BioFIT 2018 conference programme is tailored to fit the expectations of its audience, whose sharp minds evolve in the fast-paced and dynamic Life Sciences sector. Built around 12 sessions, 2 workshops and 1 plenary session, the 2018 programme is rooted in three custom-made tracks, addressing the right funding sources for early-stage innovation, best practices in academia-industry R&D collaborations, and nurturing early-stage assets.
BioFIT 2018 features a constantly renewed conference programme, with 3 tracks to match the interests of every player in the sector.
Academia-industry R&D collaborations, early-stage funding sources, and licensing early-stage assets are 2018 guiding principle.
Discover BioFIT 2018 preliminary conference programme:
The seed investment actors can be seen as traditionally geographically anchored, but now early-stage investors tend to invest in more diverse geographic areas. Where does the money come from? How far is this evolution towards more global funds going? How fast is it going in the investment community? Will it make the investors more willing to take risks, will it change the risk landscape? Isn’t there an ill-balance today between the geographical origin of investment capabilities and the areas that are crawling with projects needing equity investment?
Companies are now using machine learning in highly specific ways to streamline and improve many day-to-day biomedical research tasks. The use of AI has shifted from generalist tasks to purpose-built tools with numerous applications to speed up drug discovery at all the different research stages. The panel will address some of the uses of AI, ultimately potentially cutting R&D costs by aggregating and synthesising information, repurposing existing drugs, generating and validating novel drug candidates, designing drugs and preclinical experiments, etc.
We will review potential partnerships that are prime examples of the collaborations that are occurring between the human and animal health drug development industries, to the benefit of all patients. Some of these research collaborations have led to forthcoming licensing agreements, and there is a strong belief that product development collaborations between the human and animal healthcare industries are key to meeting the unique challenges in both markets.
Beyond sharing physical means, this session focuses on deliberate strategies of life sciences industry and the academic world to pool R&D resources to address common questions and reach common goals through shared R&D strategies and aligned incentives. We will review some partnerships that have chosen to take a leap forward and collaborate together on scientific projects that they couldn’t do on their own.
What are the consequences and benefits of adding patient organisations to existing alliances? How do these collaborations work? How do they create value for the whole life sciences community? What is the actual influence on patients of public/private partnerships? What is the actual involvement of patient organisation in financing the collaborations?
When addressing the contractual relationships between a university and its spin-off: What are the issues as far as equity, royalties, and research income are concerned? How do VCs, academic institutions, spin-off management, and human resources management of the university interact? What are the main conflicts of interest that can arise from people holding dual positions, in the university and in the start-up? There are many different patterns among academic institutions and TTOs: Privileging short-term income through upfront payments, acting as a long-term partner through shareholder status in the spin-off. There is certainly not a single recipe for success...
What are the latest group actions to have been jointly taken by the industry, academic institutions, equity investors, and governmental bodies that take academic-origin assets as early as possible and inject the proper amount of money into them, in order to get the project licensed at the right moment and at the safest possible stage?
Many universities and countries have created tech transfer financing tools which aim at partly de-risking assets of academic origin and commercializing them. Should investors in those financing tools be the least demanding and the most patient to make such tech transfer tools succeed in the long run?
Bringing new therapies to treat rare diseases requires more than scientific innovation. Innovation in business models and incubation financing is critical as the need to find ways to cost effectively develop new medication becomes increasingly important. Initiatives like collaboration centres and rare disease centres try to take the best of both worlds by implementing multidimensional approaches to address the needs of the rare disease community. In addition to conducting their own research, collaborative models that feature pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, start-ups, and patient groups are now being put in place.
All of these non-dilutive financing sources are becoming increasingly numerous thanks both to the emergence of interest expressed by many trusts and foundations in financing innovative start-ups and to the many governmental schemes that are devoted to financing the first steps of biotech start-ups. How do these sources of revenue lead to real leverage effect or create constraints for the companies? What types of constraints do they expose biotech entrepreneurs to?
Decisions taken at the very initial stage have major consequences for the future development of start-ups with major pitfalls to be avoided. Is it crucial to picture the exit strategy as soon as the company has been created? The session relies on its panellists’ stories to go over different approaches to IPO and exits for start-ups.
Investment in immunotherapy in 2018 is still attractive and sought out; what is its growth potential after several years of being an investment blockbuster? What have been the 2018 investment successes in immunotherapy? Will immunotherapy disrupt the oncology market? Are we at the growth, maturity, or saturation stage when we talk about investing in immunotherapy?
The seed investment market is comprised of players with a really varied degree of specialisation, from totally agnostic players involved in multiple industries, to pure players focusing on specific therapeutic areas. Do most specialised funds attract the more generalist types in the financing rounds? What is the importance of the amount of seed investment today for cross-industry funds, 100% healthcare-oriented funds, and pure players in the biotech industry, respectively?