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: if you don't know what the game is going to
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: be when you get in front of a regulatory body,
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: you're very much playing with fire and not giving investors
• 22:57
  Speaker 2: and not giving your medicine a full opportunity to achieve
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: its regulatory approval if it's successful in development. I think
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: the other thing that the agency has started to do
• 23:09
  Speaker 2: and then backtracked on was understand that there should be
• 23:13
  Speaker 2: pathways for accelerated approval under certain circumstances, and that was
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: a really foundational change in the way FDA gave companies
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: an opportunity to develop cancer medicines and other medicines. But
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: I see backtracking on that, and I see that as
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: dangerous because a number of medicines are desperately needed by patients,
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: and if we can use surrogate endpoints as a way
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: to establish the benefit and the safety of the medicine,
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: then I think that's a reasonable basis to give the
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: company an opportunity to sell that medicine and allow for
• 23:51
  Speaker 2: continued clinical development of it to establish a more robust
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: data set cancer trials, which rely on overall survival at
• 24:04
  Speaker 2: the end of the day, I take a long time
• 24:06
  Speaker 2: to read out. Now, if you've got good surrogates that
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: suggest the patient is benefiting and that their disease is
• 24:12
  Speaker 2: under control, why wouldn't we want to give that medicine
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: available to patients while we take the time to understand
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: the long term benefit of that. Now, not every medicine
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: is going to pan out, and what happens in that
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: instance is the medicine then gets pulled or additional work
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: needs to be done before that medicine can really be
• 24:30
  Speaker 2: more broadly available. So I think if FDA could really
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: embrace the accelerated approval process and understand that more development
• 24:39
  Speaker 2: work will be necessary, and not only do it in cancer,
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: but for other diseases as well, because we're better able
• 24:44
  Speaker 2: to assess and understand surget endpoints, I think that would
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: be a great benefit to the industry and a great
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: benefit to patients. You know what I mean.
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: Cheat I said that was the last one. But I
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: just want to go back to something you said on IP.
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: You know, I'm curious what you think of this. A
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: lot of anti IP advocates point out the occasional medicine
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: from one hundred years ago that wasn't patented or the
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: patent was given away, and that's what we should be
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: doing when we stumble across these things. I think we
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: need to offer some clarity, and so I'm curious how
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: you react to this statement. It still costs a billion
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: or two billion dollars because the FDA takes long, you
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: have to do these trials, and that if the IP
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: isn't around, if we gave it away to society. We
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: listen to some of these provocateurs and say, you know what,
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: we found something interesting. We're going to give it away.
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: Do you think that drug would ever get developed?
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: No, the answer is it would not. But let me
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: just go back and make sure people understand when I
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: get a patent that gives me the exclusive right to
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: make that medicine for a defined period of time when
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: that period of time run, and that's not forever. When
• 26:01
  Speaker 2: that period of time runs, any other company can use
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: the understanding that was demonstrated in that patent to make
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: a competitive molecule. That's what the whole generics industry and
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: biosimilar industry are based on. So our drugs do effectively
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: go out of our control and to a lower cost
• 26:22
  Speaker 2: developer after the patent period runs. But if you knew
• 26:27
  Speaker 2: from the day you got your medicine approved that a
• 26:30
  Speaker 2: generic company could come in and make that medicine and
• 26:33
  Speaker 2: undercut you without having put in the investment to develop
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: that medicine, to manufacture that medicine, no one would invest
• 26:42
  Speaker 2: in medicines under those circumstances. It's just an untenable situation. Well,
• 26:47
  Speaker 2: we'll have to.
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: Do our job of steering policy makers to the good
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: ideas you had here, maybe shelves some of their half
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: baked ideas. Bill. I am so grateful of the time
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: that you took away. You have such a crew worth
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: of experience that we've leaned into for this episode. Thanks
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: again for joining us.
• 27:05
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Jona. It's a pleasure to be here and
• 27:07
  Speaker 2: keep up the good fight.
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: That's all for this week's episode of the Making Medicine Podcast.
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: A special thank you to Bill Newell again for joining
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: us today and providing some incredible insights for our listeners
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: have a thought or question about today's topics, drop a
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: comment and we'll feature it in next week's episode. Speaking
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: of next week, Making Medicine is Going Global, we'll sit
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: down in Tokyo with some of the leading life science
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: investors after they spend a week with us visiting leaders
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: of the ecosystem in Japan. You'll not want to miss
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: this one, so don't forget to subscribe on YouTube, follow
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: us on LinkedIn, X and Instagram using the links in
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: the description. Thanks for listening, Thanks to Bill, and as always,
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: keep innovating.