You have an extensive background in both academia and the biotech industry, with over 60 peer-reviewed papers and multiple patents. How has your experience as a researcher shaped your approach as a life sciences investor and entrepreneur?
I think it gives a different perspective as an investor, when you have actually had operational experience. Having started companies and worked with f.ex. patent strategy, development plans and CRO selection and monitoring is not only something I hear about in the board room, but something I have actually done myself.
That said, one should of course also be humble and recognize that one’s own experience is only directly relevant in few cases, and of course we engage experts and other stakeholders in all cases, but it is nevertheless a different perspective one gets from having started and run companies.
The scientific background, and ability to grasp and challenge scientific backgrounds of projects and companies, is essential for an investor in the life science space, and indeed I believe most of my peers in other venture funds have scientific and/or clinical backgrounds.
From your time at Novo Holdings to co-founding Eir Ventures, you’ve been deeply involved in life sciences investments. What inspired you to establish Eir Ventures, and how does it differentiate itself from other VC funds?
A key inspiration for creating Eir Ventures was the obvious market opportunity presented by the great life science innovation in the Nordics combined with the scarcity of professional capital. There is really only a handful of independent professional investors with an international outlook. I think it does matter for the region to have a stronger ecosystem of professional investors.
Fundamentally, we are of course similar to other Venture funds, looking for compelling and differentiated opportunities, that have a potential to deliver venture capital compatible returns, but we have two special “features”. One is our Nordic roots, and link to the Nordic Life science sector, and the other is our ability to invest across the value chain from early stage (university) spin outs to later stage mature opportunities.
In particular our capability and approach to engage in company creation and launch of biotech companies, is something where we are differentiated from many other funds. Based partly on experience from my time in Novo Holdings, we can work with founders and aspiring entrepreneurs from even before they form a company, and we can “roll up our sleeves” and step in to work on plans and engage key team members.
However, contrary to many other funds, we typically work with the entrepreneurs and can support them as the company and technology grow.
Eir Ventures emphasizes investing in transformative therapeutic approaches. What criteria do you use to identify companies with high potential for innovation and impact on patient health?
Evaluating new opportunities is always a complex process where many factors are considered. Strong science, credible development plans, and capable teams are all important. We look for opportunities where major inflection points can be reached with a cost-efficient development path.
We believe that one of the great advantages of European biotech companies is that they can “do more with less”, i.e. it can be significantly more cost efficient to develop drugs here than in f.ex the US. This requires careful considerations and use of the right development competencies, and this is something we look for. Ultimately the products have to address real unmet medical needs, and we do want to see innovation that, if successfully developed, can be transformative for patients.
The Nordics are a key focus for Eir Ventures, given the abundance of medical innovation and scarcity of professional capital. How does the Nordic ecosystem compare to other regions, and what unique opportunities do you see here?
There are several unique features of the Nordic life science ecosystem. One is the persistent high innovation score and the tradition for medical innovation. There is also a strong legacy of translating innovation to medical products, and big pharmaceutical companies such as Novo Nordisk and AstraZeneca have their roots here.
The early-stage translational stage is very well funded with both public support and strong privately funded initiatives such as the BII (BioInnovation Institute) accelerator in Copenhagen funded with more than € 500m from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Thus, we see a strong pipeline of early-stage projects, that will continue in the coming years, but there has been no increase in the life science venture capital available.
We see this market anomaly as a tremendous investment opportunity.
Given your broad experience with both preclinical and clinical development, what do you see as the biggest challenges biotech companies face today in bridging the gap between groundbreaking research and viable therapeutic products?
Smaller biotech companies cannot have all competencies internally. A key challenge for emerging companies is to be realistic about what competencies they have or need to have internally and what they need to source externally.
Access to the right competencies is essential if they are to pursue an appropriate development path, where they cost effectively can come to major inflection points (another embodiment of this is to set up appropriate “go/no-go” experiments through the development path) and secure a cost-efficient development of their programs.
What drives you?
I am very driven by creating results and finding the “best possible” solutions to bring companies, programs (and people) forward. The world is never black and white, there are always many options and “challenges” (a usual euphemism for problems, big and small), and in small teams and companies, one is dependent on everyone constructively contributing their insights and competencies to find the best solutions and plans.
I have always thrived in being in such situations and can often take the role of a “catalyst” to get stuff done. It drives me to see things actually move forward and inflection points being reached, especially when the path has ben a bit windy and not straight forward. Thus, I guess, it is no accident I have ended up spending my entire career in the world of Biotech, where complexity and “challenges” are more abundant than in any other industry.
With the rising focus on personalized medicine and digital health, how do you see the future of healthcare evolving, and what role do venture capital and companies like Eir Ventures play in shaping it?
Personalized medicine has been a term that has been discussed for more than a decade. Although from a scientific perspective it makes a lot of sense to tailer treatments to each individual patient, then on a practical level this has been very difficult to achieve.
One of the main challenges here is the lack of precise diagnostic methods and meaningful use of diagnostic data. Even though advances in molecular medicine now enable precise and personalized data, it is still a challenge to secure sufficient reimbursement and integration of diagnostics in the value chain.
We see a need and thus an opportunity for further developing diagnostic technologies, and one such example is Moleculent, a company where we co-led the series A round last year together with Arch Ventures. Moleculent develops a new technology enabling detailed measurements of cell-cell interactions, which will advance understanding of biological pathways and understanding of drug action.
Digital health is a growing area of interest, and although Eir Ventures only to a very limited extend has explored the area (with one small pre-seed investment in the company Rapp), we do see this as holding significant potential, not least because of the rapid advances in AI and machine learning enabling diagnostic and therapeutic uses of healthcare data.
Eir Ventures has supported several promising companies tackling unmet medical needs. Could you share a success story or example of a portfolio company where Eir Ventures’ involvement has been pivotal in driving its growth and impact?
Most of Eir Ventures portfolio companies are still “work in progress”. However, let me highlight two examples from our portfolio. One is a seedling company, Henlez. It is built around technology spun out from the Danish Bioindustrial company Novozymes. Novozymes (now named Novonesis) has developed an enzyme specifically cleaving certain keratins, the key proteins responsible for “sealing off” the hair follicles in health and disease.
Henlez is advancing its first program, HEN-001, a topical for treatment of Hidradenitis Supportiva (HS), where the enzyme “unclogs” the hair follicles, and thus halts initiation and progression of HS lesions. It is a good example of a company that has pursued a very cost efficient development , where they have been able to conclude a clinical PoC study in HS patients, showing that HEN-001 significantly reduces the progression of lesions in HS patients, and supporting that HEN-001 could be a first line therapy, potentially alongside systemic anti-inflammatory therapies that mainly work in late-stage disease. We are the sole investor in Henlez and have worked extensively with the company in crafting strategy and operational plans.
Another example could be Scenic Biotech, a Dutch company where we led the series A round back in 2022. The company is formed around a unique technology spun out from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, enabling identification of novel targets.
This may be an example of a more “classical” lead investor role (we are part of a syndicate comprising us and five other European investors), but we have maintained a very active role. Scenic is also a good example of cost-effective development, f.ex. they have entered into deals with Gilead and BMS for providing access to their technology platform.
Not only does this serve as a commercial validation of Scenic’s technology and capabilities, it also provides valuable non-dilutive funding that enables the company to advance its internal programs.
As a board member and chairperson for numerous biotech startups, how do you balance offering strategic guidance with empowering founders and teams to lead their companies effectively?
It can be challenging to balancing the operational and mentoring roles with also the investor perspective where one must be able to have a more distanced overview of the opportunity and the return potential. I think there is no quick formula on how to balance the different roles, but I will mention the need to be part of a diverse team when discussing and working with opportunities.
I believe it is essential for an investor to have personal operational and entrepreneurial experience. This firsthand knowledge adds significant value, enabling investors to guide and, at times, mentor emerging teams effectively. It also allows for a critical and informed review of operational plans.
Personal experience in these areas enhances an investor’s ability to provide practical insights and strategic guidance, making it an invaluable attribute in fostering the success of growing ventures.
Who or what has shaped who you are?
Many people, organizations and jobs have shaped me through my path here in life. I have no “sole provider” of guidance and inspiration but can mention a few. Obviously, we are all shaped by our families, and I will mention my parents who instilled both a strong curiosity to the world, but also a positive and emphatic approach to life and other people.
In my career I have had the pleasure of working with many clever and sharp minds, and I can mention a few, such as Henrik Dalbøge , my first manager outside academia, who established a small high performance team working almost like an independent biotech company even though we were part of the larger Novo Nordisk organization (and thus giving me a strong preference for being a “bigger cog in a smaller machine rather than the other way around) or Søren Carlsen (who sadly recently passed away), who founded Novo Ventures and Novo seeds. Ultimately, though, it is difficult for me to pinpoint specific mentors and individuals.
With your vast experience across Europe and the US, how do you envision the global biotech landscape changing in the next decade, and what role do Nordic companies play in this evolution?
I think we are at a relatively critical timepoint for European biotech. The innovation power of the US is well established, and in particular the access to capital and competencies in the US is substantially better than in Europe. This is apparent as a larger share of newly approved drugs now are developed by US based companies compared to a decade ago.
If Europe does not step up to the plate, and ensures more capital is allocated to its life science sector, the relative decline will continue. Europe also needs to take a hard look at the regulatory environment, where in many areas the regulatory framework poses substantial burdens compared to other regions of the world.
However, I am an optimist, and I think the awareness of the potential of the life science sector, and the need for Europe to “step up to the plate” is increasing, also among politicians and general investors, so I do think the sector has brighter times ahead.
The Nordic region is in the same situation as the rest of Europe, but given both the abundant source of innovation, but also strong capital basis (currently not allocated to life science), the Nordic region has the potential to play a major role in the future growth of biotech.