BioCentury This Week

Ep. 340 - Obesity Data, Kymera & FDA Survey Results

• BioCentury • Season 6 • Episode 340

Share episode

Obesity readouts continue to be hot for biotech with new top-line data from both injectable and oral therapies pushing the boundaries on efficacy. On the latest BioCentury This Week podcast, BioCentury’s analysts break down last week’s readouts from Eli Lilly, Structure  and Wave Life Sciences, and discuss a deal in the space by Pfizer.
Lilly reported the latest for its triple agonist contender retatrutide for best-in-class weight loss, while strong Phase IIb data put Structure back in the oral GLP-1 race. Meanwhile, Pfizer added an oral GLP-1R agonist via a deal). Structure and Wave parlayed their data into follow-on cash, as did Kymera after posting data for its STAT6 program KT-621 that hints at a new era for degraders in immunology.
The analysts then detailed the results of BioCentury’s industry sentiment survey on FDA, which found that politicization of the agency’s leadership, volatility and uncertainty are casting a long shadow over investor and drug developer sentiment. Finally, they discuss the impact of the congressional stalemate over the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.

View full story: https://www.biocentury.com/article/657880

#ObesityDrugDevelopment #TargetedProteinDegradation #STAT6 #FDARegulation #SBIRFunding

00:00 - Introduction
01:45 - Obesity Data
12:17 - Kymera's Breakthrough
21:45 - FDA Survey Results
29:41 - SBIR Funding Stalemate

To submit a question to BioCentury’s editors, email the BioCentury This Week team at podcasts@biocentury.com.

Reach us by sending a text

[AI-generated transcript.]

Jeff Cranmer:

Obesity stays hot with top line data for both injectable and oral therapies pushing the boundaries on efficacy. Kymera had a readout that hints at a new era for degraders in immunology. And we have the results, BioCentury's FDA survey reflects an industry in distress. Plus critical funding for U.S. biotechs caught in a congressional stalemate. And wowee what a week for Biotech fundraising. We'll discuss all of this and more on the latest BioCentury This Week. I'm Jeff Cranmer, one of the executive editors here at BioCentury. And joining me today on the pod are my colleagues,

Simone Fishburn:

Simone Fishburn, Editor in Chief.

Stephen Hansen:

Stephen Hansen, Director of Biopharma Intelligence.

Selina Koch:

Selina Koch, Executive Editor.

Steve Usdin:

And, Steve Usdin, Washington Editor.

Jeff Cranmer:

Hey, hey, hey, J.P. Morgan 2026, like it or not, it's around the corner in BioCentury's, JPM Guide is here to help you out. Head to jpmguide.com to browse the lineup of sideline events and receptions planned across San Francisco. And if you're hosting something special, you can use the online form to make sure your event appears in our guide. Again, head to jpmguide.com to make the most of JPM 2026 week. Okay. obesity, it's the story that won't quit this year. We had data out of Lilly for the company's triple agonist. it showed best in class weight loss. Structure, got back into the oral GLP-1 race with some strong Phase IIb data. And Pfizer, back in the race and making yet another deal. Stephen is following all of this, Stephen.

Stephen Hansen:

Yeah thanks, Jeff. going on, I guess. Um, but, uh, yeah. So Lily's, uh,

Jeff Cranmer:

We're doing a very racy podcast.

Stephen Hansen:

oh, okay. Uh, so I think we should start with Lily's, uh, Retatrutide, as you said, they're triple agonist, which is a GLP-1, uh, GIP and glucagon, uh, receptor agonist. Sort, I've always been sort of hyped as being the, one that would probably drive the biggest efficacy. And, you know, I, I, I don't think it disappointed from, from that respect. it had already shown, you know, pretty compelling efficacy in Phase II, where it showed about a 22% weight loss at I think it was 40 weeks. And here this is the first Phase III readout. And of note, this wasn't just obese patients, these were obese patients with osteoarthritis. At 68 weeks, there was, as you said, the largest weight loss we've seen thus far, 26.6% placebo adjusted weight loss, in this patient set. I mean 40% of patients achieved more than 30% weight loss, nearly a quarter 35%. And the thing that stuck out to me most was the first time that I've seen a company include in their reasons for treatment discontinuation, as being this a perception of excessive weight loss. That was one I had not, uh, had not come across before. The thing with this program though, is, it drives so much weight loss that, that it really is probably gonna be limited to sort of the highest BMI sort of patients. It doesn't mean that that's a small group, but I'm sure there, there's still a very healthy market for that out there. But this is not probably gonna be as widely used in my opinion as, you know, the Wegovy or the tirzepatide that are out there, which, you know, give anywhere from 15 to 20% weight loss. This is really for the sort of severe obese population and sort of serving that higher, higher population.

Selina Koch:

but Steven, so if you look at the very early data, like the weight loss is pretty quick. With this drug candidate compared to others, right? So couldn't you just like take it for a while, lose the weight? I, I don't know, like why wouldn't you try to go for some big weight loss kind of quickly?

Stephen Hansen:

you could. Um, I, I think first off, we probably wanna spend a bit of time doing some work on how healthy that level of weight loss is for an individual dropping that much that quickly. I don't think we actually have a good sense of what that is. And then on top of it, the adverse event profile for Retatrutide, you know, in comparison to the other ones is a bit worse. I mean, there's more of the nausea, there's more of the vomiting, there's more of that stuff that comes with it.

Simone Fishburn:

Steven, can you talk a little bit about the mechanism, because this is a triple agonist, right? It's GLP-1/GIP/GCG, glucagon receptor, and it doesn't have an amylin component, which is like some of the other ones that you compared it with. So going back to your and Selina's question, or points rather. Do we know anything about why this extra, the triple agonism either weighs in to the side effects or to the rapid weight loss or to Selina's point, like at the end of the day, you've really just added, let's say, an extra agonist, what if you switch to another one, it's not really clear to me how much we know mechanistically about this.

Stephen Hansen:

So, these three, the, GLP-1, GIP and GCGR, as you said, the glucagon. So these are your sort of three traditional sort of incretin mechanisms. There's always been interest in this. I know that, Novo pursued one for a while, but all have the same sort of issue in that they have this gastrointestinal side effect profile for each of them individually. And so the problem is as you stack them, you can potentially have additive side effect profiles that add on that just simply make it intolerable. And that's been a problem for a lot of the previous triple agonists that have been trialed early in clinical trials, is they've just hit thresholds that the companies deemed to be sort of unacceptable from a tolerability perspective. Now, Lilly obviously seems to think that there's a market, even if they have these high levels of adverse events. Which they may be right, but I think it, it just, it's not surprising that we're seeing higher levels with this.

Selina Koch:

So is that the main reason for the increased discontinuations then? At the top you talked about excess weight loss, but.

Stephen Hansen:

So yeah, the main reason I think was still the tolerability. Um, I mean, they did note that in patients with higher BMI's, I think the discontinuation weight rate dropped from 20% for the entire population, but it was down to about 12% at the high dose for like a high BMI population where you kind of cut out that maybe perception of excessive weight loss sort of cohort. I think it's still, I don't think this is gonna be one where I I wouldn't think that this is gonna run away and sort of dominate the obesity market. Cause as I said, and I think we've talked about this podcast before, I think we're transitioning to a point to where we're kind of beyond the, the weight loss Olympics where you have to just get a super high amount of weight loss. And so I think this, this will definitely target a certain section of the obesity population, but I don't think this is gonna be as widely taken up, you know, by everyone as as some of the other ones have.

Simone Fishburn:

So one, one last question because, what you've done very nicely on the chart is sort of color code, the Novo ones, the Lilly ones. It seems that each one has sort of a obviously a portfolio. And it is really such a very, very large patient population that don't you feel there's just room for all of these products.

Stephen Hansen:

Oh yeah, for sure. No, I, I think there is, because I mean, the existing ones are, are pulling in, you know, 20 billion, you know, close to that in revenue a year and we've barely hit 1% of the population, you know, in terms of being able to get into it, 1% of the patient population. So there's, I think there's still a lot of room for other players to come in. And, you know, with that note, I think that's a good lead into the other big data announcement, which was the Structure data for their oral GLP-1 Aleniglipron, which had kind of fallen I think by the wayside a little bit in terms of like companies that investors were talking a lot about. Because they'd had some, maybe less than stellar early data, uh, that had people a bit worried. But they reported Phase IIB data, from a couple trials. One where they dosed up to 120 milligrams that basically showed about 11% placebo adjusted efficacy, which kind of puts it on par with Lilly's Orforglipron, which is the most advanced oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist. But then they had a second study that dosed up higher to 240 milligrams, where they showed up to 15% placebo adjusted weight loss, which is really what people were hoping to see from Orforglipron in their Phase III studies. It looks like they might have a potential advantage of going higher. The big question though is we don't know what the adverse event profile looks like for that higher dose. Now structure has been talking about, titration sort of strategies they can use, starting with a much lower dose and some more slowly titrating patients up to try and sort of you know, optimize that tolerability profile. that's sort of a key outstanding question here for this. But, think it brings structure sort of back into the frame with regard to if there's a pharma company out there that wants to get kinda leapfrog back into the oral GLP-1 race structure looks like a pretty attractive candidate right now.

Jeff Cranmer:

Yeah, and this is the company, uh, launched by Raymond Stevens, he's, still the CEO. He uh sold his prior company Receptos for multi-billion dollars to BMS Celgene, back in the day. So certainly one to watch. Uh, quickly, Stephen, speaking of doing deals, Pfizer again, after they did their big deal, now they've kind of tacked one on out of Fosun.

Stephen Hansen:

Yeah, so they obviously, everyone, you know, we spent many, many minutes talking about their, uh, deal with Metsera. That basically got them into the sort of, largely into the injectable sort of peptide, part of the obesity race. Well, now they've done a deal with Fosun to sort of come back in on, on the small molecule side, so something that would be competitive with the Structure and the lily uh small molecule programs. We don't really know a lot about the molecule. We don't think we've seen any data yet. But obviously, you know, Pfizer has a history here. They had two prior small molecule GLP-1 programs, that ended up being discontinued either for efficacy or for liver issues. Um, so I think they're very much hoping that third time is a charm here and they can, uh, you know, be back in this race, which, you know, as Simone already pointed out, I mean, it's such a massive market. I think there's plenty of room for multiple small molecule programs to be effective here. Whether they're positioned as frontline therapies or as maintenance therapies. Once people come off these injectables, I think there's gonna be a lot of opportunity for these GLP-1 small molecules.

Selina Koch:

What about wave life sciences?

Stephen Hansen:

that was.

Selina Koch:

So I mean, okay, you talk about differentiators, right? And you're like, okay, well just a little bit more weight loss is no longer a differentiator. You want something long acting, you want something oral, or you want muscle sparing.

Stephen Hansen:

Wave definitely showed that. I mean, they have, looks like they have the muscle sparing thing in hand. So I've spoken to a couple investors that thought maybe that was the, um, so they, they were up pretty big on their early Phase I data to for their INHBE antisense program. Think there were some investors that thought maybe it was a bit too much excitement from investors on that. I mean, look, I mean, the way they're looking to position it is something that you can basically transition off of a once weekly injectable onto something that you could take maybe once a yearly. And if you can maintain that weight loss while potentially either maintaining muscle mass or even maybe, I don't know if you could even start building a little bit of muscles, having muscle come back, seems like a pretty compelling product profile to me, even if you're not getting additional weight loss.'Cause I think the idea there is that you've already done the weight loss bit and now you just want to keep it off. Yeah, it's pretty exciting, but as, as you said, it's very, very early data, so we will, we'll see what, we'll see what comes from that.

Jeff Cranmer:

All righty. Thanks for that, Stephen. More data Kymera has taken the next step toward its goal of bringing oral drugs with biologics like activity to autoimmune disease patients. the company had a Phase IB readout for its STAT6 degrader in atopic dermatitis. The data sent shares up more than 40%. Selina, you wrote a little piece on this. What'd you find?

Selina Koch:

Yeah. first I think it's worth noting this is a needed win for Kymera. This is a platform company that's now a decade old. So at this stage of the game, you need some positive clinical readouts, right. Um, it was initially like dual tracking cancer and immunology and then regrouped at some point and said, putting all our chips on immunology. It had an IRAK4 program that with Sanofi, Sanofi decided not to take it forward, although that partnership does progress with the backup compound. So in that context this was important. Kymera is one of the leaders in one of the hottest new therapeutic modalities in the industry, right, targeted protein degradation. Often these molecules are just referred to as degraders. And one of the promises of degraders is to have a way to get at difficult targets that you know are historically undruggable, because they don't have a good binding pocket for a small molecule inhibitor. Or the target's not on the surface, it's not accessible to antibodies, that kind of thing. So STAT6 is one of these undruggable targets cause it is a transcription factor, so that puts it in a, a class of notoriously difficult to drug targets. It appealed to Kymera who obviously, you know, they have a new technology, so they have some technology risk and they've had some kind of setbacks, right, because it kind of minimizes biology risk while also showcasing the ability to go after an undruggable target. So STAT6 sits downstream of the same receptors hit by Dupixent, so that's IL4 and IL3. So Dupixent obviously big multi blockbuster biologic for inflammatory conditions. So the way Kymera saw this was that, the biology risk would be reasonably low, but there's a massive market opportunity here because these are chronic conditions, right. Patients are treated for long periods of time, and many of them would prefer an oral alternative, if you could get that same sort of selectivity and efficacy that you could get with biologic, which has been historically very hard. So it's a problem a lot of, a lot of companies want to solve, including a lot of pharmas. Although right now this program remains unpartnered, I'll say. So yeah, this is, this is still an early stage, still a small trial, but what they did see was 94% degradation of STAT6 in skin reaching 98% in blood, so that's very deep degradation. And then importantly, that translated to changes in biomarkers that are key ones commonly used to track therapeutic activity in atopic dermatitis and some other, conditions that involve type 2 inflammation. So this could, this therapy could work, you know, much more broadly than just atopic derm. Those include the Chemokine(TARC), IL31, Eotaxin-3

Simone Fishburn:

Selina, I mean, I think this is really interesting. As you pointed out, Dupixent is such a blockbuster, and there are a few competitors, most of which I think are biologics, right? So here you're going in with a small molecule or small molecule modality, but effectively an oral agent. I'm sort of wondering what the path is gonna be. Are they gonna go for people who've cycled off Dupixent or do you think they'll, you know, I, you know, Paul Hudson, the CEO of Sanofi has several times talked about the fact that I think, under 10% of atopic dermatitis patients are actually accessing treatment or receiving treatment. And then even within those, they cycle on and off of these therapies, with the course of the disease. So I'm sort of wondering how you see this fitting into the landscape or, or if it's, if we're able to talk about that?

Selina Koch:

Well, I do believe the com is keeping their options open to some extent. So they're running a Phase IIB trial right now, it's ongoing, it's called BROADEN2 for, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, so not the mildest patients. And they are enrolling, you know, I believe patients who are biologic naive and those with prior exposure. But, the exclusion criteria, I believe does not allow for patients to enter if they have been non-responders in the past to Dupixent a JAK inhibitor, things like that. So that that's where it's, you know, initially this mid-stage, fitting into the landscape.

Simone Fishburn:

And like you said, I mean, I think it's a pretty important proof of principle as we start to knock off these undruggable, but I think now they like to call them hard to drug targets as we knock them off one by one, they no longer become undruggable. So, you know, getting STAT6 in there, probably open the door to a few other transcription factors. Wouldn't you think?

Selina Koch:

I would think, yeah, that's the hope.

Jeff Cranmer:

All right, and if you'd like to learn more about Kymera and its technology, uh, Selina sat down with company Nello Mainolfi, in October on our sister podcast the BioCentury Show. And you can find that on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, you name it. While you're there, like us, subscribe to us. We're wrapping up our sixth season of BioCentury's This Week, and we're very grateful to you, our listeners for supporting us along the way and making us one of the top biotech podcasts out there, couldn't do it without you. Okay, Kymera, Structure and Wave, were among eight biotechs raising more than 3.2 billion total between Tuesdays closed last week and Wednesday's morning bell. And if that doesn't signal strength in the marketplace for follow-ons in the sector, well, I don't know what would. More followed later in the week, bringing the weekly total to nearly 4.5 billion. And how did that look compared with the rest of the year, Selina?

Selina Koch:

Yeah, we did calculate the weekly totals for follow on financing this year, and it was triple the next biggest week. So a big bump to finish the year, uh, strong.

Jeff Cranmer:

Yeah. The top weeks from earlier, we had two weeks, I think at about 1.4 billion, one it 1.3 billion and the rest were uh, kind of meh as,

Simone Fishburn:

Yeah, but I mean, I gotta tell you, if you look at this chart, there's a very clear pattern. The first half of the year was very, very dismal. Just a few little spikes there on the weekly amount, but this last quarter has been, as one person can't remember if the words they used were gangbusters or you know, the follow on market being very, very healthy. And then as you say, this huge spike in the 50th week of the year, according to the chart. So, uh, the Jubilee or whatever, the Jubilee week. certainly. Good to have some good.

Selina Koch:

Maybe a little, maybe a little sneak peek because we've also been looking at new venture funds raised this year. The, you know, announced ones and the pattern looks very similar. You see very few new funds being announced in the first half of the year, and, and it has picked up. So that'll come out.

Jeff Cranmer:

Yeah, indeed. And, our one listener who tells us to talk more about Japan, uh, he will be pleased to know that, uh, think there were more venture funds raised in Japan this year than China or Korea. We're still digging into that to confirm.

Simone Fishburn:

I just wanna know, is that one listener our colleague Matt Krebs?

Jeff Cranmer:

It's not actually, it's not. Um, uh, Matt though, Matt is a big, big supporter, of the podcast. Just a few numbers. Structure raised $650 million, Kymera $ 602 million, Wave at $350. The other big, big one came from Turns, at $650 million. So, congrats to all those companies. It's, certainly great to see and to do it right before JPM. Maybe the sun will finally shine in San Francisco during JPM. Alright, we're gonna take a quick break and we're gonna turn to Washington.

Alanna Farro:

BioCentury This Week is brought to you by The 5th East-West Biopharma Summit in South Korea. An arc of innovation is emerging across Asia, and Western biopharma leaders are taking note-from cross-border deals to newcos. In March, 2026, The 5th BioCentury-BayHelix East-West BioPharma Summit visits South Korea for the first time. Meet the biopharma leaders putting Korea innovation on the global map. Learn why Korea has become a clinical trial in manufacturing hub. Discover if Korea is the next hotspot for NewCo formation. Plus, meet biopharma innovators from India to Singapore, to China and Japan. Register now at BioCenturyEastWest.com.

Jeff Cranmer:

Okay. And I am recruiting, presenting companies for the conference. If you're interested or you know, a company that I should check out, drop me a line The results of our survey are in here to tell you about it, Simone.

Simone Fishburn:

Well, thanks Jeff. I really wanna pick up from the very positive sentiment that seems to be happening in the capital markets. I don't think the IPO markets have, uh, picked up yet, but it's really good to see the secondaries or the follow ones as we call them, and venture going well. And I say that because on the regulatory front and generally there is a very big shadow over biotech, caused by the uncertainty, the volatility, and in particular the politicization of FDA according to the survey that we ran. And why did I tie it to the markets because really there's still a feeling that it is very hard for investors to engage and to get excited about about biotech. So obviously we see that's happening to some degree, but I wanna go into some of the issues that came up in our survey. So I think that there are three principle points. One of them is, is a fairly positive one, which is that the people who engage with the survey, which are mostly biotechs, about two thirds biotech, uh, and about one third investors, and then there are a few other stakeholders, but they really say that this year, their interactions with FDA have mostly continued with the same kind of efficiency as last year, productive interactions, that's about two thirds of them. And so I feel that there's very broad support inside the industry for the staff at FDA. And we've talked about this before, the staff at FDA are working incredibly hard, and that actually is why companies are able to move ahead, generate positive clinical data and raise on the back of that, right. But it's not clear that past is gonna be prologue. The second thing that is clear from this survey is there are huge concerns about the leadership. So the biopharma industry is quite sophisticated and they know how to distinguish between the leadership of FDA and the staff and the operations. And they have huge concerns over the leadership. Even the respondents who are quite, there are a few respondents who are quite supportive of FDA Commissioner, Marty Makary. Although he and the Head of CBER Vinay Prasad caught quite a lot of harsh criticism as well. But even the people who are supportive of Makary and some of his initiatives really and, every single comment, but one, questioned whether they have the competence to actually execute on what they think might be good initiatives. So if the first main two findings are that the FDA staff retain broad support from the industry. And the second being that the leadership has got really overwhelmingly negative ratings. I think the third part is this uncertainty and the inconsistency being this huge shadow. The consequences are not only chilling investment, but many people, who responded as saying they are moving their clinical trials outside of US territories. And this won't surprise anybody completely abandoning vaccine programs and investment in vaccines.

Selina Koch:

Yeah, Simone, along those lines, I thought it was kind of interesting that 20% of respondents say they had personally through their companies, or if it was an investor one of their portfolio companies experienced a reversal of an FDA position or of earlier guidance on trial design, that sort of thing. And there's this perception that that's becoming more common.

Simone Fishburn:

Right, so. That's correct. So about 20%. As you point out, we did ask people whether they had had, FDA change its guidance to them or its instructions to them, reverse a position that it had taken previous to 2025. So under the previous leadership, 20% said yes. We also asked whether there was a perception whether they believe that FDA rehearsals on trial design are becoming more common. And a large majority, like 85%, think that it's becoming more common. We don't have the numbers to tell you whether it's becoming more common, but most people believe it is, and most people believe that's a bad thing. And Steve, I expect you wanna comment in a minute. Let me just add one more point because I, I'd like you to answer this as well. We also asked about accelerated approval, most people think that that is going to get harder. many think that it will be easier in some indications and harder in others, but across the board about, more than half I think, believe that it's going to get harder in some indications. So, do you wanna address a couple of those things, Steve?

Steve Usdin:

Yeah. Yeah. so, so I think well look, the critical thing to. Point out is that the survey was done when Richard Pazdur was CDER director and nobody knew at that time that he was planning to retire. I think if we were to do the survey again now, results would be more negative, than they were especially about political influence and ideological influence on FDA regulatory decisions. I think the other thing that's really important to point out, it's really interesting. All of us have been out there talking biotech CEOs, to investors, to other stakeholders. And there's exactly two things that everybody wants to talk about. The first is what's happening at FDA, and the second is what's happening in China. And I think that the two things are linked. Right. One of the things that's been a competitive advantage for the United States over the years has been an innovative, science driven regulatory environment. The sense now is that we're losing that, that that's being degraded. And it is happening in conjunction, with a rise in, China and biotech ecosystem, which is being facilitated in part by their own innovative, science-driven regulatory environment. You know, it's not a coincidence that, we're seeing, those two things happen in conjunction with each other.

Simone Fishburn:

Right. I just wanna end with, one quote from somebody. So, as I pointed out, many of the quotes were quite caustic and negative. Absolutely you are right that there's, some people who were literally wrote in the words. thank goodness for Pazdur this, this, uh, this survey was conducted while he was still, at the top of CDER. But here's a quote that I just thought really, really represents across the board what people think. Even those who agree that FDA could use some fixing. One person wrote, "Get your act together. The headlines are terrible. The infighting is disheartening. Personnel decisions are awful. You are seriously jeopardizing your credibility and this industry, right When we are in a race with China. Get a meeting with the top leadership of FDA along with RFK Jr. and get alignment, then speak with one voice, give clarity, uncertainty is the death nail to this industry." That's from one respondent, as I said. So I think there's just a feeling that FDA needs to fix itself. And on that note, I'll, I'll pass it back to you, Jeff.

Selina Koch:

I can say for folks out there, who haven't looked at it yet, there is both the quantitative side of the survey and as Simone was just reading the qualitative, um, we did let people speak in their own words and it was anonymous, but we put a bunch of their own words in there as well. So that's available our website.

Jeff Cranmer:

Go to BioCentury.com. BioCenturypodcast.com and you'll be able to find it there, and we'll create a link if you're not a subscriber, that allows you to, to get your hands on this very interesting, uh, somewhat depressing survey. All right, apparently I'm told by my colleagues that I'm the only person in the world who calls SBIR Grants siber Grants. And well, my mom always told me I was special. I guess that's why. Um, so, you know, this funding is critical for biotechs and it just happens to be caught up. One of the many things caught up in a stalemate in Congress, and Steve took a look at this, um, Steve, what's the word?

Steve Usdin:

Yeah, SBIR, the Small Business Innovation Research Program does really a cornerstone of early stage funding biotech startups. Expired on September 30, and cutting off a major source of non-dilutive capital for small life sciences companies. As you said, Congress is deadlocked over its future. Basically there's a disagreement, uh, between parties in Congress who wanted to simply reauthorize it, at least to reauthorize it for a year. Well, there's discussion about, reforms and, well, in basically Senator Joni Ernst, who wants to change the SBIR program in a lot of very significant ways. Many of those ways that the biotech industry, and small businesses and other industries oppose. So the deadlock has not been broken and right now, to be honest, there isn't a clear sight to how that might happen, is really unfortunate. And it's, also interesting because this is one of the very few, government programs I think that has, nearly unanimous bipartisan support, it's been really important. And if we're gonna talk about China, because we always talk about China these days, it seems, it's also another area where there's a contrast because, China learned from the success of the US SBIR program and put in place similar programs, programs that were modeled on SBIR but are much larger scale. And, they've been really important in helping them ramp up.

Selina Koch:

Yeah. I mean, if we stop funding these ideas, early stage ideas, through that so-called Valley of Death, we do risk falling behind in an area where we were leading.

Simone Fishburn:

You know, I think most people who've started a company have at some point entertained the idea of having an SBIR, if not actively sought one. So I think we all acknowledge how important they are for the industry.

Jeff Cranmer:

All right. And you can check out Steve's story at BioCentury.com. That's it for this week. We're taking a break next week, we'll be back on the 29th of December. And we wish everyone out there a happy holiday season, however you roll, and we'll be talking about some year end stuff and some 2026 2026 preview stuff when we come back December 29th Kendall Square Orchestra provides the music for BioCentury This Week. The group connects science and technology professionals and other members of the Greater Boston community to collaborate innovate and inspire through music, while supporting causes related to healthcare and education.

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.