Dearest Brazeryens: first human receives neuralink brain implant. Whoâs next?
[Welcome to Issue Number 49 of The House Brazeryen, where we break down the latest #startup, #biotech, and #ScientistCEO-related news for you fortnightly, in roughly 5 minutes. Brought to you by Brazen Capital and brainsurgerydropout.]
Was this forwarded to you? Mash this subscribe button, homie.
RE: Data Farber-ications and Other Academic Fuckery
by W. Shawn Carbonell, MD, PhD â The other day I received a comment on my latest TikTok video asking for my thoughts on the âDana Farber research scandalâ.
First, I had to google: âDana Farber research scandal.â
Then, I went down a long rabbit holeâŚ
đłđ
When I emerged, I was reminded of my recent rant a few issues ago about the Academical Matrix. Same shit, different day.
The Farber Four
To briefly recap, a UK scientist/bloggerâSholto David, PhDâcompiled a cheeky blog post on For Better Science (02JAN2024) detailing multiple instances of image/data manipulation from over FIFTY published manuscripts by four prominent scientist-leaders at Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), the Farber Four:
Laurie Glimcher, MD (President & CEO)
William (Bill) Hahn, MD (EVP & COO)
Irene Ghobrial, MD (SVP for Experimental Medicine)
Kenneth C. Anderson, MD (Director of the LeBow Institute for Myeloma Therapeutics and Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center)
The Two Davids
Sholto weaves a story that ties these scientists not only to each otherâs work, but to the work of many other prominent scientists under scrutiny⌠including the âfather of mTORâ and controversial former MIT Professor, David Sabatini.
Then, much to my delight he throws in completely unnecessary zingers like this one:
âBill [Hahn] apparently collects collaborations with longevity weirdos, including this paper with another obnoxious David: the Harvard professor David A. Sinclairâ
We all know how Sinclair's sirtuin story played out...
DFCI Takes Action?
As reported first by the Harvard Crimson last week, Sholtoâs blog entry has already led to 6 retractions and 31 corrections. For the dozen or so remaining papers and the positions of the Farber Four, the outcome is not yet known.
Although covered by NYT, this news didnât seem to make a big splash⌠at least subjectively not as big as the ouster of Marc Tessier-Lavigne from Stanford last year (for similar reasons, btw).
Perhaps the Boston Globe Spotlight team is working on something to really blow the door open�??
BRAZEN BREAKDOWN
How serious is this? Despite the fact the Farber Four are all physicians (MDs) these flagged papers are largely basic science and it doesnât seem like there may be any direct negative impact to patients. So, primarily it is US tax dollars wasted in the name of academic career advancement for a chosen few [alleged] cheaters.
Unlike Sinclairâwho has cashed out mightily in industry based on his controversial researchâI donât believe these four professors have yet leveraged the Ivy League-venture capital arbitrage machine (e.g., read about Sinclairâs Sirtris Pharmaceuticals bought by GSK for $720M and ultimately amounted to nothing).
Then again, it was pointed out that Dr. Glimcherâs annual DFCI salary is nearly $4M.
Academia fucking sucks.
VC CORNER: Tech Transfer⌠Before Bayh-Dole (Pt.1)
by Scott Alpizar, PhD â During my PhD, I never had the opportunity to work on anything translatableâmy dissertation focused on basic research. Therefore, I knew nothing about tech transfer. It wasnât until my current role that I understood what it was and how critical it is to moving academic research out of the lab (although itâs not without its problemsâŚ).
One thing that Iâve always found especially interesting is the history around it. So, over the next couple of issues weâre going to dive into how tech transfer became what it is today!
BRAZEN BREAKDOWN
In case youâre not familiar with tech transfer, itâs the process of transferring technology from universities, federal labs, or other research institutions into industry with the goal of developing it into a commercial product or service.
Setting The Scene
The first university tech transfer office was started back in 1925 at the University of WisconsinâMadison. Itâs quite an interesting story! However, I think itâs more relevant to start looking at things post-World War II.
There were major scientific developments during the war that, as we all know, had a major role in ending it (I still havenât seen OppenheimerâŚ). Given the impact that science-based technology played in the war, as well as the potential competition perceived from Japan and Russia, there was a push to continue that scientific progress.
ScienceâThe Endless Frontier
This push was evident in âScience âThe Endless Frontierâ by Vannevar Bush, a report that reflected on the lessons of wartime and the need for additional federal support of science. He skillfully motivated both industry and academia to enhance their basic research efforts by broadening the definition of basic research itself, having it refer simultaneously to the demands of policymakers for practical innovation and to the interests of scientists in curiosity-driven exploration.
This led to the creation of additional government entities such as the NSF in 1950, with NASA and DARPA both following in the next decade. These government entities were tasked with providing additional funding and resources for critical research. It became clear that embracing science would be key to our national security and had the potential to provide better lives for Americans.
Red Tape
However, there were no specific policies guiding these agencies on how to actually translate any of this research. Congress had decided that the government retained ownership of all inventions and would only provide non-exclusive licenses to them. Over the next couple of decades, this led to an accumulation of tens of thousands of patents, the vast majority of which remained unlicensed. Even when you did want one, you were met with bureaucracy. Research was booming, but its impact was limited.
That is, until a critical piece of legislation⌠(to be continued).
đ BRAZEN THOUGHTS
âVenture capitalists are well-intentioned, soul-less cowards.â
âChamath Palihapitiya (infamous 2017 Stanford GSB talk)
đ BRAZEN 411
Womenâs Venture Capital Summit 2024 [06FEB-08FEB2024]. Set in beautiful Half Moon Bay, CA and featuring one of our faves: Julia Moore from breakout.vc
Amgen Golden Ticket [DEADLINE: TOMORROW! 2/1]. Last chance to apply⌠which biotech startup wants a FREE LAB BENCH in sunny Los Angeles?
LAVA Lunar New Year Celebration: Year of the Dragon VC/Founder Mixer [08FEB2024]. Come hang with Los Angeles Venture Association (and Shawn).
TroyLabs DEMO 2024 Entrepreneur Conference (USC) [DEADLINE FOR STARTUPS: 23FEB2024]. The actual conference is April 11, 2024 in LA.
Innovative Medicines Collaboration (B+Labs Philadelphia x Daiichi Sankyo) [DEADLINE: 12FEB2024]. Come for the cheesesteaks, stay for the science.
đ BRAZEN SNAX
đ§ Provocative evidence of a transmissible form of Alzheimerâs? MeanwhileâŚ
đ Blockbuster GLP-1 wonderdrugs may tame inflammation in Alzheimerâs
đ¤
OpenAIâwhich may kill literally everyoneâreneges on a promise once AGAINđ° Become a Brazen Capital LP! Rich folks need only apply (no really! itâs the law)
đŚ First Great White birth documented? PS: avoid swimming near Santa Barbara
đ Are we so far gone weâre resorting to importing drugs from Canada? Yes.
âđ˝ Atomic Habits for Dummies (Plagiarism edition?)
â° TikTokCrak:Â where the phrase âhung like a fig waspâ came from
đŞ CARVEOUT
The venerable Acquired Podcast drops their first ever profile in biopharm! Season 14, Episode 1 is about Novo Nordisk (makers of Ozempic, duh)!
đđ˝ A DOSE OF GRATITUDE
We are grateful for The All-In Podcast⌠which is really just the billionaire tech-mogul version of your own private group chats (but public).
đ BRAZEN MEME
âď¸ FEEDBACK
Leave a comment and letâs continue the conversation on X:Â @brazencapital