Paul Grand

Doma Perpetual's 5.7% Stake in Pacira Biosciences: A Catalyst for Governance Change or Strategic Alignment? Doma Perpetual acquires 5.7% stake in Pacira, aiming to influence governance and strategy through board nominations. Investment includes $67.8M spent and three director nominees to enhance governance, aligning with Pacira's 5x30 growth plan. #shareholdervalue #corporategovernance #boardsofdirectors #activistinvesting https://lnkd.in/gfgu3Uw2

2

We at SAV (Scale Asia Ventures) honored to share that Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) has awarded our portfolio company Kernal Biologics up to $48 million to accelerate its in vivo CAR-T therapies toward the clinic. This milestone fuels Kernal’s mission to make treatments for hematological cancers and autoimmune diseases more tolerable, affordable, and accessible—powered by their proprietary platform in genetic medicine. We’re proud to support Kernal Biologics as they continue to push the boundaries of precision medicine and transform the future of patient care. #ARPAH #invivoCART #biotech #geneticmedicine #KernalBio

8

1 Comment

**AI Meets Genetic Agency at Dyno GATC 2025** The evolving landscape of genetic medicine is poised to benefit immensely from advances in AI, as showcased at Dyno's inaugural GATC conference. The integration of therapeutic design with agentic automation underscores an era where AI is not just a tool but a transformative partner in innovation. At ElevenX Capital, we believe that fostering such synergies will be crucial in shaping our investment strategies. How do you see AI enhancing the future of genetic therapies? #investing #innovation #venturecapital #entrepreneurship #genetics #ai

6

🧬 This week's Austin Bio & Health Roundup brings early-stage funding, new partnerships, and action across the Texas Bio Triangle 🧬 💰 Funding & Capital Signals Lumaegis raised $200K in pre-seed funding to advance FDA De Novo certification of its faster, energy-efficient sterilization technology. 🤝 Partnerships & M&A HumanN, a cardiovascular supplement company, signed a wide-ranging sponsorship with UT, reported as one of the largest in college sports. A strong example of the Austin flywheel. Wenzel Spine sold its Vertebral Motion Technologies portfolio to Driving Force, sharpening its focus on next-generation spine solutions. 🤠 Texas Bio Triangle Houston: Coya Therapeutics received FDA acceptance of its IND application for COYA 302 for ALS. Houston: Rice Biotech Launch secured investment from Houston-based Modi Ventures, who will now get a seat on the board, to strengthen its translational biotech initiatives. What’s Next? 🤠 🚀 🦾 🧬

23

In the context of MedTech innovation, research often relies on proprietary data from private companies. Can a study using such data truly be "scientific" if the data-generation process and raw data cannot be made public? I think the statement from King, Keohane, and Verba (Princeton University Press, 1994) that research procedures must be "explicit, codified, and public" is profoundly thought-provoking for venture investment in the scientific valuation process in the MedTech sector. While intellectual property (IP) protection and non-disclosure agreements are critical to a startup's secret sauce, they create direct tension with this core principle of scientific inquiry. This tension is at the heart of venture due diligence for any data-driven health innovation. We must evaluate if a company's claims are "scientific enough" to be credible, even when the data itself is a closely guarded secret. The investor's dilemma: trust vs. transparency On one hand, a startup's proprietary data is its most valuable asset. It underpins a unique algorithm, a novel diagnostic tool, or a new therapeutic approach. Demanding full public disclosure of this data would be a non-starter; it would destroy the company's competitive advantage. On the other hand, without transparency, we lose the fundamental mechanisms of scientific validation outlined by King et al.: 1. Replicability; 2. Peer review; 3. Uncertainty assessment This creates a high-stakes information asymmetry where investors and potential partners must take a leap of faith. At today’s research design method session, Professor Stephen Linder, Professor Aanand D. Naik, M.D. , and Professor Stephanie Silveira guided a group of fellow researchers at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth Houston) to discuss the research design nuances between qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, I brought up this question, and some insightful takeaways and recommendations sound realistic and practical to me. A recommended solution: To resolve this, it is considerable to adopt a modified standard for "scientific" credibility that focuses on what can be made public without compromising the core IP. The diligence process shall be designed to push for maximum transparency on the METHODOLOGY, rather than the raw data itself. This aligns with a comment from Professor Stephen Linder, who noted that "the methodology should be disclosed to the public, which could be one way to evaluate how 'scientific' it is and if it is scientific enough". In essence, if the startup's research is a black box, we need to have a white-box explanation of its internal workings. The credibility of the research lies not in the public availability of the data, but in the replicability and rigor of the underlying scientific process and methodology. This approach allows investors and founders to make alignment based on authentic and accountable scientific findings. 

10

I had a conversation with Karl Schmieder, MS MFA on how #radicalcollaboration is needed to bring a bio-manufacturing industry to life. We talked about: Why invention alone isn’t enough: Discovery is no longer the bottleneck—industrial scaling, regulation, and consumer adoption are. The new role of orchestrators: The most valuable companies will be those that coordinate across supply chains, regulators, and corporates, turning fragmented players into functioning ecosystems. What this means for founders and investors: The future winners in biotech may not be those with the most novel science, but those who master the art of integration. https://lnkd.in/g4bshddA Kylie Porter Michele Stansfield David Weiner David Kestenbaum Mark Warner Sam Perkins Ian O'Hara Arturo Elizondo James Petrie Jim Fader Paul Riley Ed Husic MP Robyn Denholm Guy Reypert Chris Liu Rob Brown Emerald Scofield Dirk van der Kley

47

5 Comments

Love this Andrei Georgescu, Ph.D. “Success, to me, looks like Vivodyne becoming the modern infrastructure for drug programs that seek to eradicate the extremely burdensome diseases of today, like fibrosis, cancers, inflammatory disease, autoimmunity... I see Vivodyne as the fundamental infrastructure needed to drive successful new therapies for such complex diseases that human trial-and-error cannot solve quickly enough.”

4