The federal government must address the failure of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) with speed and clarity before it metastasizes into a national crisis, so the ecosystem of institutions in which SVB has operated, including other banks and investors, can help bridge companies so that they can continue to operate while they wait for their deposits.

The run-on-the-bank panic around SVB would have been quelled if everyone was dissuaded from succumbing to mass hysteria. Understanding what happened can help prevent further bank runs.

In today’s FutureCast discussion, RA’s Raj Shah, Jake Simson, Tess Cameron, and Peter Kolchinsky revisit one of our most talked-about articles: Time to Reboot Biotech. Fresh financial analysis and actionable board room advice abound.

RA Capital’s TechAtlas team is currently accepting summer internship applications for 2023. Three of last year’s interns - Drew Biedermann, Ross Chikarmane, and Gabe Fox - are now permanent members of the TechAtlas team. Read their perspectives on their internship experience.

We asked ChatGPT some of the most common questions with which we see our elected representatives struggle. Does NIH invent drugs? What are profit margins like in the pharmaceutical industry? Will lowering drug list prices via imposing price controls on pharmaceutical companies lower patients' out-of-pocket costs? Find out what AI thinks.

We’ve suffered a protracted downturn in general interest in biotech. That downturn has been compounded by rising interest rates undercutting equities in general. Now we must determine 1) how much worse this downturn might be and 2) how we’ll do things differently once we reboot. Here, Peter Kolchinsky explains why he believes we’ve emerged from the downturn but must reboot biotech with more honest and efficient processes and better defend our industry’s value proposition to policymakers and the public.

In today’s FutureCast discussion, RA Capital Principal Zach Scheiner, Senior Associate Becca Silberman, and Managing Partner Peter Kolchinsky talk about the past, present and future of depression therapies and why we’re confident that new uses and forms of old molecules, including psychedelics, will, in the next decade, bring relief to many of those among us who suffer from untreatable depression. Hop in the DeLorean with us at 88 miles per hour as we go 'Back to the Future'.

Traditional cost-effectiveness analyses done by organizations like ICER and NICE overlook much of the value of new drugs, including factors with crucial societal impact like genericization, risk reduction, and community spillover. Peer-reviewed research has made this clear again and again, but these organizations continue to insist on using outdated formulas to determine the value of drugs. With the passage of the IRA and imminent drug pricing “negotiations” (read: price controls), it’s more important than ever to get the math that values our medicines right.

Thanks to the selfless efforts of a handful of smart and dedicated volunteers from a few tech transfer offices (TTOs), law firms, and investment firms, the fraught process by which technology licenses are extricated from universities is getting a significant upgrade.

Outgoing Forma Therapeutics CEO Frank Lee talks with Rapport about bringing a patient-centric mindset to a biotech steeped in science and Forma’s acquisition by Novo Nordisk.

The recent announcement by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals that it was holding off on a planned Phase 3 pivotal study for vutrisiran (marketed as Amvuttra in its sole approved indication so far, hATTR amyloidosis with polyneuropathy) in Stargardt disease illustrates how the Inflation Reduction Act is already having a negative impact on small molecule and orphan drug R&D prioritization. Alnylam’s announcement also brought out skeptics of the biotech industry, who argue the new law is being scapegoated by innovators who want to overturn its Medicare drug-negotiation provisions.

As the founder of two biotech companies in Arizona that are currently fundraising to support drug development, it’s clear to me that the Inflation Reduction Act will steer me away from developing cancer drugs for older Americans. This is a problem that can be fixed.

At RA Capital, we love our TechAtlas team and the super detailed Landscape Maps they create to help us understand what can otherwise be an overwhelming amount of information. These maps explain the comparative strengths and weaknesses of as many as hundreds of competitive and complementary technologies, drugs, devices, and diagnostics in various stages of development for a particular disease or condition. Think of them like medical treasure maps that lead to the most promising technologies and companies in any given disease area. You can probably understand why we can’t afford to do all that work and just publish the maps freely for the whole world to study.

Then COVID came along.

Over the past four decades, David Beier has observed and participated in the evolution of the US biotechnology industry for several key vantage points. The industry’s success and freedom to innovate, he says, has been underpinned by – and helped create – a marketplace that was open enough to fully reward risk-taking investors devoting capital to cutting edge science. Today, that success faces new threats.

A conversation with former Pfizer research head John LaMattina about the persistence of the misperception that NIH invents the drugs that biopharma companies sell, the chance encounters that can lead to breakthroughs years or even decades later, and the tough math facing investors and heads of research across the industry when deciding whether to invest in a project that’ll only enjoy nine years of market exclusivity.

We talk a lot about access to care and the hurdles that might keep people from getting the medicine they need. Usually, we’re talking about the price of healthcare or the inanity of insurance requirements. But other hurdles hide in plain sight, as is the case with naloxone (Narcan), birth control, and other drugs that could (and should) be available over-the-counter (OTC). 

If the FTC begins to look askance at M&A between commercial-stage biopharmaceutical companies and the innovative smaller biotechs that so often are the sources of new medicines, that would be bad news for future R&D and the patients who depend on our industry for life-saving medicines. That they might do so in the name of preserving or protecting innovation in the first place would add insult to injury.

We are deeply concerned the new Senate drug bill fails to deliver adequate relief to the nation’s seniors and their families. It falls short of a generational opportunity to meaningfully lower Medicare beneficiary and taxpayer out-of-pocket costs. The revised language is not good enough for patients, bad for biopharma innovation, and provides no guarantee that PBMs and insurance plans will share savings with beneficiaries.

As the 2022 midterms loom, drug pricing reform is again at the forefront of the conversation. And with inflation at 8.6%, it’s undeniable – Americans are hurting, and paying less at the pharmacy counter may alleviate part of that burden. But not all drug pricing reforms are created equal. So how would price controls impact R&D?

Right to Try 2.0 doesn’t seem to address any of the original law’s issues. While 1.0 seems to have fallen well short of expectations, instead of shoring up oversight or regulating patients’ expenses, 2.0 simply aims to expand 1.0’s sentiment to a relatively small set of bleeding-edge drugs, continuing to talk the same big game Trump did without producing results.