Mission-Driven Dementia Funding with DDF's Jonathan Behr

When it's time to map out your clinical course , let clinicalleadercom help , and if optimizing outsourcing decisions is what you're after , check out outsourcepharmacom . We're Life Science Connect and we're here to help . Mission-driven venture capital has quickly become an innovative financial incubation arena for biotech startups .

And multiple indications , but perhaps none as bustling as cognitive disorders . More than 55 million people globally are afflicted with dementia and that figure is expected to nearly double over the next 20 years and continue to at least double every 20 years thereafter the next 20 years , and continue to at least double every 20 years thereafter .

It's a huge unmet medical need and the biotech industry is responding . Many projections for the dementia therapeutics market soar past $30 billion by 2030 . Dementia-specific venture firms , with their deep understanding of the science and markets , are proving a key player in this landscape . I'm Matt Pillar .

This is the Business of Biotech , and my guest on today's show is a venture veteran . Understanding of the science and markets are proving a key player in this landscape . I'm Matt Pillar .

This is the Business of Biotech , and my guest on today's show is a venture veteran who , for the past several years , has been fully committed to the mission-driven venture model in a space that's ripe for biotech innovation . Dr Jonathan Behr made his foray into venture philanthropy as the first managing director of the JDRF T1D Fund .

Astute listeners might recall that Katie Elliott , the current managing director at the JDRF T1D Fund was my guest on episode 80 of the podcast , but in 2019 , john became a partner at the Dementia Discovery Fund , the world's largest family of specialized venture capital funds that invest exclusively in companies developing or enabling novel therapeutics for dementia .

John's venture creation chops are solid . He was previously a principal at Pure Tech Ventures and vice president of New Ventures for Enlight Biosciences , and he's co-founded and served on the boards of dozens of biotechs . But John's not just another VC in a nice jacket , with an MIT PhD in biological engineering to his credit .

He's advantaged by a pretty comprehensive understanding of what's going on in the lab , and I'm thrilled for the opportunity to talk with him today . John , welcome to the show . Thank you for the opportunity to talk with him today . John , welcome to the show .

You have a PhD in biological engineering from MIT . But if I look at your sort of career trajectory , research seems like it was sort of a brief stop on that trajectory . So I'm curious about the genesis of your interest in the business side of biotech .

So I had originally actually enrolled in undergrad as a physics major , realized nobody had discovered anything really new in decades , if not centuries , right in physics and that the cutting edge of science a lot of it was biotechnology , and so got really excited about the field and the space and the ability to opportunity to learn new things , the feel in the space

and the ability to opportunity to learn new things . Enrolled at MIT and the biological engineering PhD program , because of the broader ecosystem that I would be exposed to and the knowledge that MIT was an entrepreneurial institution .

The faculty members I was working with were translationally minded and there'd be an opportunity to have an impact beyond basic research , and so I was thinking about what my next steps would be and I had the opportunity to consult to a venture firm , consult to Pure Tech , on due diligence for various new projects while I was finishing my PhD and really began to

understand the opportunity that presented to have a portfolio of projects and potential investments and new companies that I could be involved in . That would be both intellectually exciting because of the diversity , but also an opportunity to have a broader impact than if I had spent my career focused on one individual you know more academic project .

So so it was really exciting to me from that perspective and transitioned immediately when I you know , after I defended my , my thesis , into a , into a venture and venture creation career .

first real questions we ask are around the person's vocabulary and commitment to translation . We want to know if somebody is running towards company creation , running towards venture capital , running towards translation , or whether they're running away from the bench .

And so having for me personally , having understood for some time that I was interested in other paths and taking the time to learn the fundamentals right of corporate finance or entrepreneurship or the business or law behind biotechnology , was really important so that I had that foundation to learn more quickly once I got into the business side .

Full-time and venture is , as I mentioned .

I think really it's a portfolio business , right , you need to learn quickly and gain knowledge in many different spaces , right , and you're never going to be the world's expert in any individual thing , but you need to be able to work with the world's experts in those spaces to not only identify the best investments but then also to be a good board member and a

good investor and to be able to add value and help guide those companies to be successful add value and help guide those companies to be successful .

If someone is seeking to run away from the bench , many of these conversations kind of start there right , like I just couldn't see myself spending another week , month , year in the lab . What are some of the other alternatives that you might suggest to folks who maybe aren't running towards venture but feel the need to run away from the batch ?

I think most people don't even understand what career opportunities are out there if they've come through an academic trajectory right . Nobody's applying to college when they're 16 , 17 , saying I want to be a venture capitalist , right . Unless you happen to have somebody in the family you probably don't even know that job exists , right ?

I mean , you're just a few years past saying I want to be a fireman . So you know , I think consulting is certainly an opportunity , but I think really practical experience broadly and just understanding what's out there is really important .

I think many universities have very good biotechnology clubs , right , or other sort of extracurricular venues where you can get exposure to what other jobs exist , whether it be corporate strategy or business development or search and evaluation or venture capital or , you know , public stock analysis or management consulting , right ?

You know there's so many jobs that it's hard to understand unless you've had some practical exposures . So I think any practical exposure is really helpful if you can do that , you know , as an intern or through some other avenue .

You were a co-founder of Vedanta Biosciences that Bernat heads up . You mentioned earlier Lisa Deschamps at Aviano Biosciences . This is another one of your startups . What do you think at this stage in your career as a venture capitalist , what do you consider the advantage of that breadth of experience that you've embraced ?

Like I said , as opposed to being a specialist Because I've talked to plenty of people who are specialists too they plug into a specific indication or a specific therapeutic area and stay there for a long , long time .

Right , I'm not a specialist by modality , or , you know , I have at times been a specialist in different therapeutic areas , right , or different areas of science specialist in different therapeutic areas , right , or different areas of science .

Um , and , and I think you know , most venture investors will rattle off very similar criteria of what they look for in a good company . Um , one is certainly a management team that you can believe in and a solid development plan . Uh , and I think that takes repetition right and there's some pattern recognition .

And it's not just the deals you do , it's the deals you see and that you don't do , having the longevity in a role to see which of those succeed and fail and why . It's also working with other really great people in various roles that you can learn from .

So I do think I benefited to a certain extent from having had the opportunity to move between various managers and roles where I could learn from different people and learn different experiences .

But at this point , certainly for SV and for the Dementia Discovery Fund , I do think that I have some specialization in early stage investing right Company creation , company building , seed stage investing , series A , investing younger , smaller companies that still need to build capabilities , build data packages and have very different problems or challenges , I should say ,

than companies that at later stages of development have specialty in several therapeutic areas but , more importantly , perhaps behind that certain areas of biology , certain mechanisms , some of which overlap between type 1 diabetes and dementia , for example , but at the end of the day I think , reflecting on the podcast you did with Katie or even the podcast you did with

ADDF I think many venture investors right what we look for is we're looking for problems to solve right . We're looking for ways you can make impact , because that's how you get rewarded .

At BDF , we believe that the financial returns correlate with impact , so we're seeking to make impact first , and so I do think that being able to identify those types of problems and opportunities is also something that is an important skill when you're doing early stage investing .

I think an important differentiator between that and the dementia scary fund is the dementia scary fund is actually a for-profit venture fund that's structured quite similarly to any other um non uhprofit venture fund . That's structured quite similarly to any other non-strategic venture fund .

But the DDF was created for impact and many of our limited partners are focused on impact , and so we have two sets of criteria that we need to satisfy .

We need to satisfy our impact criteria , but then we also need to satisfy the financial return criteria and we return capital back to our limited partners , who can choose to reinvest in the DDF or reinvest in other mission-related activities , or they can choose to reinvest that capital elsewhere . So we don't call ourselves a venture philanthropy fund per se .

So if you ask the question you asked me a little differently , was the JDRF T1D fund my first exposure to venture philanthropy ? I'd say yes , but it wasn't my first exposure to strategic investing or impact focused investing . So really , even going back to PureTech , you mentioned Enlight . Biosciences is one of my experiences .

Enlight was an affiliated investment vehicle , an investment vehicle created by PureTech , where all the limited partners were pharmaceutical companies , so Mark Pfizer , lilly , johnson Johnson , abbott , astrazeneca , I believe , were all limited partner equivalents at that time , and the mandate there was to invest in enabling technologies that could support drug discovery and

development for any or all of those limited partners who wanted to enjoy the benefits of the technologies that were developed by that vehicle .

Then I moved to Partners Healthcare Innovation , which is now Mass General Brigham Innovation neuroscience on different clinical groups in the hospitals that were generating innovation in neuroscience and creating companies there and focusing on licensing and business development around higher value opportunities .

So again , a constrained opportunity set where we were looking to maximize impact and benefit and then move to the T1D fund and then SV in 2019 .

That includes frontotemporal dementia and ALS . It includes Huntington's disease dementia , so it is broader than Alzheimer's disease , although we do have a focus on Alzheimer's disease . So it started with an interest in that problem and then a recognition that DDF was the first largest and leading fund family focused on dementia and largest by capital committed .

As I've been interested in my entire career and impact and translation and making a difference , I didn't think there was another opportunity like it , just given the scale and scope and potential of DDS . And then , finally , I was really excited to join SVA as a management company . I was really excited to join SVA as a management company .

So SVA is a management company with a 30 year history to celebrate his 30th anniversary last summer . It's five fun families and a really excellent group of people to work with and learn from and tackle this problem . So many reasons to join DDF .

Not that I necessarily want to set you up to give yourself all sorts of credit for growth of today , not that I necessarily want to set you up to give yourself all sorts of credits for growth . I'm just curious about sort of where we've been and where we are now .

So ddf was originally conceived and then created all the way back in 2015 , and it came out of a g8 meeting focused on the dementia health crisis , and this really is a global health crisis .

It's been recognized as such by the who and by the cdc because of the demographic changes , the otherwise healthy aging population and the fact that we don't have disease-modifying drugs . So you have this rapidly increasing number of people who suffer from dementias , and it's obviously a human tragedy , but also a huge burden on the healthcare system .

And so there was actually a Harvard Business Review case study written on the formation of DDF , but fundamentally , this need was recognized .

There was a belief that this was an area that was underinvested historically by not just venture capitalists but also by pharmaceutical companies , and that all the capital that was in the system was being focused on a few narrow approaches to try to solve the Alzheimer's disease and other dementia problems .

And so DDF was created as a fund , and a first amount of capital was committed by strategic limited partners before a manager was even selected to manage the fund , and then there was a solicitation process and SV was chosen . So , really , dds started as an idea , a concept , a tool to solve a problem . Sv then tripled the size of the fund .

There was a final close in 2018, . Sv then tripled the size of the fund . There was a final close in 2018 and then had to continue to build a bespoke investment team , continue to develop and refine the investment strategy , build a portfolio of companies that were exciting and then begin to return capital to investors .

And so that puts us where we are today , where we're investing out of our second fund . We've had successful exits .

We have a team of incredible world-class investors scientist investors , venture partners who bring experience from former heads of R&D or neuroscience R&D at major pharma companies to entrepreneurs and other experts , and we think we have the momentum and the foundation that continue to move forward and invest in companies that are developing transformational medicines for dementia

and Alzheimer's disease and and and the other medical needs that I already referenced , while returning capital to our investors to continue to redeploy .

So where we always start is looking for therapeutic hypotheses that we believe will be transformational if we can execute , enabling data set , the ability to replicate the work , the ability to drug the target , and then again layering on the other criteria that all venture capitalists should be looking for , which are more related to execution Can you actually deliver the

solution based on that science ? But fundamentally , we're science first . We think that if we can develop a drug , it will have an investment return . I think , in addition to the science , we're building on the expertise of a specialty fund .

So the advantage of being focused is that we can build relationships , internal expertise , expertise , knowledge bases that are specifically relevant so that we can not only find the best opportunities but also actively manage them to give them the highest likelihood of success , success .

So , starting with the science , deploying this specific expertise that we can develop as a specialty fund . I think a third pillar of our strategy is precision medicine , and that's something that has been important across all of the SV managed life science funds , not just the dementia fund .

So we need to be able to find the right patients and demonstrate the effects of drugs more quickly than waiting for symptomatic endpoints , and that's something that I think the field learned from other areas but is even more important in CNS disorders , where historically , many failures were based on the fact that the wrong patients were being treated and you couldn't

get an early read on efficacy . So I think precision medicine is specifically important for investing in dementia . And then the last two aspects , I think , of our strategy that are important are company creation and early investment . Important are company creation and early investment .

That's important as an impact investor because it's the most direct evidence of additionality . If not for the SV team , the DDF team , these companies would not exist , these approaches would not exist .

It also ensures that we have really quality deal flow and opportunities to deploy capital , because we're creating them ourselves and we have the proprietary economics and control that comes along with creating those companies ourselves . And then , finally , diversification .

So that word , I think , might be surprising if we're talking about a specialty fund , but we think it's even more important when you're talking about a specialty fund .

So we intentionally think about how we can diversify across the portfolio , invest in multiple mechanisms , invest in multiple dementias , invest in multiple modalities , but also how we can have each company be internally diversified so that those companies don't sink or swim on a single event or , more importantly , on a single event that might be out of their control in

the macroeconomic or macro scientific environment .

I mean , as I mentioned , I mean you've got some pretty good experience academically and in research there , but what does the actual mechanism look like when it comes time to assess a potential company's scientific foundation ?

So each of the partners focused on DDF and each of the non-partner investment team members have a PhD , so we can make a first triage of opportunities and select those that we think are worth investing . More human resources to continue to evaluate , and beyond that , we have many other tools . So I mentioned the venture partners and advisors .

So , internal to DDF , we signed a group of venture partners and advisors , scientific advisors who we think represent not only world-class expertise but a breadth of expertise . So I mentioned some of the expertise .

But , for example , tetsu Maruyama , who's a venture partner for DDF , was the former executive director of the ADDI , also former head of drug discovery at Takeda . We have Jim Summers , who is the former vice president and head of global neuroscience research at Appy . We have Wynn Hughes , who is former VP and head of CNS growth strategy at IQVIA .

Or Tim Harris , who is the former EVP and RD at BioPherative or SVP at Precision Medicine at Biogen , and these are just some of the venture partners that we call on and who play a role in all of our deal teams and all of our company creation efforts .

And then , outside of the , we're in the next sort of concentric circle of expertise that we can draw upon in the next stage in our process .

We have the expertise we can draw upon from our various partners , and so those partners include our limited partners , and we have a standing scientific advisory board that includes representatives from many of our strategic limited partners but also our non-limited partners , so our foundation partners .

So we work very closely with many of the foundations in the space , whether they be research foundations or patient advocacy foundations , like the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation , adds or Art Incidents UK , or Michael J Fox or Alzheimer's Research UK , target , als , just to name a few .

I don't want to answer for you , but the first thing that pops into my head is staffing talent . Right , you've got a translatable idea , but maybe you don't have the infrastructure from a human resources perspective right off the bat to make that move . So that would be one . But you tell me what is the riskiest or most challenging aspect of that model ?

I think certainly you'll hear venture capitalists at panels saying management is the most important and the most critical , because a good management team can pivot away from a failing technology or hypothesis to a new opportunity , right and potentially be successful , and I think there's validity to that .

I also think what you said is you can't succeed without good talent , whether that be academic founders , entrepreneurs or people you bring to the table and part of our company creation model , our venture partners .

Every company that we've created or built as part of DDF has had a venture partner , a DDF venture partner affiliated with that company creation or build effort , either as a founder or as an initial member of the management team . So we do bring expertise to bear when we're doing a company build . So I do agree with that .

But you do need to have again , especially for a science first fund , you do need to have a solid scientific hypothesis to build upon and that could turn out again to fail later and you might be able to pivot . But we're not going to launch a company unless we can find both . We do have our own processes for building companies .

We do , for example , have meetings that SV calls prepared minds meetings , which are analogous to scientific advisory board meetings before you've even started the company , where we bring in potential founders , potential co-founders , advisors and brainstorm around key opportunities and issues in advance , often , of creating a company . So sometimes the people can come first .

But I think all of these challenges are important and I wouldn't say one is harder than the others .

Uh , in terms of approvals even , yeah , yeah , give it , given the way that that's shaping up , that has as ddf sort of ascribed to any specific modalities or mechanisms .

There certainly have been cell therapy companies within the broader SV biotech portfolio . At the same time , I think patients have preferences , right , and certain indications and certain unmet medical needs have best fits .

So in many or most cases , you know , patients prefer to take a tablet and an injection right , and the industry would prefer a scalable small molecule manufacturing to a cell therapy manufacturing . So I do think that there's certain types of modalities that are an easier sell .

But at the same time , where we're starting with is that I might need the right solution and then the right tool to enable that solution .

Give us a sense for how the actual investment vehicle works .

And then there's that building and growth stage where we're actively managing these investments , we're syndicating them , bringing in additional capital , helping the into some set of cookie cutter criteria . But what we're looking for is an opportunity to create value quickly . As you mentioned .

Certainly company creation is riskier than investing in later stage opportunities , certainly takes a lot more time and effort than evaluating an existing company for a potential investment , and so we need to ensure that that additional risk and effort is balanced by the reward on both the impact side as well as the investment side .

So we need that opportunity to say we can build value .

Here are some explicit milestones , whether they be technology development , drug R&D milestones , but here are some specific milestones that we can hit with our initial investment and efforts that are going to validate the investment thesis attract that additional capital and attract that additional capital at a valuation that reflects the contributions of that founding team and

their founding capital .

You use the word hunt . I mean there's company creation efforts that we undertake because we've recognized an opportunity or need , right , and I mentioned those prepared minds as a mechanism .

But we'll do landscaping analyses where we say here's an area of emerging science that we see overlapping with commercial white space , an unmet medical need , and let's expend our energies to try to see if there's something here and a solution to create . So we have those two ends of the spectrum .

And then everything in between , right From the sort of referred opportunities , right that come from trusted partners , you know , to companies that are in the process of being built right Already by an entrepreneur that we're introduced to or maybe we've already known where we can add additional value and so we're willing to lean in and share risk and invest early or

invest alone and put in that sweat equity ourselves as well for those opportunities that we think are really exciting and , again , that could be transformational , and I don't use that word lightly .

So I'm curious about how sort of that roller coaster ride affects day-to-day at DDF . How is that ? You know recent approvals , failures , public and patient perceptions ? How do those inform what DDF is doing and where it goes next ?

You know , we look , we did a you know , an internal analysis and found that , if you're only looking at oncology drugs since the year 2000 , there were well over 500 new oncology drugs approved by the FDA .

At the same time , there had only ever been nine Alzheimer's drugs approved and the first two disease-modifying drugs were just approved in the last several years . So you had this landscape where there was pessimism , perhaps by many , about the ability to successfully develop drugs for Alzheimer's disease or other dementias .

And then you have these transformational events like the first approval of anti-amyloid drugs and Alzheimer's disease-modifying drugs .

Or you ask questions about modalities , the first approval of antisensorygamyliotide drugs in the CNS right for SMA , or the first gene therapies for CNS diseases , which give either the pharmaceutical companies or the investors or other players in the ecosystem confidence that we understand these diseases well enough to deliver drugs .

We understand clinical development well enough to develop drugs and that the regulatory agencies have established pathways to get these drugs approved , sometimes more lenient pathways than were expected , as was the case with anti-amyloid drugs or some of the ALS approvals so we certainly can react to that . At the same time , venture is a long life cycle business .

Biotechnology companies are long life cycle businesses . You know it takes many years to develop a drug . So we need to balance these individual events which might be catalytic for investment interest , the ability to raise follow-up , financing , public market interests you know , the ability to take a company public or not're not going to access that capital .

We need to balance these macro factors with these longer-term considerations like what are the patient needs , what other drugs are in the pipeline , even if they're not in late stage clinical trials or approved , so we can ensure that we're creating a longitudinal plan for each of these companies , each of these investments that we believe can be individually successful .

And we think there's a lot of room again because the white space we talked about for many companies to be successful and from an impact perspective , we wish every company is going to be successful , not just the ones that we're investing in as well .

well-established trends , right , you mentioned that there's been progress in the regulatory pathway aspect of CNS disorder . I guess color that in a little bit like where , where do you , yeah , where do , where do you see that that sort of pathway revealing itself ?

Um , and how how might that play into not just EDF strategy but but any CNS disorder company's regulatory strategy ?

And where we have specific examples in dementias where drugs have gotten approved with very different data packages than that historical norm . I can start the example certainly with aducanumab , which was the first anti-amyloid drug that was approved . That was really one successful phase three drug that was approved . That was really one successful phase three .

And then a second pivotal study that was more questionable , both in terms of how it was concluded and what the resulting data package was . Or going to the Emlex drug that was recently withdrawn , where it was an accelerated approval based on a single study .

And so these examples were showing that at least in the United States , the FDA was recognizing the unmet medical need , the burden on patients , and was willing to consider alternative beta packages right when they were balancing the patient benefit and the potential risk .

And I think that has been very encouraging for the field because the time and cost to get a drug to the market that works is going to be substantially less than it would have been if you were assuming the original regulatory framework . Now the FDA is continually updating their guidances .

We can't be sure exactly what the path is going to be in the future , and it's certainly going to be drug dependent mechanism dependent disease dependent was just .

These were individually very encouraging events , I think , for companies and investors in the space , yeah , and we hope that many of our companies will get to take advantage of accelerated pathways , either in the us or abroad , to get drugs to patients quicker and and accelerate that impact .

And that sometimes translates to the academics as to what's the fundamental new data point , understanding , insight that suggests that this new drug target or this new approach is going to be the approach to solve this problem that's been facing us for so long and to start a new company or to make an investment in something at a very early stage .

I've used that word transformational so much I'm probably wearing it out , but the approach fundamentally needs to be differentiated in some way from what came before it , right ? So we have a company called Curalis which is focused on ALS . It's developing a small molecule but also antisensory nucleotides and fundamentally is focused on loss of function of TDB43 .

And they were able to develop some fundamental insights around als biology by using human induced chloropotent stem cells . And the insight came from the unsurprising realization that biology was fundamentally different in human cells than in rodent cells , right , or in all these pre-clinical models that had been used historically to study ALS .

And we could point at experiments and data and say this is the reason why this drug target was missed and why we should believe in it now and advance a new drug .

And so I think having stories like that , which relates these new approaches to human biology and relates new approaches to fundamental new insights , right is really helpful in establishing a case for why .

Now , sometimes it's not biology , sometimes it's a new tool , right , you know , crispr , gene editing is invented and all of a sudden there's biology that couldn't have been accessed in a translational way before , that you could now access .

Or again , maybe we'd go back to example I used previously First antisense oligonucleotides approved , and now there's new drug targets that you can get at in a lower risk way that you couldn't have before .

So the insight is not always , or the reason the time is now is not always , some new biology , but we really need to understand what's creating this novelty and this opportunity to make a new investor .

That's enabling us to go after new targets , and they might fit under some broader classifications that people have talked about in the past , like neuroinflammation , but the individual approaches are distinct from some of the more canonical targets that have been in the drug development landscape for decades , and so we have a company , for example , called Arrheni Biosciences

that is entering the clinic with a new antibody to block neuroinflammation . But they're not targeting a cell surface protein or a cytokine . What they're targeting is a cryptic epitope of fibrin that is driving inflammation .

So when there's blood-brain barrier disruption in these neurodegenerative diseases , no-transcript , and so by blocking that with an antibody , we can have therapeutic effects in multiple disease models and neuroinflammation , as well as in eye disease .

So it's a new way to get at a mechanism that we know is important , but this is an approach that hasn't been tried before . We have another company called Nitrace Therapeutics that discovered an entirely new class of enzymes .

So they discovered a class of enzymes that they called nitraces , which are analogous to kinases , but instead of attaching a phosphate group to proteins , they site-specifically attached a nitrate group . This is an entire white space area of biology that had never been studied before .

This modification had been discovered in the past , but it was thought to be just driven by oxidative stress at random . So nitrace now is a a development candidate and it's advancing into the clinic to treat Parkinson's disease .

But there's a potential for an entire pipeline behind it , not just in neurodegenerative disease but in other diseases , as the biology behind these nitrate enzymes is further understood . So I think there's a lot of transformational opportunities .

I mean , I could spend another hour just going through our entire portfolio because we're excited about each opportunity , but I think and I think going beyond that , just to reflect on something that was mentioned in your addf podcast , I think I think we're also interested in continuing to look at the drivers of disease and how they relate to age .

So certainly the largest non-genetic risk factor right , uh ? Or the largest risk factor for sporadic alzheimer's disease , for example , is age .

So you know , we we need to continue to understand various mechanisms , whether it be mitochondrial biology , metabolism or inflammation or other age related mechanisms that we can continue to to target , because they're not just usually relevant for one disease , they're relevant for many diseases .

We can continue the conversation that way , perhaps , of course . Yeah . Yeah , we'll talk about that offline , maybe come up with a roster of DDF portfolio companies that might be interested in coming on the show and sharing their stories .

But I really appreciate the time you spent with us now and if you need another hour , we'll do a part two about that , yeah .

So maybe the part two is in a few years we'll talk about a few more drug approvals . That would be very exciting .

So that's the Dementia Discovery Fund's Dr Jonathan Behr . I'm Matt Pillar and this is the Business of Biotech . We're produced by Life Science Connect , available to hear anywhere you listen to podcasts and available to watch at our brand new video page at bioprocessonlinecom under the Listen and Watch tab . Please do subscribe to our newsletter at bioprocessonlinecom .

Backslash B-O-B In the meantime . Thanks for listening .