Rob Shaffer

Truth.

Biotech startup funding gap widens despite rebound in VC investment biopharmadive.com/news/biotech-v… via @BioPharmaDive

"Developing a successful biopharma therapy costs a multinational company about 2.7 times more compared to a Chinese company on a levelized cost basis" Biopharma R&D: The evolving formula for discovery and development mckinsey.com/mgi/our-resear… via @McKinsey_MGI

Antibody-oligonucleotide conjugates: an emerging modality for precision RNA therapeutics academic.oup.com/abt/article/9/…

"capitalism is evil"

Congrats to Thymmune, a LabCentral alum. Stan Wang is impressive

Anaphylaxis shouldn't be surprising when you're doing protein replacement with a foreign CPP attached to it $LRMR

Thanks for asking @jrkelly. It highlights why you and your hawks are not quite getting it here. This is about finding the best innovation for patients from anywhere in the world. I fully expect the cost of developing these assets in the U.S. will be largely the same. For e.g., the Akeso/Summit anti-PD1/VEGF bispecific was discovered in China. Summit was excited about the data and in-licensed it for ex-China rights. Summit is doing robust global clinical studies to demonstrate safety and efficacy. If successful, American patients will get access to a best-in-class immunotherapy that could be a game changer. To my knowledge, there wasn’t an alternative PD1-VEGF bispecific discovered in the U.S. Also, there was no stealing of IP by Akeso to make their drug. Why is this different than Merck sourcing Keytruda from Belgium? So, let’s not use walls to block access to innovation from ANYWHERE in the world especially when it can help US patients. Of course, IP MUST be respected, or the “discovery” is a violation of international law. To clarify one other point, I also want the U.S. to be the indisputable global leader in biotechnology! China’s increased prominence must be a SPUTNIK moment for our country. We should reverse the self-inflicted damage to our innovation ecosystem that includes decimated NIH funding, an anti-science/anti-vaccine/anti-“expert” rhetoric that threatens discourse, a restricted H-1B visa program blocking our ability to recruit the best in the world, a chaotic FDA where innovators and drug developers face enormous uncertainty and undue regulatory hurdles and costs, an effort to break our innovation reward system with drug price controls through Biden-era IRA and Trump-era MFN, a post-COVID hybrid workforce approach that has American’s working less, and more. I, for one, believe that we can WIN with good ole American ingenuity if we course correct on the above. I’m certain that will work. We have the greatest scientists in the world and lead in disruptive innovation while others are making progress in incremental innovation. For those of you that advocate for walls, I don’t think it will be successful. AND, I’m certain American patients will suffer. My $0.02.

Wow big transaction in the life science tools space!

@AppleHelix Then we need more like Versant!

Versant is one of the few VC funds that do de novo drug discovery. Their build-to-buy model is amazingly successful.

Me, calling an outpatient lab (OL) on behalf of my daughter (nothing serious!): OL: [asks for patient info] Me: [gives info] OL: you'll have to ask her Dr. for the test results Me: We did, they don't have them yet [it's been 2 weeks] OL: [asks for add'l info] Me: [gives add'l info] OL: Her Dr. has to call us and ask for the info. Then, we'll fax it over. OK? Me: [bangs head against wall]

Interesting - Merck Collaborates with Versant Ventures to Launch Saturnus Bio to Advance Treatments for Rare Genetic Cardiomyopathies - businesswire.com/news/home/2026…

A prominent VC explains why she’s against U.S. restrictions on investment in China’s drug industry statnews.com/2026/06/17/chi… @statnews @ADeAngelis_bio @JuliePapanek

Del-brax (from Avidity Bio) hits primary and key secondaries in the Phase 1/2 biomarker cohort in FSHD. Though, no actual data was shared. AOCs continue to work! $NVS del-brax Phase I/II study in FSHD meets primary biomarker endpoint novartis.com/news/media-rel…

New paper points to glucosamine as an accelerant of AD. I collaborated with Ramon and Matt via a previous company; they're fantastic. Hyperglycosylation is a metabolic driver of Alzheimer’s disease rdcu.be/fnJUB mbi.ufl.edu/2026/06/09/stu…

The shortage of many medicines in the U.S. remains a ‘systemic’ problem, a new analysis finds statnews.com/pharmalot/2026… via @statnews @USPharmacopeia

Beautiful evening at Fenway

Patient-first, America-first: The Case For Global Collaboration. While the rise of Chinese biopharma in the past decade has been meteoric, I’m firmly in the camp that their engagement in the global ecosystem is good for the sector – its more opportunity than threat, great for patients, and is a healthy forcing function to raise the game for everyone New blog link 👇

Pharma CEO silence is complicity in the destruction of U.S. science. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought has poured gas on the foundations of science. Pharma CEOs should demand that President Donald Trump take away the matches. For more than a year, the Trump administration has been weakening the institutions that made the United States the global leader in biomedical innovation. This week, Vought revealed that the objective is not merely to shrink the federal research enterprise, but to make it subservient to political and ideological objectives. Vought’s proposed rule would require senior political appointees to review and approve every discretionary federal grant before it is awarded, explicitly barring them from deferring to peer reviewers, and would mandate that all grant programs align with the president’s policy priorities, rather than scientific need or expert consensus. It seeks to introduce ideological tests on applicants and institutions that receive grants, bar most international scientific collaboration, and allow political appointees to cancel grants at any time without providing an explanation. The proposal also would allow agencies to make grants that haven’t been publicly announced, opening the process to corruption and favoritism. If implemented, the proposal would represent the most serious assault on U.S. science since World War II. Even those who agree with the Trump administration’s views on social and political issues should be alarmed. Future administrations with very different views may not abandon the temptation to wield control over scientific funding to advance ideological agendas. More at biocentury.com/article/659615 (no paywall).