• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

An Interview with Tristan Edwards of Life Biosciences


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 reason

  • Guardian Reason
  • 1,101 posts
  • 255
  • Location:US

Posted 25 September 2019 - 10:22 AM


Alongside Juvenescence, Life Biosciences is one of the first large investment concerns wholly dedicated to the growing longevity industry. The Life Biosciences principals take the approach of providing the extensive supporting infrastructure needed to wrap a company around a senior scientist in the field of aging research, and then guide their work towards commercialization. Most scientists have very little interest in founding a company, and in any case lack the skills needed to do so. This approach of providing an environment that operates in much the same way as academia from the perspective of the researcher, in which the business side of things is handled, is a good way to accelerate progress in a field that presently lacks a sufficiently large population of entrepreneurs for companies to emerge naturally at a good pace.

How far along is longevity in becoming a defined category for investors? Put it on a scale of 0-10 for us. If fintech has developed to a nine or a ten, where would you score longevity?

From an investment perspective I would say it's a one or a two. But I believe that will change very quickly. I think the scale will go from a two to an eight in the next four to five years. Like the Internet of Things, or Artificial Intelligence before it, in the next few years I can't imagine a single person on the planet not being aware of the ability to extend lifespan and healthspan, both as an industry and as a benefit to humankind.

So, a major shift in our thinking is on the way?

In 1903, the Wright brothers defied expectation and took their first flight. We have the photo of this on our office wall, to remind us of who we are. The idea of humans being able to fly back then was crazy; most people were saying it couldn't be done. Yet after they left the earth's gravity, it didn't take mankind years to accept it. We immediately forgot that it was crazy. All we needed was proof that it could be done, and we never looked back. That's exactly where we are with longevity sciences. Longevity research has been evolving as a legitimate science for many years. But I think we are at the cusp of dramatic change. We'll see more and more bright young minds focusing on longevity, and we will soon treat aging. Eventually, we're talking about adding another 20 - 30 years to the average lifespan with none of the diseases of aging: Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, etc. In other words, not only expanding lifespan but what we call "healthspan," the period during which the individual can live a healthy, productive life.

Does all this development mean big institutional investors will soon be paying attention?

Plenty already are. The science, however, has to build to a point where the rounds are large enough for them to get involved. Once you start raising $100m to $200m rounds, they'll start paying real attention and investing. The rounds must be large enough for the mandates to allow and value checks must be in place in new areas; this can be tough to do. As the science progresses, we see the investment interest ramping up, with bigger contributors stepping in. A lot also depends on how quickly some institutions learn to adapt. By "adapt" I mean simply this: There's a long-held understanding that Big Pharma relies on illness for profits. But if they reframe their mission as being in the healthspan business, then the longevity revolution is valuable for them. It's my hope that Pharma embraces this change as a wonderful and necessary way for them to evolve their business in a much more effective way.

Link: https://www.longevit...ristan-edwards/


View the full article at FightAging

#2 Engadin

  • Guest
  • 198 posts
  • 580
  • Location:Madrid
  • NO

Posted 26 September 2019 - 05:05 PM

.

 

 

 

 

By "adapt" I mean simply this: There's a long-held understanding that Big Pharma relies on illness for profits. But if they reframe their mission as being in the healthspan business, then the longevity revolution is valuable for them. It's my hope that Pharma embraces this change as a wonderful and necessary way for them to evolve their business in a much more effective way.

 

 

 

 

S O U R C E :    ArsTechnica

 

 

 

“Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” Goldman Sachs analysts ask

 

 

In an 2018 April 10 report for biotech clients, Goldman Sachs analysts noted that one-shot cures for diseases are not great for business as they're bad for longterm profits. The investment banks' report, titled "The Genome Revolution," asks clients: "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" The answer may be "no," according to follow-up information provided. Slashdot reader tomhath shares the report from Ars Technica:Analyst Salveen Richter and colleagues laid it out: "The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically engineered cell therapy, and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies... While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow." 

For a real-world example, they pointed to Gilead Sciences, which markets treatments for hepatitis C that have cure rates exceeding 90 percent. In 2015, the company's hepatitis C treatment sales peaked at $12.5 billion. But as more people were cured and there were fewer infected individuals to spread the disease, sales began to languish. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate that the treatments will bring in less than $4 billion this year. [Gilead]'s rapid rise and fall of its hepatitis C franchise highlights one of the dynamics of an effective drug that permanently cures a disease, resulting in a gradual exhaustion of the prevalent pool of patients," the analysts wrote. The report noted that diseases such as common cancers -- where the "incident pool remains stable" -- are less risky for business.

 

 

 

 

A N O T H E R   S O U R C E :   CNBC

 

 

 

 

.

 

 


Edited by Engadin, 26 September 2019 - 05:20 PM.


Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users