Marc Tessier-Lavigne

speaker

407 appearances 1 recordings 1 series first heard Mar 2026 last heard 12 Mar

Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.

Trend

recordings per month · last 12 months

Recordings per month over the last 12 months — 1 in all, peaking in Mar 2026 with 1.

Appearances

newest first · ▶ plays the moment

Vanguards of Healthcare by Bloomberg Intelligence · Xaira’s War on Trial-and-Error Drug Development · 12 Mar 2026 podcast

It would change the rate of approvals and also dramatically reduce the costs.

The economics of drug discovery, this has been analyzed in detail, change dramatically if you can improve the success rates by that kind of amount.

So I would say cut in half and increase success rates, triple the success rate.

Would be a huge step forward and I think is not unrealistic if you look at each of the steps.

So let's just take, for example, the first step of making the drug.

So from choosing a target to making a drug and getting into clinical trials, what you currently five years.

We should be cutting that in half or even less if we can essentially make medicines in silico much more rapidly to go from target to a drug candidate in a year to a year and a half.

There's always going to be some trial and error and testing there.

And then being able to get into the clinic in a short period of time.

Again, that's something that people have been working on.

Currently, it takes over a year with an antibody on average to get into the clinic, although for industry best is slightly below a year.

And there are enough examples of people going fast, including during COVID when some medicines were developed very rapidly.

that we can benchmark ourselves against that and say, how can we do that systematically so it's not just a one-off?

In terms of the clinical trials, reducing the time it takes in clinical trials is all about patient stratification.

If you can better identify the patients who are going to respond, your trial doesn't have to be as big.

If in 1,000 patients, there are only 200 that are going to respond, that may not be enough to give you statistical significance.

If you already know that you can identify patients who have more than a 50% chance of responding, you don't have to treat as many in the clinic.

You'll see fewer patients enrolled, larger effect sizes, and obviously higher success rates and shorter timelines.

So I think that's what we should be aspiring to.

In terms of our own therapeutic areas and timelines, and this gives me the opportunity to say one way in which we are distinct from many companies out there, not all of them, is that we aren't just developing the technology.

Showing 341–360 of 407 · page 18 of 21