Dinakar Singh

And there's still too big a gap between a good scientific idea and when a biotech company is actually going to go and spend the money and do it.

You don't have to get it through the 10-yard line anymore.

You still have to get it in midfield.

And so I think more novel structures would actually be great.

And I took back to that NIH translational research program from way back when.

Well, it didn't end up making that much of a difference in SMA because we just ended up throwing the money out and going it ourselves.

It's a pretty cool idea.

And if one could do that, again, it's that Ghostbusters idea that I'm doing at Jackson Labs, because the problem is we found in this world that companies mean well, but they're not trying to solve a disease.

They're trying to attach value to an IP that they have.

Meaning, if you solve SMA with something that they don't have IP on, it isn't very useful.

Scientists are in the business of getting grants, and you don't get grants for, let's say, parallel processing or ruling things out.

You don't get a grant by saying, I don't think this is going to work, but I just want to prove it doesn't work so I can then move on.

That doesn't get you grant money on stuff.

But a lot of those things and the tools and things like that are very much the nitty gritty that actually get you through that early stage where you say, whoa, I've got something.

And so whether it's places like Jackson Labs, whether it's NIH, having these amped up translational research efforts where people can set aside a little bit of money, because honestly, that early stage doesn't cost that much either.

It's later on that you really start going down many rabbit holes.

But for a relatively small amount of money, you could actually go and get people a good chunk down the field to where companies would care more.

When you think about, obviously, the flavor of the day is tear government down.

Government did a pretty good job in some of this stuff.

But certainly, we can make government smarter.