PRINT THIS PAGE

What's up in life sciences?

The risks and rewards of the private equity life science market are examined by Tom Daniel of Schroder Venture Life Sciences, Mark Carthy of Oxford Bioscience Partners, Martijn Kleijwegt of Life Science Partners and Jeremy Curnock Cook of Bioscience Managers in the latest AltAssets roundtable.

	Tom Daniel is a general partner at Schroder Venture Life Sciences. Schroder Venture Life Sciences manages a total of $900m for investment in life sciences companies across a broad range of sectors, stages and geographies.
	Mark Carthy is a general partner at Oxford Bioscience Partners. Oxford Bioscience Partners invests in start-up and early-stage companies in the global bioscience and healthcare industries. The firm currently manages in excess of $800m.
	Martijn Kleijwegt is a managing partner of Life Science Partners. Life Science Partners invests in European early-stage life sciences companies. Based in Amsterdam and Munich, the firm focuses on the Benelux region and manages E170m of capital.
	Jeremy Curnock Cook is a founder of Bioscience Managers (BML). BML’s BioEquity Fund invests in mid to late-stage European life sciences companies.

What are the main rewards of life sciences investing?

Curnock Cook: ‘In my view, the life sciences sector has two major advantages for investors. The first of these is that it is based on a source of infinite demand, namely sickness and health. The second is that it is substantially supported by intellectual property and protection, and government regulation.  This combination makes for a very sound investment opportunity, which, if properly handled, can provide significant returns for investors.’

Daniel: ‘Investments in good life sciences companies, with good products and good people, can create a great deal of value for investors. This success can be attributed to the sector’s potential to generate real value through the creation of novel and innovative products. These products are readily adopted by the market place if they firstly, treat an unmet need and secondly, do so in an attractive way from a reimbursement perspective. What this means is that, despite the significant barriers to entry created by patent law and the need for regulatory approval, there is a steady turnover of products and companies that can grow to have a dominant position in the market place and generate very attractive returns for their investors.’

Carthy: ‘You only have to look back at the incredible success stories of companies such as Amgen and Biogen to see the rewards of life sciences investing.’

Kleijwegt: ‘The biotech index has outperformed the Nasdaq, Dow Jones, and pretty much any other index you care to name consistently over recent years. So from a publicly quoted point of view, the life sciences market is superior to any other. Investors in private markets will inevitably look to exit their investment through an IPO. The public market performance is therefore crucial to venture investing and means that life sciences venture investing makes for a very compelling story indeed.’

What are the potential risks involved in investing in the sector?

Carthy: ‘It takes a very long time and an awful lot of money. I would liken it to drilling for oil in that you really don’t know when you start out where you are going to end up. That is one of the unique features of life sciences investing and I don’t think there are many ways of shortening the process. It is just something you have to work with.’

Kleijwegt: ‘The earlier the investment, the higher the risks are. We are early-stage investors and so we inevitably take on substantial risks. These risks are primarily associated with two things. Firstly, the quality of management and secondly, the drug development process itself. It is a long process and plenty of things can go wrong along the way.’

Curnock Cook: ‘In a field as far reaching as health and wellness there is obviously going to be a significant amount of competition. Regulatory bodies can act as a valuable hurdle preventing those coming in from behind from entering the market place. But equally, regulation can act as a significant challenge for those already operating within the market. It is a double-edged sword, a risk as well as a reward.’

Daniel: ‘There are a number of different levels of risks, but above all, the danger is that drugs can fail. The business that we are in is the discovery of novel compounds, the development of those compounds into candidate drugs and then the launch of those drugs into the market place. It is a long journey, fraught with potential risks at every stage.’

How would you describe LP appetite for life sciences?

Curnock Cook: ‘I think it very much depends on where you are when you ask the question. The US has a long history of building businesses in this sector. There is plenty of evidence that these businesses can be successfully developed and can generate significant rewards for investors. There is a less certain history of investment outside of the US, where there has yet to be such a fulsome demonstration of the value creation and capital gain available to investors. LPs are inevitably, therefore, more forthcoming in the US.’

Daniel: ‘LP appetite is very strong for life sciences funds, but only for the right managers. A great deal of capital has recently been raised for investment in life sciences companies. But what is very clear is that LPs are concentrating capital in the hands of people that have been around for a while, that have been through a few cycles and that have demonstrated performance and generated returns. On that basis, I consider LP appetite for the sector to be very healthy.’

Carthy: ‘I think that LP appetite for the sector is actually rather consistent. It didn’t go up wildly during the boom years and it hasn’t come down as with a real bump either. Having said that, investor appetite does fluctuate around the mean and is probably heading up somewhat at the moment. In other words we are experiencing an up tick but not a mania.

‘I don’t think you see as much of a roller coaster ride in life sciences investor appetite as you do in other sectors because you just can’t invest the money that fast. Investing in a life sciences company is not at all the same as starting an internet company. It is a whole different ball game.’

Kleijwegt: ‘LP appetite for the sector is certainly picking up momentum once again. LPs view the venture capital market in two distinct segments, IT and communications companies and life sciences. In my experience they find the life sciences market a lot more interesting.’

How would you describe the deal flow situation?

Carthy: ‘I would say that the deal flow we are seeing is actually fairly stable in origin and in volume. A lot of our deal flow comes from other venture firms. We also have our own network of entrepreneurs and CEOs and we also have a programme of going out to the universities and looking for new technologies. I would say, however, that there has been a shift away from very early stage speculative discovery towards later-stage clinical programmes.’

Daniel: ‘The situation is very strong indeed. Deal flow is alive and well in the US and in Europe. Deal flow is always strong in our sector because a lot of the companies are loss making and there is therefore a constant demand for capital. It is a very capital intensive business.’

Kleijwegt: ‘Deal flow is certainly immense. We see about 500 deals a year. Our deal flow is primarily sourced in the Benelux and Germany, but a substantial part is also coming from the rest of Europe - the UK, France and Scandinavia. In addition, about 15 per cent is coming from the US.’

Curnock Cook: ‘Deal flow is very strong across the globe. No one country has a lock up on genius in life sciences origination and development. The opportunity for the identification of technologies relevant to healthcare is something that can be practiced just about anywhere where there is a significant academic and research environment. The challenge actually comes in the later stages, where one needs to carry the science from being just good science to being relevant clinically. And that is where the Northern hemisphere and in particular the US tends to be the environment of choice.’

What are principle drivers behind this deal flow?

Curnock Cook: ‘Scientists love to be clever. This creates a constant driving force behind the generation of leading edge technologies. And if you are looking for an area where there are significant gaps in knowledge, biological sciences and the workings of the human body are a great place to be. There are still a whole lot of Everests to climb in the life sciences arena.’

Kleijwegt: ‘As the life sciences sector in Europe gains momentum, more and more scientists are deciding to start their own companies. It is a rising tide. European life sciences players are starting to see their peer group scientists being successful and so they are encouraged to start companies themselves. It is also becoming increasingly common for new entities to spin-out from large pharmaceutical and biotech companies.

‘Another way of looking at the question of deal flow is to consider that the supply of venture capital has decreased substantially over the last five years. This means that there are only a limited number of venture capital firms able to supply the capital needed by a growing number of life sciences companies. As a result, the deal flow per firm has grown significantly.’

Daniel: ‘One of the things that we have seen increasingly is cooperation with big pharmaceuticals companies and the larger biotech companies when it comes to structuring interesting deals. I think that this represents a very important convergence of interest. The big pharmaceuticals, big biotech companies and venture capitalists are seeing their interests becoming increasingly aligned and are working together to create valuable businesses. It is a very encouraging trend in the deal flow that we are seeing.’

How important is academia to the deal flow that you are seeing?

Daniel: ‘It is important to remember that this is a sector where fashions change. In the current cycle the fashion has been to invest in later stage product companies that have got compounds that are in advanced stages of clinical trials, as opposed the platform company craze that we saw in 1999 / 2000, when genetics and genomics were the flavour of the day. As a result, I think what we are seeing at the moment is effectively a slight funding gap for early-stage companies and that means academics, who may have very important biological observations that could lead to the development of drugs for very serious diseases, are not receiving the capital they need and are not an integral component of much of the deal flow we are currently seeing. But academia will be important again. The basis of this business is innovative science that eventually cures disease and a lot of that work happens in academia.’

Carthy: ‘Links with academia are very important for us. We have a history of looking for novel break through technologies and these are far more likely to come from academia than from large pharmaceuticals or from clinical institutes. We actually have a programme where associates are assigned five or six technology offices in the US and UK, which they will liase with on a regular basis. It is very important to stay in the loop as far as academia is concerned.’

Kleijwegt: ‘Academia is vitally important, especially if you are an early-stage investor. It is extremely important to have far reaching links within the academic world.’

Curnock Cook: ‘Academia is immensely important. Whether one is looking at technology being developed in big corporations, or technology being explored in a university laboratory, it all seems to originate at that same early-stage level of highly creative, mainly academic, science.’ 

Do you think there are advantages in focussing on a particular stage of life sciences investing or is it better to have a broader strategy?

Carthy: ‘I think it is far better to have a broad investment strategy. The reason for that is that life sciences investing is a cyclical business. If you are just looking at a narrow slice of that cycle you will be severely limiting your investment potential. For example, when prices are really high for late-stage companies, they might be really low for early-stage companies. In that instance you should be concentrating your energies and your capital where you can get the most value for your dollar and your investors. That is why it is vital to be flexible. If you remain aware of where you are in an investment cycle and if you are able to adapt your approach accordingly, there is an awful lot of money to be made.’

Daniel: ‘At Schroders we are quite flexible in terms of the stage of investment and our view is that it is probably a mistake to prescribe a particular stage of entry. This is because the inflexion point of an investment tends to change depending on where you are in the cycle. If, for example, IPOs are restricted to very late stage companies, then you might imagine that late stage investing could either be a very attractive place to be if valuations are still reasonable, or conversely it might become rather over heated and you may wish to look at early-stage deals instead. Either way I do think that it is important to have that flexibility.’

Curnock Cook: ‘I believe that it is important to begin with a core team of people who are adept at evaluating science and technology, and its relevance to medicine, at every level of opportunity. So I take the view that a broad approach to investing in the life sciences sector is the right one.’

Kleijwegt: ‘At an early-stage you obviously pay a lower price and you can also manage the company and grow it in a direction that you think is beneficial for you as an investor.’

Do you think that a generalist venture capital firm can do as good a job as a focused life sciences team?

Curnock Cook: ‘I don’t believe that a generalist can do as good a job as a specialist investor. I think the evaluation, management and monitoring of these companies requires so many different skills that you need to have the specialisation that a focussed team can provide. You play a very dangerous game if you walk in as a generalist assuming that you just have to understand that there are several hundred thousand people that are suffering from a disease and that you now have the cure.’

Daniel: ‘In our experience we have found it very valuable working along side funds that focus on both life sciences and other areas of technology, in those instances where the portfolio company in question has got an element of that mix in its business.’

Carthy: ‘There are certainly instances where technologies come together, for example, IT and medicine, or silicon chips and medicine. There are opportunities at these junctures where firms with a broader capability may be quicker off the mark than a purely life sciences firm. However, I would say that it is very much a full time job just managing the biotech life cycle and attempting to manage a number of different industries would be a very daunting task indeed. In addition, venture investing is a very labour intensive, hands on process. It takes a lot of time. I think if we were attempting to manage early-stage investments across multiple sectors it might be a bit too much.’

Kleijwegt: ‘What happens in these generalist venture capital firms, is that the IT team takes a look at the life sciences deals and vice versa. I just don’t see the rationale behind that. It is a waste of time and efficiency. I don’t think they can add anything to each other, it just means more meetings and more explaining.’

What are the geographic hot spots of the life sciences market?

Daniel: ‘The US certainly remains one of the major markets, both on the West Coast in California and also around Boston. We feel that the European market is also very interesting, although less mature than its American counterpart. But in general, we try to look at life sciences as a worldwide market. We have one investment committee made up of the partners from each of our offices and we make our final investment decisions from a global perspective.’

Curnock Cook: ‘The US certainly has a distinct advantage over the rest of the world. This largely comes down to the fact that US financial institutions have consistently displayed a greater awareness of the life sciences market, and a greater preparedness to support it, than has been evident in other regions. But although it is tougher in other parts of the world, the market, in terms of ultimate products, is as strong in Europe as it is in America. I believe that given time, LPs everywhere will gain confidence in the sector and the rewards it can generate.’

Carthy: ‘Boston, Maryland, San Francisco and San Diego are the areas that immediately spring to mind. We have also done a number of deals in Oxford and Cambridge.’

Are there any up and coming regions?

Carthy: ‘I would say Seattle and Houston in the US. And in Europe, Copenhagen and Stockholm. Germany has hit a bit of a slump at the moment. But there was a period when it was very hot and it may well be again.’

Daniel: ‘Asia is clearly a very significant area in lots of different ways. Asia has very prevalent and serious problems with infectious disease and as the region’s economies and health care systems become more mature, the demand for healthcare will grow dramatically on the basis of population alone. I would highlight Singapore as a very attractive base for accessing the Asian market. I think that it is highly likely to become the next emerging market in the life sciences arena.’

Kleijwegt: ‘Within Europe, our principal market of Benelux is certainly an up and coming region. The market is still relatively inefficient which means that deals in this region have extremely low valuations. It is a very compelling story.’

How do the European and US life sciences markets differ in terms of their investment approach?

Kleijwegt: ‘The US is still, of course, the leading market in life sciences investing. Europe is closing the gap, but at this point in time is still lagging behind. On a scientific level there is not much to choose between the two. But the capital markets in the US are much better than in Europe so exit possibilities are more prevalent. However, there are a far greater number of venture capital firms in the US, which means that the competitive situation in Europe is definitely more favourable.’

Carthy: ‘I would say that the biggest difference is the relative opportunity to go public. Things are certainly not easy in the US but there is significantly more confidence in the IPO process than there is in Europe. Since the Neur Markt shut down in Germany a shadow has been cast across all early-stage technology markets in Europe and that loss of confidence has, in turn, filtered down to the private sector. That said there are a number of very active and very professional, early-stage biotech investors in Europe and we certainly look seriously at all the investments they put to us.’

Daniel: It really depends on who you are dealing with. In the US there is a very established base of venture capitalists who have been investing in life sciences for at least 20 years. I would say that for those groups that have an international basis, which includes a US presence, there is very little difference at all in investment approach between the two markets. The differences occur where you have country specific venture capital firms. Sometimes people get carried away with a local market opportunity in Europe and that doesn’t always work in the global context.’

Curnock Cook: ‘There are more specialist life sciences players in the US than there are in Europe. In fact, the number of specialist players in Europe has appeared to decrease over the last few years, rather than increase, and this is creating some very real problems in it self. By the time a young company has completed three rounds of funding, given that it is usual to expect different investors to come in at each round, there is pretty much nobody left. So when it comes to the crucial fourth round, there is often no obvious leadership, and companies can struggle to reach the next stage.’

Are their differences in US and European portfolio companies?

Daniel: ‘I would say that the biggest difference is probably management. Because the US has been through four generations of companies, it benefits from some extremely able and experienced managers. There has only been around ten years of any kind of meaningful activity in Europe and so there are quite simply fewer people on the ground that have that kind of experience. There are, however, a lot of very strong executives coming out of the pharmaceutical mergers that we are seeing and I view that as a very attractive way of bringing managerial talent to the European life sciences arena. There are also a number of European entrepreneurs who have done very well in America and are now coming back over here.

‘The raw talent in Europe is certainly fantastic and world class. And of course people suffer from disease here as they do in the states. America does not have a monopoly on unmet needs and consequently all you have to do is bridge that gap with capital, people and motivation and you can build some very good companies.’

Kleijwegt: ‘I don’t think there is too much difference in the calibre of management teams. Americans, as we all know, are masters at selling themselves, but Europeans are just as able and just as productive. But it is the mobility of management that is one of the US’s key advantages. In Europe people find it hard to move from one end of a tiny country like Holland to the other, let alone from the UK to Austria. But in the States management teams rarely think twice about relocating from New York to San Diego. This means that it is a lot easier to recruit management for the right companies in the right place.’

Carthy: ‘I would say that the science is just as good in Europe as it is in the US. There are some difficulties finding CEO candidates but that is simply down to the European industry’s relative immaturity. In the US we have had a lot of great biotech companies that have trained a lot of great managers. Those managers have, in turn, gone on to start other companies. There is real a pool of talent that we can draw on. Europe hasn’t quite got there yet but it will happen in time.’

Curnock Cook: ‘I think there is a greater sense of entrepreneurial spirit in the US. Regardless of whether a start-up is a success or failure, there is more recognition that the experience itself is beneficial. A more developed entrepreneurial culture is emerging in Europe but it will be some time before we can boast the depth of management that is available in the US.’

What areas of technology do you expect to take off over the next few years?

Daniel: ‘I think that we will see some very promising products and very promising technologies across the board. Aptamer technology is one very exciting area at the moment. On the back of the human genome project, which took decades and millions of dollars to complete, it is now potentially possible to re-sequence a human genome in about 24 hours for $1000. If we can do that we can uncover the genetic variation in the genome, which is what predisposes an individual to disease and accounts for a lot of other human characteristics. We think that is the kind of technology that will potentially change everything in terms of how biology is understood.’

Carthy: ‘I would certainly say that genome sequencing is going to be a hot area, The key will be getting the price down far enough to enable this technology to be used more broadly. Another important area of development will be the personalisation of medicine.’

Curnock Cook: ‘The brain is a big space to go rampaging around in because nobody really understands how it works. I also think there needs to be much more precision in the way that drugs are prescribed and that will be a very interesting area going forward. The central nervous system will be a key area of focus, as will life style related issues. Obviously oncology will also remain very high profile.’

Kleijwegt: ‘Stem cell technology will most probably take off over the next couple of years. The same is true for gene therapy, but both these areas are still relatively unexplored so are risky areas to invest in. The whole antibody field is also progressing fast and makes for an interesting investment opportunity.’

What changes would you like to see take place from a governmental or regulatory point of view?

Carthy: ‘Something certainly needs to be done to make it easier for companies to go public. We have gone from one extreme to the other. Between 1999 and 2001 it was far too easy to list companies, but now it is very difficult indeed. A lot of regulations have been imposed since the bubble burst, such as Sarbanes Oxley, that are useful for very large companies but that make life very difficult indeed for smaller companies. This is something that definitely needs to be addressed.’

Daniel: ‘There are many things that could be changed. From my perspective I think more money should be channelled into academic and clinical research. This is something that the UK government is already addressing. I also think that we need to stimulate an environment that is more open to innovation. In the US, patients and physicians are both very well informed about cutting edge remedies and there is an active demand for new medicine. Europeans tend to be far more suspicious about innovation. I think education, in this regard, would be a huge plus.

‘Another issue that must be addressed in Europe is the regulation of reimbursement once a drug is being marketed. Price setting is currently controlled at the level of the member country rather than as a pan European strategy. When combined with the essence of Europe, that is free trade across borders, this has created what is known as a grey market where drugs are surreptitiously moved around in order to take advantage of these price variations. This has led to a very de-motivating situation for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and needs to be changed.’

Kleijwegt: ‘Gaining regulatory approval is a slow process, but I don’t think this is something that can be changed. We just have to work within the parameters that exist and construct our investment aNd development strategies along those lines.’

Curnock Cook: ‘I think the structure of venture capital funds is pretty cockeyed when it comes to investing in life sciences.  The ten-year structure, the two per cent management fee, the 20 per cent carry - all that was invented for a completely different investment arena. To develop a drug completely takes a minimum of 12 years. That means for a fund with a ten-year tenure, and therefore almost certainly a five-year useful investment life, the investor is inevitably trying to exit before anyone knows whether the drug is going to be successful or not.’

How would you describe the exit environment for life sciences companies?

Kleijwegt: ‘There are two possible exit routes, the IPO and the trade sale. In the life sciences industry the public markets work in very distinct three-year cycles. There was an IPO window in 1991/ 92, then it reopened in 1995/96, and again in 1999/2000.  We are currently experiencing another IPO window, which will no doubt shut again some time soon for another three years. This cycle is unusually predictable and gives us a sense of confidence in using the public markets as an exit vehicle.

‘Trade sales are also a common source of exits in the life sciences industry.  In 2002 there were over 800 transactions between biotech and pharmaceutical companies. This immense deal flow is being driven by the fact that big pharma is in desperate need for products. Their pipelines are empty, and the development costs of a producing a drug within big pharma are much larger than in a small biotech companies. This explains why approximately one third of total R&D of big pharma is being spent on small biotech.’

Curnock Cook: ‘Back in the eighties over half of our transactions were exited through trade sales.  That was standard fare at the time. In the nineties, with the opening of public markets for companies in the sector, people forgot about trade sales and got into calling up their local investment banker for a flotation instead. I think what has happened now, over the last three years, is that the public markets have shown themselves to be less inclined to buy everything in sight and have instead become far more selective in terms of what they are prepared to support. As a consequence, investors are having to look carefully at trade sales, and agreements with big pharma, once again.’

Daniel: ‘The US IPO market has certainly picked up after the drought of 2002 and early 2003. Europe has also seen a couple of IPOs recently, one on the London stock exchange and one on the Swiss, but whether this can be called a window remains to be seen. The other attractive exit option is M&A. Although the pound has strengthened against the dollar considerably, a lot of US biotech companies have got their checkbooks out at the moment and are looking for acquisitions on both sides of the Atlantic.’

What particular skills sets are required to make a good life sciences venture capital team?

Carthy: ‘Experience is essential. You have to have been through a number of cycles and be able to stomach the ups and the downs. In terms of the ideal CV for a life sciences venture capitalist, there are examples of people who come from operating backgrounds and have done very well and there are also many examples of people who have no operational experience at all and are purely investment professionals who have also had a great deal of success. But whoever you are experience is paramount.’

Daniel: ‘I think you need a blend of skills. It helps to have people who have been investing in life sciences venture capital for a long time. But it also helps to bring in people from industry. We have partners who have come from large pharmaceutical companies, for example, and that helps a lot in the assessment of investment opportunities because, in many instances, those pharmaceutical companies are our end customers. It is also beneficial to bring in entrepreneurs who have experience in the biotech space on the sell side.’

Curnock Cook: ‘What it comes down to ultimately is having a blend of experienced professionals with a range of talents and backgrounds. It is important to have a financial element to the team, but it is also important to have cutting edge scientific evaluation skills. It helps to have people who understand intellectual property and its management, and it also help to have people who understand the law and its application.’

Kleijwegt: ‘It is important that a management team has a real mix of backgrounds. You shouldn’t have all scientists, or all businessmen on board. You certainly need some venture capital skills coupled with some scientific knowledge. You need both deal making and operational experience.’

How do you expect the composition of the life sciences venture capital market to evolve?

Daniel: I think it’s a fairly stable situation. There are some very good venture capital managers, both in the US and Europe, and I am delighted to see that they are securing funds from experienced and sophisticated limited partners. The issue of succession clearly runs deep in the minds of some investors, but I think while the names may alter the essential make-up of the industry will change little.

Carthy: ‘I expect to see continued consolidation. I think that the larger firms have had an easier time raising new money and have been better able to recruit expert resources. They are also seeing better deal flow and are better able to weather the cycles inherent in life sciences investing. That said there will always be room for people who are really good to operate small early-stage biotech investment shops. Everybody has to start small.’

Curnock Cook: ‘I think at the moment the market is more likely to see continued consolidation than a spurt of new entrants and I think that that is a very big problem. We need to find out how to encourage new entrants to the market or we could find ourselves in serious difficulties. In the US, the life sciences market has continued to expand over the years. Managers have left major corporations to set up their own funds, and executives from larger funds have split off to start new firms. There is definitely a greater sense of dynamism among the investing groups in the US and this is something we need to encourage in Europe.’

Kleijwegt: ‘I think that in Europe at least, we have seen all the consolidation that we are going to see. There are five major markets within Europe; the UK, Benelux, France, Germany and Scandinavia. There are currently around 12 to 15 top class groups operating in these areas and I think that is a level of activity that is here to stay.’

What does the future hold for the life sciences industry?

Daniel: ‘I think we will see the continuation of the broad trends that we are seeing now. The aging demographics that underpin the demand side of the life sciences equation are unquestionable. When combined with price pressure for the reimbursement of healthcare, I think that creates a very dynamic situation. If a company can come up with innovative new products that cure disease and help save money for the system, they will be readily adopted and money will be made. That fundamentally is a picture that I don’t see changing.’

Curnock Cook: ‘The future for life sciences investing is looking very rosy indeed. The need that the market addresses is never going to go away and there will always be structures in place to service that need. Life sciences investing therefore, if carefully managed, can generate substantial returns for investors and I see no reason why it will not continue to do so in the future.’

Kleijwegt: ‘We expect the market to grow further. The basis of the industry we are operating in is scientific development. Scientific development, by definition, will continue to move forward and to have new breakthroughs. The life sciences venture capital market will therefore also move forward and will continue to flourish. I am convinced by this.’

Copyright © 2004 AltAssets