You’ve helped build and scale multiple companies from the ground up. What drives your decision to go all in as a founder versus stepping in as an investor or board member?
It depends on timing and the role I have at that moment. As an entrepreneur, my decision-making process isn’t that different from when I’m investing. I always start with the fundamentals: What is the science? What is the biology? Most importantly, what impact will we have on patients if everything goes right?
If the answer excites me and I believe the potential to help patients is real and meaningful, that becomes the driving force. From there, it’s a question of timing and capacity—whether I step in fully as CEO or founder or, as I do now, take the role of investor through my fund.
But the lens is always the same: would I back this if I were doing it myself?
How has your experience as a CEO and operator influenced your approach as a venture partner and investor?
Having been in the CEO role makes it much easier to relate to management teams. I understand the pressures, the sleepless nights, the weight of making decisions with incomplete information.
That experience helps me judge whether an explanation is valid—whether it’s a genuine scientific challenge, a market shift, or a management performance issue. It also allows me to offer guidance that’s grounded in real-world experience rather than theory.
From the management side, I think it’s reassuring to have an investor who has been in their shoes and speaks the same language, someone who understands both the exhilaration and the strain.
At Vico Therapetuics and previously at Tusk, what defining moments shaped the direction or culture of the company?
At Tusk, one defining moment came when we licensed a technology from Sergio Quezada that wasn’t part of our original plan. That program ended up becoming the core of the company, especially after our initial lead program faced an uphill battle when competitors failed clinically on similar targets.
At Vico Therapeutics, we initially aimed to focus on RETT syndrome. We had access to great biology IP on a possible treatment but lacked the necessary experience to turn it into a drug, as we need to develop an antisense oligonucleotide to the specific biological target. Then, an opportunity arose to bring in oligonucleotide expertise from my old team at Prosensa. But along with that came a program in triplet repeat disorders, which ultimately became our primary focus. Today this lead program (targeting HD and SCA) is in clinical development and hence the focus of the company has shifted to this.
In both cases, the lesson was clear: flexibility matters. Sometimes, the most transformative opportunities are the ones you didn’t initially plan for.
You’ve had two high-profile exits with Tusk and Prosensa. What lessons did you take from those acquisitions?
Deals are ultimately done by people, and building trust takes time. Strategic fit, timing, and yes—a bit of luck—are all crucial. Even after a handshake, there are countless hurdles: due diligence, contract negotiations, shifting priorities.
Strong relationships with the people on the other side often make the difference between a deal closing or falling apart. You can’t shortcut that process; trust is earned over months or even years.
How do you evaluate whether to build a platform biotech versus an asset-centric company?
In today’s funding environment, asset-focused approaches are more common because they tend to reach value inflection points sooner. Platforms can be tremendously exciting, but they require substantial, ongoing funding and a very clear vision of where they’ll make an impact.
Too many options can dilute focus and slow progress. With an asset, it’s much clearer: here’s the drug, here’s the target, and here’s how we’ll measure success. For me, that’s easier to evaluate in terms of patient impact and investor return.
What qualities do you look for in founding teams or CEOs when backing a new venture? Has that evolved?
It hasn’t changed much—honesty, transparency, modesty, a strong work ethic, and the ability to listen. If they’ve done it before, that’s a bonus, because experience brings perspective.
But nobody starts as a second-time CEO, so I’m open to backing first-timers if they have the right mindset.
Trust is critical. I want to see leaders willing to roll up their sleeves, surround themselves with talented people, and genuinely take advice to heart.
It’s rare for a founding CEO to remain in place all the way to commercialization—different stages often require different leadership profiles, and that’s not a bad thing.
What therapeutic areas or technologies are getting your attention right now?
At DROIA, we focus on oncology and genetic diseases, so our scope is already fairly targeted. Right now, I’m particularly interested in asset-centric opportunities with a clear path to the clinic, ideally reaching first clinical data within two to three years of investment.
That timeline allows for measurable progress and strategic flexibility. Pure early-stage platform plays are harder to finance in the current climate, so we’re more selective there.
Looking back, what’s one of the toughest setbacks you’ve faced, and how did you handle it?
“Black Friday” at Prosensa stands out vividly. We had a partnership with GSK and had recently gone public when we learned our Phase 3 trial missed its endpoint. Getting that news—without immediate clarity on why—was incredibly tough.
Informing patient groups and physicians, many of whom we knew personally, was even harder. In rare disease communities, those relationships are close-knit, so it was an emotional blow.
Over time, we were able to show the drug worked in a subgroup, but that didn’t erase the sting of that first call.
If you were starting a biotech from scratch today, how would you approach it?
I’d focus on building a strong team early, including trusted independent advisors to balance the VC perspective on the board.
Having done it before, I now have a network of people I trust, which makes it easier. But the fundamentals haven’t changed: find the right people, the right science, and the right opportunity.
The first raise is always the hardest, so having credible people around the table from day one makes all the difference.
Hiring is tough, and mistakes happen. Any thoughts?
Everyone makes hiring mistakes, even at the CEO level. The challenge is you only truly get to know someone after working closely for a while.
One key lesson: don’t hire out of desperation. If you have doubts—no matter how small—listen to them. It’s tempting to think you can “fix” a slightly off-fit candidate, but that rarely works out. Waiting a bit longer is usually the better call.
Reference checks are invaluable, especially when you speak to people who’ve worked closely with the candidate. And listen carefully to those references—you’ll often hear the truth between the lines.
Finally, can you share something about yourself that few people know?
Outside of biotech, I love cycling and wine. I think work-life balance is essential—not in the sense of rigidly counting hours, but in making sure you have outlets that recharge you.
You can give 120–150% at work, but you also need moments to step back, celebrate small wins, and “smell the roses.” That balance makes you better at both work and life.
