SALT NY: Life Sciences

Programmable Biology & Institutional Innovation | #SALTNY

Programmable Biology & Institutional Innovation with Jason Kelly, Founder, Ginkgo Bioworks. Dr. Uma Valeti, Chief Executive Officer & Founder, UPSIDE Foods.

Moderated by AJ Scaramucci, Managing Director, The SALT Fund.

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Kelly, Jason - Cropped.jpeg

Jason Kelly

Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Ginkgo Bioworks

uma-valeti.jpeg

Uma Valeti

Chief Executive Officer & Founder

UPSIDE Foods

 

MODERATOR

Headshot - Scaramucci, AJ - Cropped.jpeg

AJ Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SALT Fund

 

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

AJ Scaramucci: (00:04)
Welcome Jason, welcome Uma. Happy to have you at SALT. This is a topic on something I'm extremely passionate about, the intersection of software and biology. I'd love to start with you, Jason. So back in 2008, you and your team at MIT really predicted this technological Renaissance in biotech, you saw the convergence of technologies, including CRISPR for gene editing, low cost genome sequencing, using software to literally program cells. And today you're synthesizing things in the food industry, things in the pharma industry, among others.

AJ Scaramucci: (00:51)
This Friday, guys, this Friday, Jason is taking his company public in what will be the largest biotech IPO of all time, raising $1.6 billion from Viking, ARC, and a number of others. Can you explain to the audience what programmable biology is and what the vision for Ginkgo is?

Jason Kelly: (01:14)
Yeah, happy to do it. So the core idea is that inside of every cell is digital code in the form of DNA, so it's ATCs and Gs, it's not zeros and ones like in a computer, but you can read that code with DNA sequencing, genomics, and you can write that code, and this is really important, with DNA synthesis, DNA printing, which literally means you go on a computer, you type ATCGGG you hit print, and out of our labs in Boston or other companies like twist Bioscience in San Francisco, a piece of DNA gets printed.

Jason Kelly: (01:48)
And so if you can read and write code and you have a machine that would run it, which is sort of how we think of a cell, you're programming. And so the idea behind Ginkgo, we realize this idea, like you mentioned back at MIT, because we were engineers that came into biology later in life, computer scientists, mechanical engineers and so on, and there's this realization that, well, if you look across all of life, the DNA is the same, and inside of every cell, the infrastructure is the same to read that code. And so why is it that you don't have the kind of horizontal platforms like we saw in computers? Where are the operating systems? Where's the Amazon Web Services?

Jason Kelly: (02:29)
The idea behind Ginkgo was, well, let's build that. What does the platform look like that makes it easier and faster to program cells year over year? What application? All the applications. Just like you wouldn't ask, what application is Windows being written for, it's all of them. Which website is AWS for? It's all of them. The idea behind Ginkgo is, what engineered cell are you trying to produce? All of them. And our customers basically come to us, ask us to program them a cell, and then we deliver for them, and then we make money like Apple would in the app store. We basically take a royalty of value share on the value of that end app.

Jason Kelly: (03:08)
We'll talk about it today, but that can range, like AJ mentioned from you have $100 million joint venture with Bayer crop science to engineer microbes or produce fertilizer. We just announced a partnership that concluded with a company called Aldevron, which is one of the biggest MRNA vaccine manufacturers, where we optimized a cell to produce vaccinia capping enzyme, one of the supply chain components in MRNA vaccines. To Roche and antibiotics. To we work with Altria's joint venture Kronos in Canvas. All of these things are actually cell programs.

Jason Kelly: (03:40)
Real excited to be here today to talk about how that technology is improving and share it with you all. And yes, we all are listing. We're excited about it. We're going to trade as DNA, which used to be Genentech's old ticker before they got bought by Roche, which is, for a bio nerd like me is like Nirvana, so I got really excited about it on Friday.

AJ Scaramucci: (04:00)
That's awesome. So moving to you, Uma. So just to rattle off a few quick stats, I think 33% of the planet's non-ice land mass is used for agriculture. We're seeing 80 billion animals a year being slaughtered. And not only that, the demand for meat is expected to double by 2030. Can you explain what you're doing to change this, to solve this problem? And also what the essence of cultivated meat is?

Uma Valeti: (04:33)
Absolutely. AJ, it's great to be here back in New York. So cultivated meat is a field that's moving rapidly from science fiction into reality, and the idea behind this is you could cultivate meat directly from animal cells without having to raise an animal. So this has been a field in the waiting for the last several decades. You've put a lot of stats on the table, but I want to restate some of them because they're so important.

Uma Valeti: (04:58)
We right now have seven and a half billion people, and we eat about 75 to 80 billion animals every year. And the demand of meat is supposed to double by 2050. That means we need to figure out a way to grow 150 billion animals every year to feed 10 billion people. And these numbers are just mind boggling because of the amount of meat that needs to be produced, and in doing so, it clearly have a clear impact on the environment, climate, animal welfare, and health.

Uma Valeti: (05:26)
The idea for cultivated meat that Upside Foods pioneered is in late 2015 we started the company saying we want to grow meat from animal cells so you don't have to raise billions of animals every year. And we started off in 2016, we released first a beef meatball, and that just blew people's minds because we took a few cells from an adult cow, the cow doesn't need to be slaughtered, by the way, for this, and we grew it into a meatball and did a tasting, the Wall Street Journal wrote about it. And it just took off in people's minds because imagine if you can start producing meat across any species, meat, poultry, seafood, and you start doing it with significantly less resources.

Uma Valeti: (06:09)
Because when you think about a beef cattle, it takes about two to three years to get to slaughter. For a pig, it's about a year. For a chicken it's two to three months. If you think about those lifespans for those animals, and we can do all of that in two to three weeks independent of any species, it could be beef or it could be tuna, that opens up an enormous opportunity. And that's really what Upside Foods has pioneered.

Uma Valeti: (06:38)
We have done beef in 2016. We've done chicken and duck in 2017. We are just in the process of building the first production facility that can show end to end production of meat in a clean environment, right from the first cells. So we expect people to come on tour. We call it a slaughterless house. It's just obviously in trend with all the things we want to see happening in the next 10, 20 years in the world reduce use of resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improving awareness of where food is coming from.

Uma Valeti: (07:08)
I think we are tapping onto a trend just like you've seen in 2008 of programming biology. We think we can basically bring any edible species of meat, poultry, or seafood to the world.

AJ Scaramucci: (07:18)
Wow. You guys have a lot of intersectionality in your work and in your companies, and one of the big mega trends in the food and ag tech industry in recent decades has been plant-based alternatives to meat products. You see Beyond, Impossible, in the burger category, you see people like Oatly in the milk category, and this has been phenomenal. Many of these companies are now listed publicly.

AJ Scaramucci: (07:48)
But there are two other paradigm shifts in the space we're also seeing, maybe in the earlier phase. One is precision fermentation, this is an area you do a ton of work on. You've got another joint venture in Motif, which is operating in the dairy industry, and let's perhaps start there, and then we'll go to Uma. I'd love for you to compare and contrast the differences and distinctions and the nutritional profiles of these things like Impossible and Beyond relative to what you're working on. Start with Jason.

Jason Kelly: (08:18)
I think there's going to be two generations here, and I can speak to the first one, Uma may speak to the second. So the first generation is exactly what you're saying, things like the Impossible burger, which, by the way, I know you're a vegetarian, I'm not a vegetarian. I grew up having a cheeseburger every day for lunch, and so you bite into an Impossible burger, it's pretty interesting. It bleeds.

Jason Kelly: (08:43)
That's a bit weird. There's not a lot of blood in plants, so how are they doing that? And what they've done is they've taken the gene for hemoglobin, which is the protein that makes blood red, and they take a yeast cell, like a brewer's yeast, and they program the genome, which is what we were just talking about, you're essentially installing some new code in there. It's ATCs and Gs, but it's new code. And then you grow that yeast cell up almost in a brewery, except instead of beer coming out, hemoglobin comes out. And then you add that back into this veggie burger and suddenly it smells right, tastes right, it's the Impossible Whopper at Burger King. First real innovation, as far as I'm concerned, in the burger industry, probably in 100 years or something.

Jason Kelly: (09:23)
There are other animal proteins like hemoglobin. There are key proteins in milk that makes cheese stretchy. If you've ever had a vegan cheese, it's not a great experience. That's because there's no casein in vegetables. And so these types of proteins will be made by fermentation of microbes or yeast, and then added back into largely plant-based products. That's the first generation and one of our app developers, Motif, is doing exactly that at Ginkgo.

Uma Valeti: (09:49)
I want to add onto that. So there's a couple of generations of food that are evolving very rapidly and Beyond and Impossible, and all plant based categories have done a fantastic job improving awareness of why food has to come from a place where it can be scalable, sustainable. And I think they've done great in improving even the quality of taste of vegetarian products. The burgers used to taste really terrible, and imagine what Beyond and Impossible, they've made them tastier. And they've done it through various combinations of color, taste, flavors, and they've used recombinant proteins in the case of Impossible to make it have the little ion or metallic paste when you bite into a burger. And that's been fantastic.

Uma Valeti: (10:28)
I think the evolution is going to be continuously going to, what's the holy grail? When we think about the food that we all fall in love with, for 10,000 years meats been the central plate. And when you think about what's on the central plate, it's a piece of steak or a piece of chicken breast, there's billions of cells in that and cells are the building blocks of all food. And what we're trying to do is to say, well, let's take the cells, keep them intact, because the cells are already programmed with the DNA or the code of what they're supposed to do, and let the cells grow on their own way that nature has already programmed them to do, and we provide them with the nutrients and the cells make the proteins, they make the fats, they make the little molecules that give you the taste and the texture and the aroma.

Uma Valeti: (11:13)
In our view, we think the palette is enormous. We don't think that one single protein can really make up for all the millions of molecules in a cell, so we're trying to harness the power of a cell and say, let's figure out a way to find the best quality cells for any species, and let's grow them outside the constraints of an animal, and that's step one.

Uma Valeti: (11:34)
So you put a product that has the taste and the texture, aroma, features, and then the next step, this is where I get really excited as a cardiologist is, what don't we start making the meat that we eat healthier? Can we start making it better for patients that have risk of developing cardiovascular disease or already have cardiovascular disease? Can we make this meet how characters that do not provoke inflammation in the human body?

Uma Valeti: (12:00)
Think about athletes. They want high, bioavailable, dense, protein. What if you make meat with higher protein? Think about patients with chronic kidney disease, they love to eat meat but as a doc I used to write the prescription, low protein, two gram sodium diet. Now what if I can tell them, you can eat meat, you could eat chicken, you can beef, but we can keep it low protein so your kidneys don't have to bear the brunt of that demand.

Uma Valeti: (12:22)
It opens up the pallet in a very different way and that's really what I'm excited about this generation of bringing meat to the table that maybe for the next 10,000 years could start evolving differently.

AJ Scaramucci: (12:33)
So to yes and this a bit, there are 400,000 plant species that are edible to us humans. We're eating less than 5%. And that's agnostic of culture, whether you're here in the US, China, Europe, et cetera. And in the meat category, there's a few animals that we eat. It's really just cows, chickens, pigs, et cetera, a very narrow experiential band. And I'm curious, for you, Uma, perhaps, first, where do you see this going? What other unique combinations of food and protein do you expect to see on plates going forward in the future?

Uma Valeti: (13:15)
It's a great question. I think Upside Foods is starting by launching chicken first. So we've already said Upside chicken is going to hit the markets as soon as we get regulatory approval, but we're working with the FDA and USDA to do that.

Uma Valeti: (13:26)
We picked chicken because chicken is universally loved in every culture and it's very versatile to cook, and that's the reason for chicken. But we have a portfolio of products that we're working on that includes beef, and pork, and seafood, crustaceans. But the thing that, as you talk about what's the next generation products, there's only a small number of animal species that are being eaten right now because it's easy to grow them in confined spaces. But what if we take those confines out? That we can literally take any edible cell from meat, poultry, seafood species, and start producing them in a clean environment.

Uma Valeti: (13:57)
Now game animals don't have to be at risk. The biodiversity doesn't have to be as much as the risk, especially if you're hunting them down for meat. That opens up an incredible possibility. And think about seafood. There's enormous numbers of species we don't even know about, but we're just losing them on mass because of whether it's deforestation in the Amazon, or, if you watch Seaspiracy there's a pretty nice account of what's happening with the species.

Uma Valeti: (14:22)
We think that if it's for food for humans, we can solve that problem. In doing so, then you have a ripple effect. You don't have to plant lots of crops in the Amazon. You don't have to transport... Transportation of meat is a huge burden. If you start producing meat locally, that just changes everything. Local, regional, decreased transportation, not need to have the level of refrigeration and fear of salmonella are E.coli. I think it opens up a lot of possibilities.

AJ Scaramucci: (14:51)
Sure.

Jason Kelly: (14:52)
So have you tried to do it? Have you tried to grow cells from like a panther or something just to see if you can grow them?

Uma Valeti: (14:59)
Our engineering and scientific team are incredibly creative. They'd love to get their hands... I can tell you, we have someone who is actively trying to figure out, can we bring the wooly mammoth back? So it goes back pretty far away, so it's not for a lack of imagination.

Jason Kelly: (15:13)
Mammoth steaks.

Uma Valeti: (15:14)
As a business, we need to make sure it's right front and center we're putting products people want to eat right now.

AJ Scaramucci: (15:19)
I want to move to another really hot button issue, particularly here today with Dr. Scott Gottlieb here, and that's the pandemic. And Jason, you've been operating on hyperdrive at Ginkgo. In the midst of the breakout last March you were working in collaboration with not only US government, but also Moderna to help synthesize different aspects of the MRNA vaccine. I'd love your commentary on where things are today in regards to the pandemic, from your perspective, and secondarily, how you guys at Ginkgo are thinking about prevention of future pandemics, how are you building a societal immune system, if you will?

Jason Kelly: (16:05)
This is a super good question. I think one of the interesting things about the pandemic is we now have a lot more broad based awareness of biology. Everybody suddenly knows... My parents know what MRNA is and PCR tests and all these things. And so that's actually a good moment, I think, and not a great situation right now globally with the pandemic, but it's not a situation that is leaving our minds tomorrow. And so I think actually we're a little bit lucky in this happening before we got very good at programming biology. In other words, we're just at the beginning, we're just inflecting. It's kind of like semiconductors in the 50s or 60s, or personal computers in the 80s, with synthetic biology today, programming cells.

Jason Kelly: (16:50)
And so we're getting a chance to build the equivalent of cybersecurity before the internet, and that's what COVID offers us an opportunity to do. And so I think that the big pillars to this are rapid vaccine manufacturing, rapid therapeutic development, and then surveillance testing. In other words, monitoring, kind of like you would with a weather satellite, so that what's going on.

Jason Kelly: (17:14)
We were lucky enough to be able to help. Obviously I mentioned this project we did with Aldevron, one of the vaccine manufacturers, to optimize the production of one of these enzymes that's used in the MRNA vaccine manufacturing process of places like Moderna.

Jason Kelly: (17:27)
The other area we've actually spent a lot of time in is in the surveillance testing category. So at this point we're doing, I believe, more K-12 testing in the country than anybody right now, which the country's done a good job giving a lot of money to states to say, hey, let's keep schools open by monitoring so that you could close a classroom, not a school, and that's the power of having this ability to see what's going on, to allow governors and other leaders to have less disruptive public health interventions, less quarantining, these sorts of things, while in the midst of an epidemic. And that, I think, is something we need as a country just from a national security footing at a minimum, and certainly during COVID so that our lives can be more normal.

Jason Kelly: (18:09)
We're happy to be participating in it. It is certainly a big problem, but I think you are seeing the country, and the rest of the world, muscle up to build the technology that hopefully then persists to make it way harder for us to get hit this hard again in the future.

AJ Scaramucci: (18:26)
Definitely. And to double click on this a bit, Jason, so there's been a number of talks this week about longevity, cellular reprogramming, Yamanaka factors among other things. You've got quite a bit going on in the cellular therapeutic space, in the biotech space, synthesizing small molecules among other things. Can you touch a bit more on that?

Jason Kelly: (18:51)
The good thing about Ginkgo is we're not a product company. So I mentioned all these things we're doing, that vaccine [inaudible 00:18:58], that's Aldevron's product. The work we're doing in antibiotics, that's Roche's product. And so there is a big opportunity.

Jason Kelly: (19:04)
We just announced a partnership with Biogen, one of the big gene therapy companies, to work in AAVs back in the first quarter of this year, earlier this year. That whole category of cell and gene therapy, I think particularly after the success of MRNA vaccines, you're going to see that category get substantially bigger in the future. You're getting manufacturing built out to make it cheaper. All these things are happening right now. So we expect that to be something that a lot of our customers come asking for in the next couple of years, would be, hey, Ginkgo, could you program me a more efficient gene therapy or cell therapy, TCRs, things like that, for sure.

AJ Scaramucci: (19:41)
And over to you, Uma. I mean, I remember, I think it was back in 2009, there was a breakout of H1N1, or the swine flu, and there were 153,000 people killed over a six month period. That was, at the time, an unmitigated disaster. Today, you've got COVID-19, there's over four and a half people dead in the last 14 months. Both of those instances emergent, one from a wet market in Wuhan, the other from a slaughter house. I'd love for you to touch on how what you're doing really affects food security, both here in the US and abroad.

Uma Valeti: (20:23)
Thank you for asking the question here. This pandemic has touched us really closely. I lost my dad to COVID about seven months ago, and I lost a first cousin to COVID about nine months ago, and this was all before vaccines were available. And after vaccines were available, my dad's family members, my mom's family members, all got vaccinated and they all survived after getting COVID.

Uma Valeti: (20:50)
It's very clear how we innovated under pressure and got the vaccines out. So I lost my dear dad, who has been a big supporter. He's a veterinarian, by the way. I grew up with him, with cattle, sheep, everything around me. But nature has given us a clear mandate to adapt and if we continue to raise animals in intense confined production facilities like we have now, it's just a place of intense concern. It's like a, I won't want to use the word, but it's a ticking dash dash.

Uma Valeti: (21:24)
So every effort should be made for us, number one, to walk back from that with what we've done to produce food. And that's where I hope cultivated meat can play a big role. It's going to take a long time to transition away from the number of animals we are raising and that is still needed to put high quality protein on the plates. Meat alternatives, plant based, are doing a great job, but if we want to preserve the choice of eating delicious meat, that is climate friendly, that is healthy, and doesn't increase the risks of pandemics. I think this is a really big opportunity for us.

Uma Valeti: (21:55)
Even before COVID we were talking about this all the time, but during the last 18 months, the amount of interest in the work we're doing just has gone up 10 X, and there's dozens of companies across the world, in nearly every meat producing country, meat consuming country, that have been started. Governments have been giving grants on this, undergrad and PhD research programs have been started, lots of regulatory agencies are really active thinking through how can we get these products out to market? So I think we have a pretty big opportunity to adapt, and it's just the time to pay attention to it.

AJ Scaramucci: (22:26)
Uma, you've done a lot of R&D across many different cell types. You seem to have settled on chicken as your beachhead product. When can we taste it? When will it be out in the world? And does is your product pipeline look like today?

Uma Valeti: (22:42)
Absolutely. So we announced Upside chicken will be coming to the market. We are awaiting regulatory approval from the FDA and the USDA. The agencies have been remarkable in producing a guidance on how we can regulate the cultivated meat industry [inaudible 00:22:57] working with them. So we've announced our first partner, Dominique Crenn, who's one of five three Michelin star women chefs in the world, and she's in the Bay Area. So we plan to release our initial products through a collaboration with Dominique Crenn at Atelier Crenn restaurant, but just to follow up right after, there's a number of restaurant partners and also smaller grocery chains that we're talking to, and we hope to be able to announce that.

Uma Valeti: (23:20)
We can't make enough at the moment. That's really why the first industrial scale production facility opening in the Bay Area, I think it's going to be a crown jewel for innovation. But based on that, we expect to build much larger scale commercial production facilities in the US and also outside the US, that could make 10 to 20 to 50 million pounds of meat every year.

AJ Scaramucci: (23:43)
That's very exciting.

Uma Valeti: (23:44)
The of portfolio products, chicken will be our first one, but like I've said, we're working on beef and pork, seafood, and crustaceans. We want to be able to release them directly as an Upside brand, because we also see this as an incredible brand building opportunity, a platform that can bring the foods we love to the plate. So if I say what's our ultimate vision and goal, we want to be the most desirable brand of choice for meat lovers across the world in 10 years from now.

AJ Scaramucci: (24:12)
Fascinating. And as the last question we'll go to you, Jason. So really this programmable biology mega trend is just getting started. And I like to think about it myself as evolution going from natural selection to intelligent direction. We're now able to shape, shift, and program biology at will. Where does this go in another 10 years, in another 20 years, another 50 years? If you wouldn't mind.

Jason Kelly: (24:41)
What I think is cool about it is it's going to touch a whole bunch of different industries. The way I get it in my head is I think about computers. That was a programab;e technology, you put in different code, it does new things, it gets better every year. What industries did it disrupt? Well, media, finance, telecom, advertising, all the information based industries. Well, why is that? Well, a computer is a programmable machine, but fundamentally it moves information around, it moves bits, zeros, and ones.

Jason Kelly: (25:09)
Well, a cell is programmable. You put in new code, I swear to God, it does new things. Incredible. It literally runs on digital code. But it doesn't move information around, it moves atoms around. So if you think of the industries that are going to get disrupted in the next 10 to 20, 50 years, it's all the physical goods industries. It's building materials, it's electronics, it's food, it's all the stuff, all the things, that, by the way, you know what computers didn't disrupt, hamburgers. These industries have been left alone for the last 50 years of innovation and they're all biotech industries. They just don't realize it yet.

AJ Scaramucci: (25:42)
Fascinating. And with that, we've got an IPO coming out this Friday, keep an eye out for that at DNA. And hopefully we'll be tasting your chicken soon. [crosstalk 00:25:52]. Thanks, guys.

Uma Valeti: (25:53)
Thank you.

Open Your Mind – How Psychedelics Can Cure Mental Health Issues & Make You Happy | #SALTNY

Open Your Mind – How Psychedelics Can Cure Mental Health Issues & Make You Happy with Christian Angermayer, Founder, Apeiron Investment Group.

Moderated by Kara Swisher, Host, Sway.

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

christian-angermayer.png

Christian Angermayer

Founder

Apeiron Investment Group

Headshot - Swisher, Kara - Cropped.jpeg

Kara Swisher

Host

Sway

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Kara Swisher: (00:00)
Hi everybody. So for the final session of the day, we're going to talk about drugs, which is, I think, welcome. So this is actually a topic a lot of people laugh about the issues of psychedelics and it's very San Francisco. And I'll just say my background, I've been talking to tech billionaires about psychedelics for years, because a lot of them are interested in it. They're investing in it. They take them, they think they're important, but now it's sort of created a shift now into being a real business, sort of following the weed becoming an industry and stuff like that. So, Christian, why don't you talk a little bit about what you're doing, because I'd like to start talking about, before we talk about the actual which ones do what, and where the promising parts are, talk about the business of it first.

Christian Angermayer: (00:50)
Okay. Hello, everybody pleasure to be here. So in my day job, that's not a topic. I'm just saying it because I read that's the subtitle. I'm running my own family office, Apeiron. We do investing companies. But once in a while, when we have an original idea nobody else ever had, we start companies and we did start a company, which is in meantime, listed on NASDAQ, which is called ATAI Life Sciences. And ATAI is actually working on bringing various psychedelic substances back from sort of the illegal realm, where they are now, into the medical world, as a treatment for various mental health issues.

Kara Swisher: (01:28)
And so the idea is many of these drugs from LSD to ketamine to mescalin.

Christian Angermayer: (01:36)
[crosstalk 00:01:36].

Kara Swisher: (01:36)
All kinds of things have been mostly sidelined because they're considered class one drugs, correct? In the United States, at least that's the case. And during the seventies, they were sort of demonized in a lot of ways. And it was sort of counter cultural, the Nixon administration cracked down on them, and it's been going on like that for many years. Now, many of them are getting big investments from different people. So talk about your investors. So people an idea of who's making these investments.

Christian Angermayer: (02:02)
Well, in the meantime, we're listed, so everybody can be an investor, but I'm the founder. I also was the guy who put in the first money because back then most people said I'm insane. Literally. But I had several early stage investors, Peter Thiel, Mike Novogratz, Louis Bacon, [inaudible 00:02:22], and some other us who really very early when we did our first rounds, trusted in the topic and me and so far so good.

Kara Swisher: (02:31)
So what do you think they're seeing here? A big business? They like to get high? What? I'm teasing.

Christian Angermayer: (02:38)
I think first of all, it's a very short period that these drugs have been or are still illegal. Actually, if you look at human history, these drugs, most of them, the nature ones, because some are synthetic now, but the nature ones are used since thousands of years. Actually, it's a super interesting topic. Too much for today. But most religions and a friend of mine, I can promote the book because it's amazing, The Immortality Key, he has proven, Brian Muraresku, that most religions, including Christianity are based on psychedelic consumption. So this is a long, psychedelics are you could even say the foundation partly of human civilization. There was the famous cult of Demeter in Greece where all the philosophers went to and Plato is writing in one of his philosophical books that all of his philosophical ideas, which our Western world partly is built on, he got during the Eleusinian Mysteries, which were a psychedelic cult, ergot and magic mushrooms. So it was out there for long.

Christian Angermayer: (03:38)
And then the only short period was in the sixties and seventies, when two things happened. First of all, great, some of these drugs had been actually, which gives me and gave my investors the confidence that we are on the right track, some of these drugs had been used in the fifties and sixties as medication. For example, psilocybin, the ingredient in magic mushrooms-

Kara Swisher: (03:59)
Magic mushrooms.

Christian Angermayer: (03:59)
The active, yeah, was by Sandoz, actually, a famous Swiss pharma brand. And it all went fine until it practically got a little bit occupied, I would say, taken over, in a nice way actually, by the hippies, nobody cared, by the way.

Kara Swisher: (04:13)
Timothy Leary and others.

Christian Angermayer: (04:15)
At the beginning though, and I want to point it out, which shows where the sort of laugh of the hippie movement came from, because sort of they did the good stuff. They did sort of LSD, magic mushrooms, cannabis, which makes you, I always say, a better human being. And it was legal or at least medically legal. And then the sin fall of politics came when the hippie generation became political, went against the Vietnam war. So they were looking at the politics at the time. Politicians at the time were looking at them and were like, how can we paint them bad? What's a bad spin we can put on them? Oh, look at them. They're taking that stuff, which is technically illegal outside the hospital. It was legal and they started faking stuff, the government, like putting all these wrong stories out.

Christian Angermayer: (05:04)
It makes you crazy. Why? Because they could say, you must be crazy if you're going against the Vietnam war, if you're going against the establishment. And sadly, back then mental health was not, or thanks God and sadly now it's a big thing, but back then, mental health was not a big thing. So this was a niche disease while it's now the biggest sort problem of our system. So nobody sort of fought for it. It's just happened.

Kara Swisher: (05:31)
Right and what came in their place, which is interesting, there's a very good book out. I just did a podcast with Michael Pollan, who's written two books. One is called Changing Your Mind, which was about this idea of psychedelic use. And the second one is the one he just put out and it's more about three drugs, coffee, peyote, masculine, and opium itself. And he was writing about sort of the history of all three of them. People don't realize coffee is one of the biggest psychotropic drugs that is everyone is addicted on the planet to it, but it's a useful drug because it gets people to work, stops people being drunk at work, which was the way a lot of people were, et cetera. And so we used psychotropics in lots of different ways and we don't think about it. But one of the things that was interesting to me was how drugs go in and out of favor.

Kara Swisher: (06:17)
And one of the things, when he was talking about the opium issues, he was trying to grow opium because he wanted to see, but it actually it's legal to grow poppies if you don't know you're growing them, because they're drugs. It's all these weird laws are going in. And so he did a story that he couldn't publish in a magazine, in Harper's I think many years ago and because if he wrote that he knew what he was doing and making tea from it, he could be arrested and have all his property taken away from him, which was astonishing. Meanwhile, miles away from him, the big pharma was creating, I'm blanking on that name of the company.

Christian Angermayer: (06:57)
Oxycontin.

Kara Swisher: (06:58)
Oxycontin, right, exactly.

Christian Angermayer: (06:59)
The Sacklers. Horrible.

Kara Swisher: (07:01)
Creating Oxycontin. And so opiates took over and that's how they began treating these illnesses. And so that became fully legal and much abused while psychedelics were put into the penalty box of illegal drugs.

Christian Angermayer: (07:15)
So there are many theories. Honestly, sometimes I think mistakes happen in history. So there's another theory, which says, if you look at human history in times of where you needed labor, governments, this meaning thousands of years, were favoring alcohol and nicotine and stuff like that because it makes you fall in line and somehow still work. And in times when you have enough human labor, you allow people more to explore their mind and check out. So that's another, when you look over the history. I think it just was like a political scam and like it worked. Unfortunately nobody fought for it. And anyway, we're here now and we turning it back.

Kara Swisher: (07:58)
Yeah. So here on now with opiates under siege and very dangerous for people to use, to abuse, the Sacklers are in a lot of trouble, refusing to pay, but eventually we'll be paying quite a price for that.

Christian Angermayer: (08:11)
Hopefully.

Kara Swisher: (08:11)
And the governments who allowed it and everybody else. So it caused all this sort of a public health crisis in that way. So talk a little bit about what brought these other drugs back? I remember early on when I'm covering Silicon Valley people, I was joking about it, but they really were every week I was offered either come do ayahuasca with me. Wouldn't you like to do mushrooms? Would you like to do LSD? My answer was always, "No, I don't even want to have coffee with you. So no." But it was really interesting because at first it was a mind exploring kind of thing. Now it's moved to a different thing. There's all these studies going on at John's Hopkins and different places. Talk a little bit of how it moved to trials in order to treat things, then we'll talk about what it's treating because this is a very big business as far as I can tell.

Christian Angermayer: (08:56)
So what I'm very, very proud of, so we did not invent it, but we reinvented the business. We were literally in this millennia, the first one. I had a personal trip in a country where it's legal in 2014. And back then it was not even a topic in Silicon Valley. So none of my friends had ever taken it. This was maybe I had friends who were really hippies, it was 2014, was very early. And it was definitely not a business topic because even then to the years after, when I talked to some Silicon Valley folks who did it, they were like, but it's never going to, it's not possible to bring these drugs back. And my first trip and then the ones to follow in a country where it's legal were hands down, the single most important thing I've ever done in my whole life. Full stop.

Christian Angermayer: (09:44)
Nothing comes close to it. And because I'm an entrepreneur, I actually already, after the first trip, literally the next day, I was like, okay, holy shit. If it's giving this amount of positivity to me and I was always a very happy person. So I had the luck and didn't come to the topic by searching for something. I actually did not want to do it. For a year, I was like, no. I've never drank an alcohol in my whole life ever. I've never smoked weed. I've never took anything else than 2014. And coffee. Indeed I had coffee, I ate sugar. But everything else I didn't do because I was so happy growing up. I was okay, I'm happy, I'm not dumb, I think I have the genetic jackpot because a lot of other people are not happy. Anyway, I took it, was blown away by the positivity it even added to me. And I was like, okay, this needs to be medically available again. That was for me the clear entrepreneurial impetus and this led then ultimately to the-

Kara Swisher: (10:45)
Usually it's because people are just taking it themselves. They're only doing it themselves and it's not the whole idea of it being either guided or medically prescribed by qualified people now. And many of these drugs are not addictive. Most of them are not addictive.

Christian Angermayer: (11:02)
All. Actually all of them.

Kara Swisher: (11:03)
All of them?

Christian Angermayer: (11:04)
All psychedelics are not addictive. They are even dissolving addiction. So all psychedelics have an addiction dissolving ability. The strongest one, which we also advance in clinical trials is called Ibogaine. And Ibogaine has a high potential in the first clinical studies we're doing to even cure opioid addiction, which is the strongest. Opioids, on the scale, psychedelics, non addictive. Opioids, extremely addictive. This is the whole problem here. And the only drug known, which shows this potential to cure opioid addiction is Ibogaine.

Kara Swisher: (11:43)
All right. So let's go through them. Let's go through the best known ones and where they are in terms of trials and creating businesses. I've noticed recently and I'm having the code conference next two weeks from now, one whole day is going to be about this. We're going to do one whole day about all these psychotropic drug companies that are coming up and things like that, including some mind ones that are not drug related, but they're doing all these different things, technical things with your brains, wearing helmets, all kinds of different things. But one of the things that interested me was a company called Field Trip, which is setting up clinics that you go to.

Kara Swisher: (12:17)
Now, there's not many of those right now, but let's talk about where each of the drugs first is and then what are the businesses that fall off of them? Because you've seen the weed business grow quite a lot, even though it's up and down, up and down largely because it's not federally mandated here, for example. So let's start with the very simple one, which is psilocybin. Mushrooms. So talk a little bit about where those are on the development scale to a commercial product.

Christian Angermayer: (12:43)
Yep. By the way, as a of a framework, because that's sort of it, you are completely right. It is not cannabis. It's completely different. This is not a consumer product. We want it to be a medical product. And because we, with ATAI and then we have a stake in a company called Compass Pathways, which is doing psilocybin, and we do all the rest, because we go through all these clinical trials, which are very expensive, we were able to get all the IP around these substances. So this is not a business where multiple companies will do these drugs.

Kara Swisher: (13:16)
Right. I mean, I was just in San Francisco and there are now cannabis shrimp chips.

Christian Angermayer: (13:25)
Exactly. And it's not going to happen.

Kara Swisher: (13:25)
They're disgusting. I tell you, but nonetheless, it's very consumer focused, it's very-

Christian Angermayer: (13:27)
This is medical trials. We want to make them approved like a medication.

Kara Swisher: (13:32)
And this will be medically treated through clinics and things?

Christian Angermayer: (13:35)
Exactly. So most we have some drugs where we might, and we have to see what comes out of the trials, but where we have the sort of, let's say justified hope, that there are one or two which could be used at home because we can modify the disassociative effect. For example, R-ketamine.

Kara Swisher: (13:51)
Which one?

Christian Angermayer: (13:53)
R-ketamine, which is a new version of ketamine. But overall amount or overall number of ATAI's drugs in development will be used or will just be allowed, and we want them just to be allowed-

Kara Swisher: (14:07)
For therapeutics.

Christian Angermayer: (14:08)
With therapists sitting next to you.

Kara Swisher: (14:09)
So if you have PTSD, depression?

Christian Angermayer: (14:12)
Anxiety, addiction, obesity, anorexia, name it. By the way, you can really name any and normally psychedelics work, but the important thing is because the trip itself, you go on a trip this is not like light, don't take it lightly. And the trip itself can be very challenging. I don't like the word bad trip because people come out and are potentially healed. But what happens a lot, all these mental health issues, you have them for a reason and one, it's various, but is trauma. There's let's call it the obvious trauma. A person was raped and knows it. A person was at war like a soldier and knows it.

Christian Angermayer: (14:53)
But trauma can be also something which hurt you deeply, but you don't even remember it. This can be a childhood thing in school and this comes up. But when you dissolve that trauma, the trip itself can be very challenging. Again, bad is the wrong word. It's challenging, but you come out healed. But during that process, you need somebody, not for medical reasons in terms of there's nothing your body does, but it's somebody, this is why psychotherapist, will the one doing it and then psychologists who literally this is where the word comes from, takes you on the trip and kill with you.

Kara Swisher: (15:24)
All right. So let's go through that. So psilocybin. That's the most popular that I can tell,

Christian Angermayer: (15:29)
Which is the ingredient in magic mushrooms and our company Compass Pathways will announce end of the year, phase two B data.

Kara Swisher: (15:37)
Phase?

Christian Angermayer: (15:38)
Two B. And for the ones who are not familiar with biotech, you have normally 1, 2, 3. So the final one, which needs to be still done is three and then it's approved. So they are some years away from approval, but not a lot. There's going to be two things.

Kara Swisher: (15:52)
And there's a lot different trials going on, correct?

Christian Angermayer: (15:53)
But all the trials for medical are just done by Compass.

Kara Swisher: (15:57)
Okay. So what will be the uses for psilocybin?

Christian Angermayer: (16:01)
Depression. So the trial is done for treatment resistant depression. But you then can do postmarketing studies and once a drug is approved, you can also use it for other stuff, obviously. So if the doctors have it available, then it's upon the therapist to say, "Oh, okay. It's approved to a treatment resistant depression. This is where I see the data. But I can use it for PTSD as well." And we going to do more studies, so there is several other studies Compass is doing in parallel to show also the use case for other-

Kara Swisher: (16:37)
But it's mostly around depression?

Christian Angermayer: (16:39)
The signature study, which is the approval study is around treatment resistant depression.

Kara Swisher: (16:43)
Of depression. As opposed to many other drugs people use to treat depression. And this would standardize the use of psilocybin, correct?

Christian Angermayer: (16:52)
You mean like-

Kara Swisher: (16:53)
Meaning we would know how much. Because one of the things I remember when I was talking to one of the people who were working on this, they said, "There's a lot of magic mushrooms in Berkeley." A lot of people in Berkeley, California, and it's so much so that it gets everywhere. The spores get everywhere that they have, they have the happiest squirrels ever in Berkeley, California. Go see, it's actually true.

Christian Angermayer: (17:15)
The regulator made it very clear, and it's also imperative, we talking about yes, mushrooms or psilocybin is originally in nature, magic mushrooms. But we synthesize it and it's the synthetic version of it because you need to dose it exactly. Everybody who done.

Kara Swisher: (17:32)
And it would be dosed via pill?

Christian Angermayer: (17:36)
Yes. Orally. Yeah.

Kara Swisher: (17:36)
Orally. Okay. All right. Next one. Ketamine.

Christian Angermayer: (17:39)
So ketamine, it's a very interesting story. There is an original ketamine, which is an anesthetic. So it's used as a tranquilizer.

Kara Swisher: (17:46)
For horses.

Christian Angermayer: (17:46)
No for humans.

Kara Swisher: (17:46)
I'm teasing.

Christian Angermayer: (17:49)
Yeah. Okay, good.

Kara Swisher: (17:50)
It's not some dewormer.

Christian Angermayer: (17:51)
It's also used for horses.

Kara Swisher: (17:51)
It is, it is.

Christian Angermayer: (17:53)
But because horses are so sensitive animals, not because it's actually a very-

Kara Swisher: (17:56)
You have to be careful talking about horse medicine these days, but go ahead.

Christian Angermayer: (18:00)
Exactly. This is why, so it's a human tranquilizer.

Kara Swisher: (18:04)
Yes it is. My brother's an anesthesiologist. He uses it all the time.

Christian Angermayer: (18:08)
Perfect. And then anecdotally doctors found out that patients who took it because they were in the emergency room or whatever that they reported and who were depressive or even had tried to kill themselves and this is why they were in the emergency room, came back the next day or wake up and they were like, oh my God, I'm happy.

Christian Angermayer: (18:26)
Why did I try to kill myself? Life is awesome. Anecdotally, we found out about the antidepressant effect of ketamine. What is then very sad, which also shows one of my favorite topics, controversial, I mean, not here, I think, but about the value of patterns, because a lot of people are saying, oh Christian, how have you been able or was it actually ethically right that you own psilocybin or we own all these, the synthetic ones we own the patents, and the only way to pay for these trials is to make a business out of it. So ketamine was out of patents. So nobody was proving it. There was anecdotal evidence, people were doing it, but anecdotal evidence is never enough to really bring a good drug to the people. Niches are doing it. Rich people are doing it.

Kara Swisher: (19:12)
They are.

Christian Angermayer: (19:13)
But the woman in Iowa, the doctor will not give her ketamine because his risk of losing his license if something goes wrong if it's not approved for depression is super high. And then they found a while ago that ketamine consists of two, let's say for here, like subversions. The one, they called R-ketamine for right turning and the other one S for left turning, S-ketamine and they were patentable. And that allowed both us with R-ketamine and Johnson & Johnson with S-ketamine to advance clinical trials, because you suddenly had a patent again. So you had a business model around it. And S-ketamine was actually approved by Johnson & Johnson, I think two years ago now one and a half years ago. So now this is what Field Trip is doing, you can have clinics now where you get officially S-ketamine from Johnson & Johnson, because it's approved now for depression and now doctors starting prescribing it.

Christian Angermayer: (20:07)
And we believe R-ketamine is even more potent and especially has a less disassociative effect. So it could be to be proven in trials that R-ketamine is approved for at home use versus use with a doctor because what we all shouldn't forget, and that's the sad part of that whole, is how big the crisis is. And we have 1 billion people globally suffering from one of the diseases we just touched. And we need to make sure because even if the drugs are approved, there will be a bottleneck of therapists, clinics, whatsoever. So it would be very positive if one or two of these drugs, the milder ones so to say, could be approved for use at home.

Kara Swisher: (20:51)
For home use. So you'd get it under a prescription, but then you can use-

Christian Angermayer: (20:55)
Obviously prescription, but for use without a therapist. And R-ketamine has that potential.

Kara Swisher: (21:00)
And this is for, again, what precisely would it be aimed at depression again, PTSD, same things?

Christian Angermayer: (21:07)
They all work, because it's also very near together. Like you normally have one lead indication where you sort of prove it and then you can do more studies to sort of-

Kara Swisher: (21:19)
But it's around depression? The same-

Christian Angermayer: (21:21)
So ketamine is also for depression, the lead study of ours, yeah.

Kara Swisher: (21:24)
Okay. MDMA.

Christian Angermayer: (21:26)
MDMA makes you happy.

Kara Swisher: (21:31)
I understand.

Christian Angermayer: (21:32)
MDMA is very good for post traumatic, again, MDMA is good for a lot of things, but in the lead study, which is not done by us for MDMA, but which is done by MAPS. Rick Doblin. He's amazing. So we are like the for-profit leader and Rick has a nonprofit called MAPS. So whoever wants to donate, he's the one who really deserves it. And they are advancing MDMA. They are in phase three, actually. So again, it should also be a year.

Kara Swisher: (22:03)
This is a widely used recreational drug too, right now. I mean, it's illegal.

Christian Angermayer: (22:07)
Yes, but illegal as a recreational drug.

Kara Swisher: (22:09)
It's illegal, everybody uses it.

Christian Angermayer: (22:11)
It's still illegal. But it's going to be hopefully legal soon, thanks to Rick for, again, lead indication is post traumatic stress disorder, but can be used for other stuff as well.

Kara Swisher: (22:21)
So anxiety. What would that be prescribed for medically?

Christian Angermayer: (22:26)
Anxiety-

Kara Swisher: (22:27)
A nicer person?

Christian Angermayer: (22:30)
We do have... Beg your pardon?

Kara Swisher: (22:30)
The be a nicer person disease we suffer in this country from.

Christian Angermayer: (22:32)
Which one? MDMA?

Kara Swisher: (22:33)
Yeah. MDMA, yeah.

Christian Angermayer: (22:34)
No, it's it's post traumatic stress disorder.

Kara Swisher: (22:36)
Stress disorder, yeah, right, but it could by-

Christian Angermayer: (22:38)
By the way, they all make you a nicer person. That is-

Kara Swisher: (22:40)
I'm sorry?

Christian Angermayer: (22:40)
All of them make you a nicer person. That is I think truly, I think ultimately, so we jumping now, but again, it's very important, very powerful drugs, medical business, but you've seen a lot of medical... I mean, you take aspirin. It's a drug, but it was used, I don't even know which aspirin was originally, but then you realize it has more properties and some when I think maybe people who don't have a depression but who have other wishes or want to improve,

Christian Angermayer: (23:15)
By the way, MDMA was amazing for marriage therapy. Like this was one of the original use cases. Marriage therapy is not a disease. We cannot go to the regulator and say, "Hey, if two people don't like each other anymore, can we?" But once MDMA is approved, or other of psychedelics, a doctor can say, a psychologist can say, "You are a couple, you should do marriage therapy." And if they do it with the psychotherapist, it's going to be legal. So there's always the starting point. But then our point of view is the therapist knows the patient.

Kara Swisher: (23:49)
Sure, but it's not going to be marketed as an anti-divorce drug, right? It's going to be used as a-

Christian Angermayer: (23:54)
Oh, if you would know how many big investors I save their settlements, it is an amazing if one of you many, you all want to make money, you're going to lose 50% of your money if you get divorced, depending on which contract you have. So before you go with bad routes, try to find at the moment, the shaman in a country where it's legal, who does either psychedelic or MDMA therapy with you. It could be the most valuable financial advice I've ever given to you.

Kara Swisher: (24:22)
Oh, all right. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. Thank you. And if you don't end up liking your spouse after MDMA, you really should get divorced.

Christian Angermayer: (24:30)
Exactly. No, that's the point. It shows you what you really want and then at least you know.

Kara Swisher: (24:34)
Yeah. So at least you go, yeah, I do hate you. That really is. I don't want to hug you right now. So MDMA-

Christian Angermayer: (24:40)
A side note, because I'm really proud of it. It was used a lot also in political, how do you say, conflict resolutions in history of humanity. So I'm funding Imperial College's program where we make very right wing Israelis and very bad Hezbollah fighters trip together and come up with a peace plan because it didn't work out so far without. No, seriously, I think if you look how messed up that is and how bad the situation it is, I think you need a new point of view and that's another property psychedelics do. They take you out of the ordinary and give you a new point of view. And we going to release, I think, it's not approval studies. It's like social.

Kara Swisher: (25:23)
Yeah, there's quite a few leaders I would put on it then.

Christian Angermayer: (25:26)
Exactly. I think in the future, I'm on the board of, I can't say it now, okay. I think in the future, politicians will trip together in 10, 20 years as a part of-

Kara Swisher: (25:34)
So they should be required.

Christian Angermayer: (25:34)
What?

Kara Swisher: (25:37)
So politician mandate. MDMA if they want to be a politician.

Christian Angermayer: (25:41)
I think we're far away from mandated, but I think it wouldn't be bad.

Kara Swisher: (25:44)
Yeah. That's another word we're not supposed to talk about right now.

Christian Angermayer: (25:46)
It wouldn't be bad.

Kara Swisher: (25:47)
So the next thing, I guess the biggest one, there's one that is talked about a lot in Silicon Valley, in tech a lot, is ayahuasca. Which is another one. Talk about that.

Christian Angermayer: (25:58)
So ayahuasca is a brew in South America and the active ingredient is called DMT. And we advance DMT for also treatment resistant depression. It's a very strong psychedelic. I don't want to say it's similar to, because they all have a little are similar or different. It's just stronger and then you can take it in different ways. So you can inhale it, then it's a short acting. And you can drink it, then it's a longer acting. And then actually it works on different stuff. But it has very strong antidepressant again, anti-

Kara Swisher: (26:36)
So even a stronger drug for that or more?

Christian Angermayer: (26:39)
Yes.

Kara Swisher: (26:40)
It has hallucinatory aspect.

Christian Angermayer: (26:40)
To be proven on paper. Sorry, I'm always so hesitant because there is all these anecdotal evidence. So the amazing thing, and I'm in biotech since 20 years, is normally you don't know what trial outcome is. In this case, okay, we still have to see the outcome, but we have all this anecdotal evidence. We know how these drugs work, people are using it. Then some of them had been already medically available. We have all the data. However, I still have to say and this is what I'm very proud of because we will prove it once and for all. So hopefully in some years we can sit here and I don't have to say potentially they're doing this.

Kara Swisher: (27:13)
Right. Sure. Okay. I want to talk about one last drug and then talk about how you get it back into a mainstream thinking where people don't think about it the way they've sort of moving on weed. They are. People are much more accepting of that in most and I don't want to get to that yet. But I want to talk to LSD. Because that's I think the one that has the most baggage with it, and I know most investors are very worried about funding these things. There's some investors like Tim Ferriss, there's Peter Thiel, some others who are fine moving into some of these spaces, but that's the one where they get a little nervous.

Christian Angermayer: (27:47)
LSD is different. We don't do LSD. Not because I think it's not good. I think it's actually awesome. But it has a 12 hour thing. And it does more or less the same than psilocybin. And again, my view is we need to think what makes sense in the healthcare system and the healthcare system will need to pay, or the patient will need to pay for the therapist sitting next to him. So if I can have the same outcome with psilocybin, which is around about a four hour trip or LSD, which is around about a 12 hour trip, we will always take psilocybin. There is no medical place in our point of view for LSD, not because it's not good, but because you want to actually, this is why DMT is so interesting because DMT, if you inhale it or if you take it intravenous, then it's actually 15 minutes around about and actually, because we need to-

Kara Swisher: (28:39)
So you're looking for something for a shorter amount of time with most efficacy, essentially.

Christian Angermayer: (28:43)
Yeah, because we want to make a reasonable, it makes it commercial viable.

Kara Swisher: (28:47)
So it's not that it's got the criminal baggage.

Christian Angermayer: (28:50)
No, I would fund it immediately if I would see a commercial opportunity,

Kara Swisher: (28:53)
A commercial thing. And one I left out, which Michael Pollan does write about in the book, which is mescaline, which there's the peyote cactus, which is only used by Native Americans and it's used in the Native American church, but now they have a synthetic version and they there's other cactus. I forget the cactus that works.

Christian Angermayer: (29:10)
As we don't do it, it's the least familiar. So I don't want to-

Kara Swisher: (29:15)
Right. But that's another one that's getting attention, correct?

Christian Angermayer: (29:17)
Yes. Yep.

Kara Swisher: (29:19)
Which builds communities, from what I understand. It's very good around building communities, about getting along about-

Christian Angermayer: (29:24)
I think it's, but again, because I think it's in a similar sort league that MDMA, it has more psychoactive effect, but it's indeed heart opening, which you get it with MDMA actually from our point of view.

Kara Swisher: (29:36)
Right. Okay. So all these different drugs, there's a lot of them. There's a lot of them and there's more synthetic versions coming out and they're trying different things. Most people say the non-synthetic versions are the better versions, but at some point it will be hard to understand the difference. How do you get investors to think about it as a eventual business? And how do you get governments? Because this is something you could see certain politicians, oh, we're going to be making money, you saw the same thing play out over just weed. This is much more drugs with a lot more baggage around them.

Christian Angermayer: (30:10)
It actually I mean we already did. So it's sort of we do the studies. It's not a question anymore. The great thing is it's happening. These reclassification is happening automatically. It's not that we want to change. We don't want politicians to make a political call on it. What we are saying is we going to go like every other medical drug in the world, we going to go through the FDA process. And at the end of the FDA process is an outcome, which is hopefully confirming the anecdotal evidence we have that these drugs are very useful for in a medical context. And then it's an automatism that they reschedule. There is no political lobbying. We don't want any favors because it is a scientific decision at the end. Can we show what we all see?

Kara Swisher: (30:57)
And then I have just two more questions and then we have to go, but how do you get consumers to think of it this way, people who are suffering from-

Christian Angermayer: (31:04)
We don't need the consumer. Two things, which are important. The one is we have it is the biggest problem of the healthcare system. So if you talk to any doctor, they are completely aware of it because again global-

Kara Swisher: (31:15)
Mental health?

Christian Angermayer: (31:16)
Mental health, as a whole.

Kara Swisher: (31:17)
Just walk down the street, but go ahead.

Christian Angermayer: (31:19)
Look at so many [crosstalk 00:31:19].

Kara Swisher: (31:19)
Everybody is traumatized, right now.

Christian Angermayer: (31:25)
And let me give you the official number is 1 billion people. That already makes it the biggest opportunity and the biggest problem at the same time in healthcare. Second, it is still a stigmatized disease. So it's starting to get destigmatized. But gradually. And that means the number is way higher. I don't know the true number, but it's-

Kara Swisher: (31:46)
So it's a market.

Christian Angermayer: (31:46)
It's a huge market. But let's say the true number is maybe one and a half billion, but it's way higher because I know so many people who not go to the doctor who, meaning a friend of mine who a big famous singer, he made a survey among his fans. He's a [inaudible 00:32:01], like 80% of his fans said in a survey, it's not a scientific survey, but why should they lie? After COVID and he has the fan, 15 to 25, I would say, is they have mental health issues. 80%. And we actually, if you look at it, it's just a tie who, and Compass together who has the solution because all the other shit, like SSRIs, opioids, many, they numb people and we need to find cures, not numb them and make them zombies.

Christian Angermayer: (32:33)
And then additionally, I think the world we live in is not good for our brain. We all love it. We have the whole day of Bitcoin and technology and biotech and da, da, da. And we love it, but it's actually terrifying for our brain because our brain wants stability and we never had never, ever was the world, I don't want to say instable, but that fast changing. Again, your conference is the sort of synonym for fast changing. But that makes people mentally traumatized. So the number will go up. I personally would say ultimately the total addressable market for mental health is a hundred percent of the population because everybody wants, what do we all want? We can say, "Oh, we want to be rich. We want to have good sex." Whatever. But ultimately we want two things. We want to be healthy and happy and everybody has other things which make them happy. But that's what it narrows it down. And we've solved the happiness part.

Kara Swisher: (33:25)
So two last questions, very quickly, how much money is going into this right now? I'm seeing a lot of money move this way.

Christian Angermayer: (33:31)
So I can talk about us, we raised over $500 million.

Kara Swisher: (33:33)
500 million.

Christian Angermayer: (33:34)
Over 500 million, 600-ish.

Kara Swisher: (33:39)
Easy?

Christian Angermayer: (33:40)
At the beginning, it was easy because I'm a too big a founder because I have my investment business, so I funded it myself and I had friends who trusted me. So yes. So easy, not easy.

Kara Swisher: (33:51)
So a lot of money is moving.

Christian Angermayer: (33:52)
But actually our IPO was very easy because over the last 12 months, that sort of view on psychedelics, we're sitting here, we're talking about it, has changed, but that was just the last 12 months.

Kara Swisher: (34:02)
Right. Okay. I'm going to ask the last question. We only have one more minute. You yourself have taken these drugs, right?

Christian Angermayer: (34:07)
Yeah. In a country where it's legal.

Kara Swisher: (34:10)
One of the things that they push for me in Silicon Valley is that it opens their mind to new innovation. They think it's an innovation drug, a lot of these things. Talk very briefly. We have 50 seconds.

Christian Angermayer: (34:23)
Okay. The short version is, by the way, this is a side effect. This is not the medical effect. So it's not medical advice. But if you look at how our brain works, roundabout when you're 30, you start losing the creative power, innovation. If you're 20, the world is your oyster. You are in awe of the wonders of world, and it's going down. The good thing is when you're getting older, you build up craftsmanship and knowledge and whatever and what you ideally want, and what Steve Jobs is actually writing in his bio is, you want the knowledge and the craftsmanship of a 50 year old combined with the innovative power of a 20 year old. And again, I have to say carefully, but there is strong anecdotal evidence that psychedelics and especially certain ones are giving you back for good, not just during the trip that sort of innovative the power.

Christian Angermayer: (35:14)
And it gave me a hope, I would say, but it's super simplified because I could talk an hour about this one trip, but you can go into a psychedelic trip and have an intention. You can say, "Okay, I want to learn about my true self." You can go in a spiritual path. But one day I was like, because I was actually late-ish I started investing in crypto in 2016. And I was like, okay, what is this all about? And I had friends explaining it to me, Mike, and sort of the true sort of power of blockchain and crypto, I sort of figured out on a trip.

Kara Swisher: (35:47)
On a trip. Although you can't have some dumb ideas, I've heard some dumb ideas from some people on their trip.

Christian Angermayer: (35:52)
Well, again, this is all about the surrounding and the guidance in a country where it's legal with a practicer, with a shaman or somebody who's going with you. But this stuff definitely has potential.

Kara Swisher: (36:04)
All right. Everyone, Christian, this is actually a fascinating area. Thank you so much.

The Future of Food: Reducing Our Reliance on Animal Products | #SALTNY

The Future of Food: Reducing Our Reliance on Animal Products with Arturo Elizondo, Chief Executive Officer, Clara Foods. Dr. Jasmin Hume, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Shiru.

Moderated by Sean O’Sullivan, Managing General Partner, SOSV.

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Elizondo, Arturo - Cropped.jpeg

Arturo Elizondo

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Clara Foods

Headshot - Hume, Jasmin - Cropped.jpeg

Dr. Jasmin Hume

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Shiru

 

MODERATOR

Headshot - O'Sullivan, Sean - Cropped.jpeg

Sean O’Sullivan

Managing Partner

SOSV

 

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Sean O'Sullivan: (00:07)
And this is Arturo Elizondo from Clara Foods and Jasmin Hume from Shiru and Ben Berman from NoMoo. So thanks all for coming today. And we're going to sit down and have a little bit of a chat about, what does it say? The future of food. So even before we get started and with the speakers introducing themselves, I'd like to find out if anyone understands what we're going to be talking about. Because we're actually taking a really new approach to how food is grown and how food is made. So first I'm going to ask, has anyone had alternative meats, like Beyond Burger or, yeah. Almost everyone's had that. Has anyone had an Impossible Burger? Okay. It's a different version of that. Has anyone tried and, that's basically plant-based meat. Sometimes with a little bit of specialty protein.

Sean O'Sullivan: (01:14)
That's fermented protein. That makes it more meat like. Then there's a next level down, which is precision fermentation. Has anyone tried any things like the Perfect Day ice creams? There's one, two, three, four, five. Wow. Okay. That's very good. You guys are very advanced. And that actually takes the animal out of the agriculture completely, but still has the same proteins and we'll describe a little bit what that is. So you're still having cow milk, it's just, no cow was involved in the making of the milk or the ice cream. And then, has anyone ever tried, really this is not even commercially available yet, but cellular agriculture and things like Memphis Meats or Upsight Foods as they're called right now where the meat itself is grown in filets, but no brain is attached to the meat. So it's like cow meat or chicken. Oh, got one there.

Sean O'Sullivan: (02:15)
So there's a couple of people here who were going really into the future. Well, we are redefining what a sustainable planet looks like. And the pink panelists that we have today with us here are people who are making that redefinition of how we grow food, how we make it without having over-reliance on industrial animal farming, which is, as people are probably aware of this, you've probably maybe seen some movies or heard some reports, but it's one of the great causes of global warming. The methane is being produced by the cows and the other animals and all of the other agriculture that's used to feed animals, which we then feed, which is just very, sometimes 30 times worse for the environment than actually just growing the food directly in bio-reactors.

Sean O'Sullivan: (03:18)
So we're going to find out about that future by talking to some of the leaders in the industry. But I first like to just, because it's such an unusual thing, I'm just going to set a little bit more context. SOSV, I'm an investor. We invest in a lot of these companies that are in this space. Like some of the companies we've mentioned there, but one of the things that I had growing up is I had a mom who was a diabetic. And I don't know if anyone knows anybody who's a diabetic, you inject insulin into your arms. Well, it used to be the only way that you could get insulin was to slaughter pigs and cows, take the pancreas out and then drain it out of the insulin. But then Genentech came along for pharmaceutical purposes and they figured out, "Hey, we can actually take the human gene, which produces human insulin, which is better than cow insulin or pig insulin, anyway. And we can grow it as a pharmaceutical and sell it in the little bottle."

Sean O'Sullivan: (04:23)
And guess what, fewer people died of all the contamination problems. It's a much better fit for human beings and life was improved, but only for pharmaceuticals and really, really high value proteins like insulin. What's happened in the intervening years is this incredible technological revolution these guys are leading that takes that process, which was once used only for pharmaceutical products. And there's other pharmaceutical products like human growth hormone or Viagra, or all the things that are grown that way. High expensive. But they're making it now available by growing it in vats and fermentation, just like beer is fermented, but where the output instead of beer or the output instead of human insulin is now commodity food products.

Sean O'Sullivan: (05:16)
That's a lot of what these teams here today are doing, is precision fermentation and getting the direct output, those hero proteins that we rely on for our ice creams or that used to require animals. And with that background, I'm sure I've confused many of you, but hopefully enlighten some. We're going to talk to some of the leaders in this industry. Arturo, do you want to tell us a brief rundown on what you do at Clara Foods?

Arturo Elizondo: (05:48)
Hi everyone. So I run Clara Foods, founded of the company almost seven years ago. We've been in R and D for the last six and a half years. And what we do is we make real animal protein without using a single animal. And we focus that specifically around in the B2B world in large part, because there's this massive gap in the industry around companies like the Kellogg's, General Mills, Walmarts of the world, trying to ride this transition of animal free alternate protein products, in large part because of companies like Beyond and like Impossible. [inaudible 00:06:23] who've really helped educate the market.. And so there's this massive gap in the infrastructure to help enable the world's largest food companies to transition. So that's really where we at Clara operate. So we're a B2B alternative animal protein platform, and we produce different kinds of animal proteins using yeast and fermenters.

Arturo Elizondo: (06:44)
So in the same way that brewers use yeast to convert sugar into alcohol, to make beer and wine, the yeast that we work with naturally converts that same sugar into protein. So we can engineer the yeast itself to produce different kinds of animal proteins, to make insulin or other kinds. And we specialize in egg proteins because they're super functional and over a trillion eggs are consumed every single year worldwide. Massive market that's been completely in many ways under penetrated. 99.8% of the egg market is still dominated by eggs. Only less than 0.2% isn't penetrated by anything that's not a egg. And so we see a huge opportunity there for us to help enable the broader food industry to transition into animal free future.

Sean O'Sullivan: (07:34)
Thank you, Arturo. And Jasmine, tell me what you guys do at Shiru.

Jasmin Hume : (07:38)
Yeah, absolutely. So building on the opportunity that Arturo just spoke about, and we'll probably talk more about this in the coming minutes, a huge opportunity in fueling the future of food by enabling better ingredients. So what we do at Shiru is actually look to the natural world, specifically non-animal proteins. So proteins that come from plants, fungi, cyanobacteria to increase the options, the diversity of the protein ingredients that food formulators have at their fingertips. There are 400,000 known plant species. We currently get 90% of our calories from 13 staple crops. And within each plant, there are 40,000 different proteins that are expressed. So the search space is huge. At Shiru we use tools like machine learning coupled with precision fermentation to create a wide variety of different functional protein ingredients that can ultimately replace things like dairy proteins, egg proteins, gelatin, a wide number of different functional ingredients that we currently derive from animals in far less sustainable ways.

Sean O'Sullivan: (08:53)
And on our left or your right, on the far right, Ben Berman from NoMoo. Now, NoMoo is the name and here's the joke behind NoMoo. It is milk proteins and milk products without the cows. That's why NoMoo, no moo. That is probably the way I should have been introduced to it.

Ben Berman: (09:12)
Thank you. And for the chuckles, I appreciate it.

Sean O'Sullivan: (09:18)
Go ahead.

Ben Berman: (09:18)
We're building a company called NoMoo that did a joint venture with Perfect Day. And Perfect Day, similar to the companies that you already heard about are doing precision fermentation on animal free whey protein. The way I explain it is we feed the DNA sequence of cows milk to yeast proteins. And with them ferment like you would a beer or a loaf of bread. At the end, we got a whey protein that is dairy identical, but it is animal free, lactose free. It is up to 97% fewer carbon emissions. And we are using that protein that Perfect Day has created to build out a beverage portfolio, an e-commerce company focused specifically on childhood nutrition. My background actually isn't in science. My background is in food. Quite literally, my background is in cheeseburgers, ice cream sandwiches and pizza, which are all three stories from other times.

Sean O'Sullivan: (10:06)
Really healthy.

Ben Berman: (10:07)
Very healthy, and also very heavy in dairy.

Ben Berman: (10:11)
And I approached this problem by saying, if I believe that the climate is the most urgent crisis that we were facing as a species, which I do, but I'm not sure that life is worth living without cheeseburgers, ice cream sandwiches and pizza. How can we reinvent those foods by putting less strain on the planet, but not compromising on the foods that we get to enjoy. And so along with Perfect Day, we are trying to reinvent those first few products. Milk, childhood nutritional shakes, animal free lactose, free yogurt, products that we love and enjoy every day. But we want to try to put far less strain on the environment. We want to treat our bodies better. We want to rethink the ingredients that we're putting into our food to create a healthier, more sustainable food system.

Sean O'Sullivan: (10:56)
Now, I think you guys here in the audience may be like, okay, milk without cows, eggs without chickens, hero proteins without plants even, growing these things and you're thinking, is this really going to ever happen? Or is this just a whole bunch of pipe dream? Well, I'm here to tell you one thing. Seven years ago, back to Perfect Day through our indie bio programs, we thought to the expression that Bill Gibson has, which is "The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed." And even if you see in this room, the future was not evenly distributed in this room. Like there were only two people that knew about cellular agriculture who had ever had a meat that was grown, completely the same meat without a brain attached to it, like the Upside Foods technology.

Sean O'Sullivan: (11:57)
And a few of you had The Perfect Day sell milk products. So it's only seven years later that hundreds of thousands of people, since our first investment in Perfect Day, we're now hundreds of thousands of people have used it and tasted that product. But in another seven years, it will actually be billions of people. It's like the iPhone, in 2008 it didn't exist and people didn't think they even needed it, but it didn't take even seven years for people to know that they needed it. And what's happening with the food industry as these unstoppable trends continue where you can produce milk for four times cheaper than a cow can produce milk. It pretty much undercuts the industry and it makes it possible for everything to change in a way that we haven't seen in the food industry yet.

Sean O'Sullivan: (12:56)
It's only starting to happen now. It's like when the computers spreadsheets that people did by hand. And this is going to happen, it's an unstoppable force. And why don't you guys tell us a little bit about what are the things that are, you all have raised different amounts of money. Actually, this is very interesting because we have a pre-seed company at the end that's just raised $2 million. Shiru has just raised, Jasmine remind me.

Jasmin Hume : (13:27)
Our series I'd say, $17 million.

Sean O'Sullivan: (13:29)
$17 million. And on top of a couple of three or 4 million before that. And Arturo, what's your financing history? I'm not sure what you can say.

Arturo Elizondo: (13:38)
We've raised $64 million and then we're closing on a 120 in a couple weeks.

Sean O'Sullivan: (13:44)
So the different lengths of time that these companies have been out there and yet the products aren't yet in the market yet. And it may seem like nothing's happening, but in fact, it's happening at lightning speed. We're basically taking advantage of millions of years of evolution to produce natural products. Why don't you talk about what's happening next at your stage Arturo?

Arturo Elizondo: (14:15)
Yeah. Yeah. It's such a great question because to your point, it's almost like, it seems like nothing's happening. And then it happens all at once. And for context, it takes on average around seven years to bring a product from synthetic biology to the market. We did ours in five, which we launched it last year, it was a world's first animal free pepsin, which is a pig protein made now using fermentation. But normally it used to come from hog stomachs. That was really a nice proof point for us. But what we've been really focusing on for the last six years is developing the core technology to enable the broader infrastructure and a huge part of that is getting the technology, right, but two is, laying the groundwork for scale. And that's truly where, if we we're a penny cheaper than many of these multi billion dollar commodity markets, you start owning these markets.

Arturo Elizondo: (15:10)
And for us, the egg is a very affordable source of protein. So we need scale in addition to amazing technology to make that happen. And so over the last two years, we've been really working to lay the groundwork for scale. And what that means is that we partnered up with Ingredion, which is one of the world's largest ingredient distributor, ingredient companies in the world. They're in 120 countries. And that allows us to penetrate global markets far faster on the front end. And on the back end, we just closed a partnership with AB inBev, Bio Brew, which is the world's largest fermentation company. And that allows us instead of using-

Sean O'Sullivan: (15:49)
You may or may not know their beers are like a Budweiser and what's inBev is Heineken and all those beers over in Europe as well. So it's big, big fermentor, the world's largest fermentation company.

Arturo Elizondo: (16:03)
And so instead of using their, in addition to using the fermentors to use yeast and brew alcohol, why not use fermentation to also have the yeast convert that sugar into protein and produce it at the lowest possible costs on a global level and make them accessible to everyone. And so we work with very large food companies, like Groupo Bimbo, which is the world's largest bakery. They own SaraLee, Entenmann's, Oroweat. And part of what these companies are doing is trying to transition away from eggs. They reach people all over the world, especially in developing countries where they need very, very affordable products. And that's really where then scale comes in to then penetrate these markets.

Sean O'Sullivan: (16:50)
And I think scale is really a challenge for every company in this space, because initially the product start out being much more expensive than the ones that are made by animals. And then it just goes like from $8,000 a pound for a hamburger to like 800 to 80 to eight, but it's happening at that level, that speed as well, over two or three years, you get that 10 X cheaper.

Sean O'Sullivan: (17:20)
Jasmine talk about what types of proteins that you're looking to bring to market and what scale you're looking to achieve.

Jasmin Hume : (17:26)
Sure. Yeah. So on the panel, I think you have companies at different parts of the value chain also, which is really interesting. We are very early up in the value chain. So Shiru has a differentiated technology platform where we do protein discovery, essentially. And what that means is we can leverage our database, which currently contains 16.5 million natural protein sequences, interrogate it, using tools like machine learning and bioinformatics, and say, we're looking for proteins that have a gelation capability or emulsification or foaming, these textural properties that really define how we as consumers experience food, but also thinking about allergenicity, toxicity, amino acid profile, and basically predict the proteins that are going to perform those jobs in the best ways.

Sean O'Sullivan: (18:18)
And those functional proteins, those functional capabilities really matter when you take, for example, you take a soy milk or something and you try to put it in with eggs, or you try to use it to cook something. It actually, that's why the cakes don't turn out when you're using stuff that doesn't have those functional properties. And you're trying to substitute milk for those things, because they don't have the whey proteins or the casein proteins that are necessary for all of those different functional properties. So you're going specifically after those functional properties to either replace existing or to add product new capabilities.

Jasmin Hume : (19:00)
Yeah, exactly, exactly. Yep. And I would add to that, the other element here as Arturo commented on, scalability. And not all proteins are equally as able to be expressed or produced in high quantities and efficient manners. So we also prioritize for ingredients that actually have the best potential to be scaled at the lowest cost point essentially.

Sean O'Sullivan: (19:24)
Right. Right. And Ben, your area, actually, the other thing I just realized is that you're selling direct to ingredients companies using your products directly for all of their products. Ben, you're going direct to consumer and in the middle Jasmine you're going to the, more towards the ingredient side, or are you going to have any consumer paid packaged goods?

Jasmin Hume : (19:54)
No consumer paid packaged goods. We will provide to food CPG companies as well as ingredients companies.

Sean O'Sullivan: (20:00)
Right. Right. So, inside of the industry, there's a number of companies that go direct to consumer. And Ben, you're one of them. Tell us about the challenges involved there.

Ben Berman: (20:09)
Yes. We deal at the opposite end of what Jasmine is thinking about. And so what I'm thinking about every day is, if every time someone entered a grocery store, I went to check out of their groceries online, I could have them listen to 30 minutes with Jasmine and Arturo and Sean, that would be really excellent. Because my job would be a lot easier. We don't have that ability. So a lot of my job these days is thinking about how we can get folks to understand what animal free dairy really means, how they can understand that oxymoron of a product that they're hopefully going to put into their bodies. And I need consumers to understand that this is urgent and that this is delicious.

Ben Berman: (20:46)
And that's what think about every day. Is we want to rethink those products and understand how those products can be branded. We think a lot about the fulfillment work behind those products, I'm trying to get to scale so that it's not just folks who were at the SALT conference who have access to these products. We want these to be everyday things, that are in every person's refrigerator, that are in every children's lunchbox, because we believe that's important for our planet and for our children.

Sean O'Sullivan: (21:12)
I think one of the things that confuses people a lot is, oh, is this like a GMO, right? Is this something that we're going to try as an experiment? But in fact, all of these products are already, a lot of them at least, I know we're doing some things which are more advanced, but grasp products generally regarded as safe products by an FDA clarification. So once you get it out there, it's exactly the same as a cow makes, it is exactly and it's not a special thing. It's what humans have been consuming for hundreds of thousands of years. So it's just a different means of production without requiring the animal to produce it. And it's a natural means of production. It's using nature, the incredible forces of nature, cellular agriculture as the machines that are actually producing these outputs.

Arturo Elizondo: (22:09)
Yeah. So one question that I always get is like, why? why are you even using this kind of very deep technology to make milk proteins, plant proteins and egg proteins and animal proteins more broadly, instead of eating more fruits and vegetables? Or aren't the veggie burgers of today good enough? and ultimately, the way that I talk about it is, the plant-based companies of today, I think have done such a great job educating the market, getting people excited about these kinds of products and sharing that it is possible to get a really tasty, sustainable product. And that you don't have to compromise any more as a consumer, but ultimately, cost and taste still dictate them with the vast majority of consumer purchasing, not just in the US, but globally.

Arturo Elizondo: (23:08)
And so ultimately, how do we get people who don't care about climate change, who don't care about animal rights, who don't care about a bottle or don't don't make purchasing decisions based off of that to transition? And ultimately for us, the big question is how do we deliver products that deliver on that promise of taste and price? And for us, this technology really is critical to enabling that transition, like to get a cake to rise and give you the same mouthfeel as a consumer. The angel food cake that you get every Christmas with your family, how do we recreate those experiences in a way that doesn't require animal products and that ultimately can enable a more delicious and affordable future for people? And really this technology, at least the way that I see it from the research that we've done in the space is, it's really the only way to make this transition possible.

Sean O'Sullivan: (24:07)
What do you guys think? And I'll start with you, Jasmine. My belief is that there will always be some luxury market that want to buy animal based protein products, the steak directly from a slaughtered cow but, at some point it's going to vastly be these new food technologies, not just for the global warming reasons, but just for economic reasons, it's just going to be so incredibly compelling. When do you think we're going to actually change, let's say 90% of the protein that people eat instead of coming from animals is coming from these new methods?

Jasmin Hume : (24:57)
Yeah. I think that there are predictions out there that say as early as 2035, that those balances will tip in favor of proteins that are produced more sustainably and without animals. Of course, if you are looking to have a steak and to go out to celebrate something, that's an experience, right? If you're reaching for a bag of Doritos, that's probably not because you really particularly want to consume dairy protein. It's just eat some Doritos. But if you think about the quantities that global food manufacturers use these functional ingredients, because they perform a job, that is so easy for us to replace, that is low hanging fruit and the scale and the volume of that opportunity is tremendous-

Sean O'Sullivan: (25:44)
Trillions of dollars every year. And that re-invention of the entire food processing industry. Then I'll throw this to you. You're saying NoMoo, for you saying NoMoo. What about all the farmers? What about all the fact that these industries are going to be completely, I look back, I live in Princeton, New Jersey, and there's a canal that runs along the town and that canal only lasted like 20 or 30 years before the trains overtook it. And then the trains were overtaken by the interstate highways. And there's so much money that's been poured into these massive animal agriculture industrial, these miles big plans. What do you think about what happens with the jobs and what happens with the ethical issues there? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Ben Berman: (26:35)
I do. Is something I've been thinking about a lot. And one thing that I had the opportunity to do over the last few months was talk to consumers who were showing purchasing intent for our product. And one thing that I very much learned from that is that the enemy for us is actually not farmers. It is big dairy in general, and it is the things that have happened to our food system in order to feed the number of people with the demand that we have. And so we're oversimplifying here, but we think about this. We say, if you are going down the road to your local farmer to get your milk, we actually love that. And we would like you to continue doing that because we think that's awesome. Where we want to play is big dairy, that's the enemy here. Is the unsustainable ways that we have grown our food systems in order to feed everyone.

Sean O'Sullivan: (27:20)
And all the repercussions of the biotic resistance and everything else is endangering our lives. Well, I think we may have time for one question. If anyone has anything you want to shout out, I can, yes. Go ahead. Front row.

Speaker 4: (27:37)
[inaudible 00:27:37] as useful [foreign language 00:27:40] economic opportunities that's [inaudible 00:27:45] space. I think that maybe [inaudible 00:27:50].

Sean O'Sullivan: (27:51)
Business model in terms of what your cost is and what you're looking. Yeah. In terms of what, next three to five years, wow. That's a lot. We'll go as quickly as we can. So the timeframes for each of these different industries, whether it's plant based foods like Beyond Meat or these hero proteins, which I call protein farming, like these functional ingredients, we were talking about with eggs and milk and whatnot, those are different timeframes. It's like the explosive investment and growth, but you'll see more like the Beyond Meat, Impossible Burger sort of stuff in the market quicker, but they will eventually be supplanted and replaced with the next generations of these hybrid products. And then the cellular agriculture will come next in waves. But there's different timeframes on each.

Sean O'Sullivan: (28:51)
And these companies, if you're interested in the very earliest stages, then you'd go to a program like in IndieBio, which is what we run. And there's a lot of great companies that are coming through that to try to get into the early, early stages. Or you could get in at series A, series B, series C right here on stage. Just find these investors. There's a lot of people talking about this market. I'm not sure if that really answered your question, but go ahead.

Arturo Elizondo: (29:22)
Yeah. For us specifically, eggs hover around two to three bucks a pound, in terms of the liquid eggs. With our technology, without any improvement in our technology today and dropped into large-scale for ventures, our cost is between one to two bucks a pound. So we now have proven that at scale, the technology works. And ultimately now the series that we're raising is to really drive adoption across the portfolio for our customers.

Sean O'Sullivan: (29:58)
You wan to...

Jasmin Hume : (29:58)
Yeah, sure. I'll comment on the business model side of things. For our company, our north star, our business is going to be in commercializing and selling ingredients to food CPG companies, large and small all over the world. That's obviously a long timeframe. And to get there, you need to raise a lot of capital to be able to reach those markets. Given the technology platform that we have at our core, we're also going to take advantage of opportunities to license technologies or ingredients to ingredients companies as we reached that, that north star of selling our own ingredients.

Sean O'Sullivan: (30:29)
I think we've run out of time. Ben, do you want to...

Ben Berman: (30:32)
I can go super short.

Sean O'Sullivan: (30:33)
Yeah, go super short.

Ben Berman: (30:34)
I believe you'll be able to buy our first product, which is animal free milk by Q2 of next year. And I believe we'll get to pretty close to price parity with milk alternatives that you're familiar with.

Sean O'Sullivan: (30:44)
Yeah. Well, if anyone has any direct questions, I think you guys will hang around or maybe go out, I guess. I don't know if you have to go outside or if there's something directly after, but we'll go outside and be available for your questions. Thanks so much for your time today.

Can We Live 200 Years? The Science of Aging & Longevity | #SALTNY

Can We Live 200 Years? The Science of Aging & Longevity with Dr. David Sinclair, Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Eric Verdin, Chief Executive Officer & President, Buck Institute for Research on Aging. Dr. Jennifer Garrison, Assistant Professor, Buck Institute for Research on Aging.

Moderated by Dr. Dina Radenkovic, Partner, The SALT Fund.

PRESENTED BY

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Sinclair, David - Cropped.jpeg

David Sinclair

Professor of Genetics

Harvard Medical School

Headshot - Verdin, Eric - Cropped.jpeg

Eric Verdin

President & Chief Executive Officer

Buck Institute for Research on Aging

 
Headshot - Garrison, Jennifer - Cropped.jpeg

Jennifer Garrison

Assistant Professor

Buck Institute for Research on Aging

MODERATOR

Headshot - Radenkovic, Dr. Dina - Cropped.jpg

Dina Radenkovic

Partner

The SALT Fund

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Dina Radenkovic: (00:00)
All right. Well, so welcome everyone to one of the most exciting panels of the conference. Who wants to die and be remembered for making high rates of return versus who wants to live forever? So today, we're going to discuss if we can actually live to 200 years. And if so, how? I'm joined by my incredible colleagues, Dr. Jennifer Garrison, who is an assistant professor at the Buck Institute, and also the founder of the Global Consortium for Reproductive Equality and Longevity, professor David Sinclair, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, and Dr. Eric Verdin, the CEO of the Buck Institute, the largest Institute in the world solely focused on the sciences of aging.

Dina Radenkovic: (00:50)
I think the increase in life expectancy has been a tremendous achievement. First, we broke the cycle of infectious diseases. We had improved sanitation. We then learned about behavioral factors like smoking and higher education, but we're now stuck with a population that is living longer, but not necessarily healthier. So my question to my panelists, and this is a question for everyone is what is the single breakthrough technology that you think will happen in this decade that will enable people to live longer? Eric, would you like to start?

Eric Verdin: (01:26)
Thank you, Dina. Thank you for having me. We live in extraordinary times in terms of biology and particularly the biology of aging. And in the last 10 to 15 years, we really have gained an incredibly different understanding of the aging process. So this has led to the identification of pathways, mechanism and also potential drug targets. And today, we have close to more than 10 drugs that actually are known to increase lifespan in a variety of animals. They not only increase lifespan, but also health span. And one of the most exciting aspects of this whole process of discovery is that today, we're starting to implement this in humans, and you're going to be seeing in the next 10 to 20 years, the development of a whole series of novel technologies with the potential of delaying aging.

Eric Verdin: (02:20)
If I have to think of a one single interventions that I think it's party calling attention is the idea of epigenetic reprogramming, and David is going to talk more about this. His lab works on it. My lab works on it as well. It is for the first time, the ability to revert the aging process, and this really has generated a lot of excitement. So if I think about where we are today after about 10 to 15 years of basic biology of aging, we're at an incredible time and I think- [inaudible 00:02:51]

Dina Radenkovic: (02:52)
Thank you. David, would you tell us more about that reprogramming? It sounds exciting.

David Sinclair: (02:56)
Well, thanks, Dina for having us here. Eric, thanks for the great setup. So yeah, I was asked what's the most exciting stuff and unfortunately, I had to say stuff that we're working on, but I truly believe that. So Eric and I have been working in this field for over 20 years, epigenetics of aging. What that means is the cells' control systems, how to turn on genes on and off. And we find that the changes over time can be used as a clock to determine how old we are biologically. But also, we think this system and the clock as part of it control the aging process, not just in the forwards direction, but in reverse. And in my lab, we can drive aging very easily in the forwards and reverse direction in animals, and we're going to be starting human trials, hopefully in the next couple of years.

David Sinclair: (03:44)
But the breakthrough is super exciting. We had a nature paper in December that described the ability to put in three genes that are normally only turned on in embryos, that in the adult animal, this is now a mouse, we could cure blindness by making the eye much younger. And it's a permanent reset. In fact, we have the mice die old, but with very young eyes, with perfect eyesight. And that's just the eye. We're finding in the field, Eric and others are finding that you can reprogram most tissues. In fact, I don't know of a tissue in an animal yet that cannot be reprogrammed and sent back 50%, 75% in their age. And this is not just a temporary reset. This is a full reset. And you could imagine in the future, we have that ability to reset our bodies, not just once or twice, but perhaps dozens or hundreds of times.

Dina Radenkovic: (04:33)
Fascinating. Jennifer, what would you pick?

Jennifer Garrison: (04:36)
Well, so I'm going to divert from regeneration and say that the thing that the breakthrough that's going to really extend healthy longevity is getting rid of menopause. So hear me out. Ovaries are very odd. In terms of the human body, they age at about two and a half times the rate of the rest of the tissue. So when a woman is in her late twenties, her ovaries are already showing signs, overt signs of aging while the rest of her body is essentially functioning at peak performance. So there's sort of like the canary in the coal mine for aging. If you think about it, this is an incredible model for accelerated aging. If you try to do a lifespan extension trial in humans, that timeline is way too long, a hundred years, right? But if you can intervene in ovarian aging, essentially, we're going to...

Jennifer Garrison: (05:32)
If we can figure out what causes ovarian aging, this is going to give us clues about aging and the rest of the body. So before I lose all of the men in the audience, it's really important to understand that a woman's reproductive span, so the age at which she goes through menopause is correlated with her overall lifespan. So what that means is that a woman who goes through menopause later in life will tend to live longer, but that also extends to her male brothers. So there's something going on that essentially is important for both men and women. And if we can figure out why ovaries are aging prematurely, what does that cue or biological timer that causes them so reproducibly to start to age in a woman's second decade, then that will tell us something about aging and the rest of the body and this is the key. I think this is the discovery. This is the breakthrough that will actually give us something that will extend lifespan.

Dina Radenkovic: (06:27)
Thank you, Jennifer. In another lesson I think we've learned is that biological aging is very important for COVID-19. So Eric, last year we published a paper that showed that frailty is more important for the risk of hospitalization and death than one's chronological age. And we just have the new paper, it will be out tomorrow in nature talking how some of these anti-aging interventions could potentially be used with our effective vaccines to boost the immune response. Could you explain the audience why we say that COVID-19 is a disease of aging?

Eric Verdin: (07:01)
Well, it turns out that the biggest risk factor, not for being infected by COVID-19, but in terms of the outcome, whether you're going to be hospitalized, whether you're going to be suffering from a lung insufficiency or whether you're going to be actually dying from the disease is really determined by your age. So aging is actually the biggest risk factor for your outcome in terms of COVID-19. Not only your age, but also there's a subset of patients who are at high risk, and these patients carry a number of disease that we actually call the chronic disease of aging. So it really points to the fact that the basic mechanism that underlie the aging process are actually playing a role in how you respond to this virus. The review that Dina was just referring to is actually discussing the alteration that happened in the immune system as we age, and there are two broad manifestations of immune aging.

Eric Verdin: (08:07)
One is a chronic state of inflammation, also called inflammation. And the second one is a defect, defect in adaptive immunity, which prevents you from actually responding to the virus in an appropriate manner. Both arms of the immune systems are go- [inaudible 00:08:25] in aging, and we're really trying to understand what are the implications of this, not only for COVID-19, but for also all of the other chronic diseases of aging. Now, the implications does not stop there because it turns out that if you are 70 years old, about 30% of age individuals will not respond to a vaccine. And so this has obviously implications on not only how you get sick, but also how you get protected. Now, the good news is we are predicting in this review that many of the interventions that we have identified that modulate aging pathways will also be playing a role in mitigating the adverse response that you might get to COVID-19. So I think there's a lot of optimism that these interventions are going to change the course of the epidemic in the longterm, and we're feverishly working on trying to implement those.

Dina Radenkovic: (09:20)
Fascinating. And I think then aging really becomes an issue of national importance. So David, perhaps you, because you recently published astonishing results that increasing healthy life expectancy for just one year would yield 38 trillion US dollars. Why are countries competing within this? Why don't we have an age race like we had the space race? Is longevity the next big thing?

David Sinclair: (09:49)
Right. Well, the numbers are astounding in this paper, we calculated with a couple of my colleagues in London, economists that just for the US alone, we said, one year would give us $38 trillion. If you extend 10 years, it's $365 trillion. These are numbers that are astounding, and money that can be put towards other things as well in solving climate change and education. So why aren't people paying attention to it? Well, the problem is that we've always thought of aging as something natural and unavoidable as opposed to diseases, but actually, aging is a medical condition. The World Health Organization has declared it. So, and increasingly governments, well, regulators across the world are looking at aging as a potential medical condition. But I still think most physicians think of aging as something you can do nothing about, but what we're here to tell you today is that's not true in the same way that in the early 20th century, we learn how to fight infections, and in the 1970s and eighties, how to fight cancer effectively.

David Sinclair: (10:45)
We're at the same stage with aging. And now that the technology has caught up and we are able to control this process, much more people and increasingly so, are interested in allowing doctors to prescribe medicines for aging, which would actually take care of a lot of the major diseases in the world because right now, the medical system puts band-aids on diseases that happen because of aging, but too late once they've already occurred. So is this the next big thing? Well, let me tell you. So the three of us on the forefront of this field. Our heads are spinning. The amount of interest just in the last few years has gone up exponentially by probably a hundred fold. The amount of money that's being put into this field now is over $20 billion just privately alone. The governments around the world are putting more money. Our field is growing. Young people are piling into the field, mathematicians, programmers, biologists. It's similar to the early days of flight. And I think in five, and certainly in 10 years, we'll gather at a conference like this and just remember that this was the beginning of something extremely important.

Dina Radenkovic: (11:52)
Fascinating. And you've published actually quite recently, that COVID-19 even accelerates aging. Could you maybe elaborate a little bit on the interplay of aging and immunity?

David Sinclair: (12:03)
Right. Well, for people who are not vaccinated, often when they hear that you'll look older than they rush out and get a vaccine. The risk to your body of getting covered is far greater than any potential side effects of the vaccine. What we know for sure is that the virus will accelerate a process called [inaudible 00:12:22], which is one of the causes of aging itself, one of the whole marks. So there's a lot of evidence actually, that the long COVID in particular is not just mimicking aging, but is actually aging itself, which is something that could lead to a lot of economic cost to the country a decade or two from now and certainly for individuals themselves who will be more susceptible to these diseases, lung diseases, heart diseases. So please try to get vaccinated if you haven't already because you don't want to have that process. But again, speaking to what Eric said is that aging is the root cause of most diseases that affect the world, including infectious diseases and it's something that we often don't appreciate.

Dina Radenkovic: (13:05)
Fascinating. Well, I think as a longevity doctor, I often get asked what are the things that I can do right now to extend and improve my longevity and health span? The thing that I often say is know your numbers. So even if we ask right now, we store facts about pretty much everything, but how many people even in the audience know their vitamin D status, their blood sugar, their cholesterol? Do you know these numbers? So often the advice that I give is know your numbers. As kind of leading scientists and physicians in this space, what would you recommend as things that people can do right now to improve their longevity as we wait for more scientific breakthroughs? I know Jennifer, would you like- [crosstalk 00:13:52]

Jennifer Garrison: (13:52)
Well, I remember once a magic pill and while there might be some coming down the line, I think that the best advice is to think about when you're eating. So I think there's really great evidence that the time at which you eat and the time that you eat during the day, essentially the hours during which you eat really make a huge difference in terms of how your body responds. So when we stop eating, the body goes into a process called autophagy, which is really important for cleaning out the gunk in cells. This only happens many hours after you stopped eating. And so essentially, compressing down the time when you're actually consuming food makes an incredible difference in terms of your metabolic function. So that's a very simple thing that people can do. It doesn't require any sort of pills. It doesn't require any sort of intervention. It's simply a behavioral thing. And I'm not suggesting to even change what you're eating, just to change when you're eating it.

Dina Radenkovic: (14:59)
Well, I completely agree. There are studies to show that even kill senescent cells and deliver improves blood sugar. So if we can stick to eight to 10, we should see some results. Eric, what would you say?

Eric Verdin: (15:12)
I'd like to make a couple of points before talking about specific recommendations. One is the realization that 93% of your lifespan and your health span, the healthy years that you can expect to live are determined by your lifestyle. Only about 7% from genetic factors that you've inherited from your parents. I think this has really incredibly important implications in terms of the fact that your health is in your hands. There's no fatalistic approaches to health. It is in your hand. The second aspect is that we live through an epidemic of chronic diseases right now in the elderly. You're familiar with all of these diseases, heart disease, cardiovascular disease, heart attack, stroke, cancer, neuro degeneration, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, macular degeneration. The list goes on and on. All of these diseases, main risk factor is aging. Now, if we target the aging pathways, we target all of these diseases together and you can actually suppress or compress the number of years that you can expect to be sick in your life. So that being said, so what should you do?

Eric Verdin: (16:28)
I've realized that we are at a conference of investors, and I would like for all of you to look at your health the same way you look at your portfolio. I would be probably not incorrect by saying that most people actually invest a lot of time and resources managing their financial resources and very little in terms of their health. So I've been thinking about what are the lessons that we can learn from the financial world in terms of managing your health? And many of the rules are actually the same.

Eric Verdin: (17:02)
The first is you should be surrounding yourself by the very best talent in terms of advising you. I hate to say this, but I think traditional medicine is not really about prevention. So I would look for alternatives. The Buck Institute where Jennifer and I are working actually hopes to be in the future, one of these sources of information. So get information from the best, start early, and then go for the long-term. There's no quick gains. So be aware of fads. Be aware of people who promise you too much. So health is a process that you built throughout your life and eventually you reap the return at the end. I think these would be my advice.

Dina Radenkovic: (17:51)
Fascinating. I think people often think that aging is something to leave for later life, but we have actually very good studies. A lot of these metabolic processes and pathways get activated in adolescence, and there have been even randomized controlled trial, which is the best type of clinical study to show that even from the age from early twenties, we age at different pace for a single chronological year. So it is something that we should think about in any stage of life. David, what would you do? And I know you've also authored a book in which you shared a lot of your longevity practices that educated many people across the world about aging and longevity.

David Sinclair: (18:31)
What would I do, or what do I do? The cheat sheet, if you want to go, it's in my book, page 304 is some of what I do. My father and I have been... We're both scientists. So we can read the literature and we make assessments of what might work, what doesn't. I agree with what both Jennifer and Eric said, particularly that the intermittent fasting, I've adopted that over my life. These days, I'm even at the point where I eat only one meal a day if I'm not socializing and it's made a huge difference to how I feel and my energy levels. I just power through the day and then I eat a dinner at night.

David Sinclair: (19:09)
But absent that, let me say the other areas you can improve are move. I've got a standing desk. I walk. I lift weights in my bedroom at my desk, build up and maintain muscle mass. You lose muscle mass as you get older, of course, and muscle is important for maintaining hormone levels. There are longevity molecules that come out of muscle. And also if you fall over when you're old and you have muscle, you balance, you won't break your bones, which happens every 19 seconds in the US and that's close to a death sentence for an elderly person. So move.

David Sinclair: (19:43)
The other thing that I know many of you want to hear about are supplements. There are supplements out there that Eric and I work on, what's called NAD. It's a molecule that goes down as we get older and we need it to boost our defenses against aging, controls, the epigenome that I mentioned, that clock. Now, I'm not here to give advice on supplements. I don't recommend anything. Though, you can read more about it, but I would say that there are some supplements that are promising and there are some drugs that are really promising, very promising. Tens of thousands of people who have taken the drug Metformin, which is a type two diabetes drug to control blood sugar, time and time again in studies are shown to be protected against diseases, not just type two diabetes, but cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's, and even frailty.

David Sinclair: (20:32)
And there's a lot of interest in some studies that are ongoing that will test whether this is truly slowing down aging. But at the very least, these drugs are showing us that it very likely as possible that we can go on a regimen that your doctor could prescribe that would give an extra five, maybe even 10 years of healthier life. Besides that, if you just do what your doctor says, eat well, eat less, don't smoke, don't over-drink, get good rest, get friends, don't stress. That gives you 15 years of extra life compared to someone who doesn't do those things. It's easy. We just don't do them.

Dina Radenkovic: (21:05)
Fascinating. And any extra supplements that you personally take?

David Sinclair: (21:09)
Any supplement? Well, I'm on record. So I'll tell you. So resveratrol is the red wine molecule, 2003 have been taking it ever since. I'm now for the last 15 years, I think that is, I've been taking that. There's an NAD booster, which Eric and I have worked on. You can read about it. By the way, if you see my face on supplement websites, I don't endorse or sell supplements. It's people using my name without my permission, but I do believe that NAD levels are important for longevity.

David Sinclair: (21:40)
I also take Metformin. So I don't regret that. Biologically, I measured my biochemistry every few months, a company called Insight Tracker who I consult for. My calculated, let's call it estimated biological age based on those biomarkers has been going down steadily over 10 years. So I monitor things. And to Eric's point, you can't control or optimize what you don't measure. So we do need to measure things just the way we do with the markets. The idea of going to the doctor once a year seems medieval to me. We should be measuring our bodies a thousand times a second, which I can do with the BioMonitor and that's coming to.

Dina Radenkovic: (22:17)
Fascinating. Yes. Know your numbers. That would be the take home message. And I think what was fascinating is everywhere we're looking some of these drugs with anti-aging potential that you've mentioned, we've identified that they also affect female fertility and menopause. So my question to you, Jennifer is life expectancy is increased by two years every decade. It has stumbled in 180 years, but the age of fertility decline and menopause have remained static since introduction of medical records in 1800. Why is that? And why is it an issue that we should all care about? You mentioned earlier that we could use a vary in aging as a model to study aging, but what can we do about it right now?

Jennifer Garrison: (23:02)
We can put more money into scientific research towards understanding it, I think. but yeah, it's true. The age at which women goes through menopause... Essentially menopause makes a woman's body age faster. It really does accelerate aging. It increases a woman's risk of heart disease, stroke, cognitive decline, all sorts of things by a dramatic amount. And so what that means is that half the population is going to be living more than half their lives in the state of declined altered health. Right? So from a practical perspective, all women obviously should care about this issue, but from an economic perspective too, everyone on the planet should be thinking about this. Essentially, we've got right now, I think by 2025, it's estimated that there will be over a billion women worldwide in menopause. So in this altered health state, and that's more than 12% of the population.

Jennifer Garrison: (24:03)
So if you think about the economic costs from not just health-related issues, but also productivity decline, that's approaching a trillion dollars a year is what's being estimated. So from a practical perspective, if you're not concerned about your own longevity or the women in your lives' overall wellbeing, from an economic point of view, I think it's really important. But in terms of thinking about how we can attack this problem, truly we're right at the beginning of trying to understand why ovaries age prematurely. And I think there's some really promising things on the horizon, but we absolutely need to do more work in this area.

Dina Radenkovic: (24:49)
Fascinating. And I guess my probably last question for the panel would be, this is still a conference that is attracting a lot of capital allocators. What would you say is a definition of a longevity company? How can people identify a longevity company? Is it a company that is... Because aging is a risk factor for all chronic diseases? Is it a life sciences company? Is this something that's treating infectious diseases, even COVID-19? Is this a cure for menopause. Is this a company that is helping us make menopause optional? David, what would you say is a longevity company and how can we support that ecosystem?

David Sinclair: (25:28)
Well, I would start with looking at the science behind these companies. Scientists like us, we're publishing in the top scientific journals in the top 10. You want to find that because there's a lot of people who claim that they can do things and they're selling things, selling ideas, but you've got to start with good science. So aging research really is at the forefront of biology now. There've been two Nobel prizes awarded related to aging. There's probably more coming, but you got to start with that. That's the basis. And then of course, you look at the usual things. But what's exciting is that there are dozens of companies that are working on the science of longevity to make medicines. Now, these are not medicines that will initially be used to treat aging, unless the FDA suddenly changes its rules. I don't think that's going to happen for a few years, but it will happen, and those companies will be ready. And then there'll be some of the largest companies on the planet.

David Sinclair: (26:20)
But in the meantime, what we're all doing, and we have companies that are working on using the biology of aging to treat particular diseases. They can be rare diseases. They can be chronic, such as obesity, diabetes. They can be eye diseases, for instance, the reprogramming stuff, reversing blindness. And then you get on the market and the prediction that those drugs will be used by doctors to test other aspects of the diseases. Just like the statins for heart disease, it will start with a small, such as a familial hypercholesterolemia was Lipitor, and then it just blew up and became one of the world's best selling drugs and Pfizer became very wealthy. That's what we're expecting to happen here. But we have to stay laser focused. We cannot take on aging initially. We have to go for the fastest, most efficient way onto the market, which are often those diseases I mentioned.

Dina Radenkovic: (27:16)
Yes, and I think we've seen companies going for rare diseases as first indication, but hoping that these drugs will be able to have a much larger addressable market of basically everybody undergoing aging. Eric, any comments for investors in how to identify good longevity companies?

Eric Verdin: (27:33)
Yes, I think the first factor is the fact that we live in an aging population. As a good indication of this, last year for the first time in the US and in many Western countries, we're selling more diapers for adults than we're selling diapers for children. That's just a symptom of things to come. The number of people above 70, first is larger than the number of kids under five. If you look at countries like Germany and Japan, we see the writing on the wall is that by 2050, 40% of their population is going to be older than 65. So what this seismic demographic change represents as an investment opportunity is actually unprecedented. And I would encourage you if you haven't looked at the aging space to actually take a good look. There are going to be amazing opportunities, and we here are of course, focusing on the cutting edge, basic science companies that are going to be targeting the aging process, but there's a whole ecosystem of what happens in an aging society? How do you maximize the potential of all of its citizens?

Eric Verdin: (28:53)
With respect to what are these companies going to be developing? I think David made a really good point. Is aging a disease? I think there's been a lot of debate, whether it is truly a disease or not. And I think it's, for me, I try not to focus on this, but what the field has been doing is to actually redefine a whole series of disease that are associated with aging that had not been recognized as diseases in the past. I'll give you a good example. Sarcopenia, loss of muscle mass associated with aging occurs through some different degrees in different people. It is now recognized that indication. The inability of a person to respond to a vaccine, which we know occurs in 30% of people above 70 was not recognized as a disease, but now we're conducting clinical trials against these indications.

Eric Verdin: (29:46)
Thee loss of thymus, which is a gland behind your sternum, that actually contributes to the diversity of your immune system. Again, it was not considered a disease. We know it happens early as menopause. That is now being used as a clinical condition. So you can see over the next few years, we're going to be treating a whole series of conditions that were considered sort of part of aging in the past. And I think all of these drugs and discoveries have the potential to do exactly what we started with, which is to really increase the quality of our later years and hopefully, to not only have an increased health span, but also an increased lifespan and a more productive life.

Dina Radenkovic: (30:32)
Absolutely. And I think the one problem that I guess you mentioned, David is start with good science. What I've identified personally as a physician who then also went down the entrepreneurial and the investment side, is that actually, how do you then understand the science? And often, barriers to entry into fields like aging or longevity are much bigger for investors and often-[inaudible 00:30:54] certain things that can be more easily solved by software are just easier to understand. So it's an easier thing to invest in. So it's an easier thing to support. And here, we really need to break these barriers, and that's what we are so fortunate to have such an amazing panel at SALT.

Dina Radenkovic: (31:09)
SALT is really trying to push this life sciences effort because it's an issue of national importance, but you are also individually trying to solve similar problems. David, you're launching a podcast very soon. Eric, you're working with the Buck Institute. It's an amazing place. It's the largest Institute solely focused on aging. And then Jennifer, you could tell us a bit more about the consortium, right? You created this global network of scientists and researchers and entrepreneurs working on female aging.

Jennifer Garrison: (31:40)
Yeah. The consortium is meant to build the ecosystem essentially. So this field didn't really exist a few years ago. There were plenty of people working on reproductive biology, assisted reproductive technologies, plenty of scientists working on aging research, but very few in the middle. And truly if we're going to make any progress in this area, we needed to essentially build the ecosystem. The goal of the consortium is really to bring together novel operating ideas. We want to put creative scientists in the same room as entrepreneurs so that they can work together to take discoveries in the lab much faster to the hands of women. So part of what we're doing is trying to innovate around getting people who normally don't work together or talk to each other to interact. So that means scientists talking to physicians, talking to people in tech, talking to investors, and essentially bringing together all of the people who have an interest in this space.

Jennifer Garrison: (32:37)
So in terms of companies around longevity and aging research, I think, I'm not going to repeat what David and Eric said because they're exactly right, but I would say you can break it down into low-hanging fruit. So things like diagnostics, biomarkers, things that will tell a woman where she is along her reproductive span trajectory or where a person is along their biological aging trajectory. Those are really important. Things like supplements and what we would consider treating the symptoms of aging, those are also I would say easier things to tackle. But from my perspective, I think the really innovative and transformative companies are going to come from people who are trying to tackle the root causes, the mechanisms behind aging. And once we get those, then I think that's the moonshot.

Dina Radenkovic: (33:30)
All right. Well, thank you very much for your time for a wonderful discussion. And yes, we do hope to live to 200 years and beyond.

The Future in 2050 with Dr. Michio Kaku & Alex Klokus | #SALTNY

Dr. Michio Kaku is one of the most renowned figures in science and the world today. He is a theoretical physicist, bestselling author, acclaimed public speaker, futurist, and popularizer of science, he co-founded “String Field Theory” and continues Einstein’s quest to unite the fundamental forces of nature into a single grand unified “Theory of Everything.”

Dr. Kaku holds the Henry Semat Chair in Theoretical Physics at City University New York, graduating summa cum laude from Harvard with a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley. He has written numerous New York Times bestselling books including The Future of Humanity, The Future of the Mind, Physics of the Future, and Physics of the Impossible.

Kaku’s latest bestselling book The God Equation: The Quest for a Theory of Everything explores the history of unification theories from Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation through Quantum Mechanics and The Standard Model of Particle Physics — culminating in his own landmark contributions to the most cutting-edge ideas in theoretical physics.

Moderator Alex Klokus is a Founder and Managing Partner at the SALT Fund. Alex is a serial entrepreneur who built and sold both the media company Futurism and the sleep and wellness business Gravity.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot - Kaku, Dr. Michio - Cropped.jpg

Dr. Michio Kaku

Henry Semat Chair in Theoretical Physics

City University of New York

ALex Klokus.png

Alex Klokus

Founder & Managing Partner

The SALT Fund

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Alex Klokus: (00:07)
Hello. Thank you all for coming here today. It's going to be tough to top Paris Hilton, but if anyone can do it, I think Dr. Kaku can. Seriously, I think we can do it.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (00:25)
[inaudible 00:00:25].

Alex Klokus: (00:26)
He is better looking. I'd like to take one second quickly to thank the SALT team. If you can imagine this entire event is put on by a full-time team of less than five people. Less than five people does all of this. There's two people in particular, a Mr. Joel [Alito 00:00:52], and then Mr. John [Darcy 00:00:54], who are responsible for everything you see here. So please.

Alex Klokus: (01:02)
Okay. Dr. Kaku, we've got a great conversation in front of us. The objective for this conversation, we've got about 40 minutes or so, we want to visualize the future at two key times. The first is 2050, about 30 years from now. And the second we're just going to go even further because the weirder, the better, we're going to go to 2121, so 100 years from now. We want to get granular, we want to get specific and Dr. Kaku, we want to make some bold predictions. Are you ready?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (01:34)
Let her rip.

Alex Klokus: (01:35)
All right. So let's start with 2050, 30 years from now. And this is extremely consequential I think for most of us in the audience, because we will be living then. We will be alive, we will be inhabiting this world, this reality and things are going to look extremely, extremely different. Dr. Kaku when we visualize this future, what do you think are going to be the main drivers of change for us in 2050?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (02:03)
Well, to get the most accurate description of the future, I've interviewed over 300 of the world's top scientists for the Discovery Channel, BBC Television, the Science Channel. And I asked them the key question, the question of all questions. I asked them the question, is there intelligent life on the earth? Well, I was watching the soap operas last night and I've come to the conclusion, nope, no intelligent life on this planet. But take a look at the big picture, take a look at humanity just a few hundred years ago. Throughout human history, people lived in poverty, disease, war, average life expectancy for most of human civilization was 30 years of age. You were born, you got married, had kids, and then you died. Life was a bitch. But then something happened. Something magical happened 200 years ago. What was that? You talk to a politician and a politician would say, "Where does wealth come from? Taxes. That's where wealth comes from, taxes."

Dr. Michio Kaku: (03:28)
But if you tax Peter to pay Paul, that is zero sum game. You don't get anywhere. You talk to an economist, where does wealth come from? And the economists would say, "Printing money. That's how you make money." But if you print money, you're simply borrowing against the next generation. I say, all wealth comes from science and technology. Because around 1800, we physicists worked out what is called thermodynamics, the laws of heat. From that we created the heat engine, the locomotive, the factory, the industrial revolution based on oil and coal, great wealth was created. In fact, that's where the Rockefeller fortune comes from.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (04:22)
The great Rockefeller fortune, which helped to create New York city as we know it, came from when we physicists worked out thermodynamics. Then we physicists worked out electricity and magnetism, and that gave us dynamos, television, radio, electronics, and that created wealth. General Electric, utilities, Westinghouse, tremendous wealth. Then we physicists worked out the quantum theory and that gave us the laser, the transistor, the computer, the internet, and that created Apple computers, created IBM. That was the third grade revolution.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (05:07)
Here's the question for all of you today. What is the fourth wave of wealth generation and what is the fifth wave of wealth generation? That's what we're going to talk about today. I say the fourth wave of wealth generation, the great fortunes that don't even exist yet, the fourth wave is physics at the molecular level. Meaning artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and biotechnology, and the Rockefellers of that era haven't been created yet. We're witnessing the creation of the next generation of wealth with artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and biotechnology. And that, let me go even farther to the fifth wave. The fifth wave is simply a gleam in the eye of a physicist.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (06:10)
The fifth wave of wealth generation is going to be first of all, fusion power, which gives us unlimited energy from seawater. Second, quantum computers. Because one day Silicon Valley will become a rust belt, because the age of Silicon is slowly coming to an end. We are now witnessing the slowing down of Moore's law. And the third component of the fifth wave is BrainNet. What will replace the digital internet? What will replace the digital internet is the neural BrainNet. We already can read memories in a mind, we can extract pictures out of the living brain. In the future, you will telepathically control the world around you, and we are laying the groundwork for that today. Machine brain interface with enormous implications for the future. In other words, digital immortality could become a consequence, living forever. Anyway, these are just some of the glimpses we are seeing now. Physics at the atomic level, the fifth wave, which will dominate wealth generation toward the middle to late part of this century.

Alex Klokus: (07:44)
There is no better way to get everyone here to perk up and say the next generation of wealth. So I think you really nailed that. And this is a finance conference, so we're all listening. And I had some questions here, but let's just ignore those and let's keep going into this. This is way better. So we're in 2050, okay. We talked about nanotechnology, we talked about biotechnology, we talk about artificial intelligence. Help us visualize what this world looks like. So we're here in this conference center in 2050, 30 years from now, there are drones in the skies. Are there people on Mars? Did Elon Musk get one million people on Mars by 2050?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (08:23)
Well, Elon Musk is a great Pathfinder and a great prophet in terms of setting a vision, a vision for the future. Because well, the dinosaurs did not have a space program. The dinosaurs did not have Elon Musk, that's why there're no dinosaurs here today because they had no space program. We are here today, we do have a space program, so we have a shot at it. But you have to realize that it's going to take time before we can colonize Mars. I think we should do it as plan B. We need an insurance policy. It is a law of physics that the earth will one day be destroyed. One day, everything we love about this planet will be gone. In five billion years, the sun will eat up the earth. In a 50 million time period, a gigantic asteroid could wipe out humanity like it wiped out the dinosaurs.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (09:28)
On a 10,000 year timeframe, another ice age. This place was covered with half a mile of ice 10,000 years ago. This room was under a half a mile of ice 10,000 years ago, we are living between glaciations. And then on a scale of a few hundred years, we have to worry about city busters, meteors from the sky that could land down and wipe out Moscow or Washington or something like that. And then at a scale of decades, we have to worry about nuclear proliferation, the next pandemic and global warming. So it is a law of physics that at some point we may have to leave the earth, but my attitude is there's no rush. We don't have to leave the earth immediately, but it does mean that we should think about an escape clause. Plan B on Mars.

Alex Klokus: (10:17)
Plan B on Mars, and in 2050, maybe Elon gets people there. Do you think that we, earth will be even more consequentially impacted by climate change?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (10:29)
Yes and no. The bad news is that all the indicators show that the earth is heating up. Glaciation is receding, average temperatures are increasing, summer is a week longer than normal, winters are a week shorter than normal. Farmers know that the weather has already changed for the growing season. For all these reasons, we know the atmosphere is changing, but there's an ace in the hall. The ace in the hole is two things. First fusion power. The joke is that every 20 years we physicists say, "We will have fusion in 20 years." 20 years comes and oops, there's no fusion power. But we're very close to attaining breakeven now, in France and in California, and you've read the headlines. We are very close now to hitting break even with fusion power. And where does hydrogen come from? Seawater. Seawater is a source of hydrogen.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (11:30)
Does a fusion reactor melt down? No, it doesn't melt down. How much nuclear waste does it create? Almost none. Helium is the nuclear waste from a fusion reactor, and helium is commercially valuable, you can sell helium. So that's an ace in the hole. Another possibility is quantum computers, which can initiate the solar age. Now we've been talking about the solar age for decades.

Alex Klokus: (11:57)
And for people that don't know, can you explain what that is?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (12:00)
The solar age is when we have solar power from the sun and the wind to replace oil and coal on the earth.

Alex Klokus: (12:08)
Got it.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (12:09)
It never came. Why? Why aren't we in the middle of a solar age, celebrating the sun not worrying about global warming? Everybody forgets, it's the battery. The battery is the weak link. We think that everything obeys Moore's law, that computer power doubles every 18 months. We think everything obeys Moore's law. Nope, batteries do not obey Moore's law. We need a super battery. And where is the super battery going to come from, we think from quantum computers. Quantum computers can model quantum processes. Batteries... There's no digitization of a battery. It's a chemical reaction, it's hit or miss. It's done by hard luck, hard work in a laboratory by some nameless person in a chemical laboratory, it's sheer luck getting a super battery. But with a quantum computer, we can roll the dice and perhaps create a super battery, when the sun doesn't shine and the winds don't blow. So two technologies could save us from global warming, fusion power, and quantum computers.

Alex Klokus: (13:21)
So super battery created by quantum computer? Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (13:24)
Right.

Alex Klokus: (13:25)
2050, hopefully. I'm curious, do you think that there are any existential risks that will prevent us, us as in humanity, from making it to 2050? It sounds like climate change, no, not an existential risk. Asteroid. Is an astroid and existential risk, do you believe by 2050?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (13:45)
Well, we monitor these things in outer space, except down to the size of a football field. Things smaller than a football field, we don't monitor that well, but anything bigger than that, we do monitor. But there's always a chance that an object smaller than a football field or a comet that goes behind the sun catches us off guard. That's always possible.

Alex Klokus: (14:06)
So it's possible.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (14:07)
Possible. [crosstalk 00:14:07].

Alex Klokus: (14:07)
... to be wiped out by 2050 by asteroid?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (14:09)
Right.

Alex Klokus: (14:10)
What do you think about this general AI, super intelligent AI? Elon Musk talks about this a lot, the idea that we will create an artificial intelligence that is conscious, that starts to take over. If we look around, AI has already proliferated throughout our society. Perhaps one can argue, it's already running the show, although it's not conscious. Do you think that that is an existential risk for humanity in the next 30 years by 2050?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (14:42)
I think maybe the next 100 years. How smart is a robot today? We've been brainwashed by Hollywood. Hollywood seems tell us that [Shorts and Egor 00:14:52] and the Terminator robots are around the corner. Our most advanced robot today, how intelligent is our most advanced military robot? Our most advanced robot compared to an animal would be a cockroach, a stupid cockroach, a retarded, stupid cockroach. You put a cockroach in a forest, it looks for food, looks for a mate, finds shelter. You take our most advanced military robot and put it in the forest, and what does it do, falls over and can't even get up again. But eventually there'll be as smart as a mouse. Eventually they will be as smart as a rat, then a rabbit, then a dog or a cat, and by the late 21st century, perhaps as smart as a monkey. Now, why is that dangerous? Because monkeys know they are not human. Now, dogs are confused.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (15:56)
You see dogs think that we are a dog. We're the top dog, and they're the underdog and that's why they slobber all over us because we're the leader of the pack. They're pack animals. Now cats are not. Cats are solitary hunters. You cannot fool a cat, a cat knows that we are not a cat, but a dog is confused. Now, monkeys do not get confused. Monkeys know they are monkeys. So when a robot becomes as intelligent as a monkey, perhaps by 2100, we should put a chip in their brain to shut them off, if they have murderous thoughts.

Alex Klokus: (16:32)
Yeah. I like that. So you think humans, we, us, need to merge with machine. We have to become one.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (16:42)
Yeah. I think beyond 2100, robots will be so smart, they'll remove that chip. They will redesign their own brains, such that the fail safe chip is removed, and then what are we going to do? They're conscious, they can set their own goals, at that point I think we should merge with them. And that process is a slow process, but I think it's already starting. Humans have been altering ourselves ever since day one. Makeup, tattoos, [sorins 00:17:13]. Sorins are an extension of the hand. We've been altering our body ever since we came out of the forest.

Alex Klokus: (17:19)
Yeah. I love that. There's a phrase called [Homo Evolutis 00:17:24], the idea that we have entered a new species, we've now taken control of our own evolution. And it sounds very much like what you're talking about here. And again, I guess we go to Elon. Elon's got Neurolink. He seems to be spot on with your predictions. He is trying to put chips in our brains and it sounds like we've got a ticking clock. We've got about 80 years to become one.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (17:47)
One benefit of this is digital immortality. Digital, not biological, that's also coming. But digital immortality means we will digitize ourselves, our credit card transactions, our Instagram photographs, our memoirs. Everything will be digitized and you'll live forever. I would love to talk to Einstein, that's coming. Some person who will eventually digitize Einstein, all his thoughts, all his feelings. Winston Churchill, presidents, they'll all be digitized in the future. And we will become immortal in the sense that we'll talk to our great, great, great, great, great grandkids and our great, great, great, great, grandkids will be able to talk to us, because we'll live forever.

Alex Klokus: (18:34)
And so when you say a mortal, maybe let's drill down on that for a second. I think there is one form of being immortal. Let's say we take all of Einstein's notes, we upload it to an AI. It speaks to us like Einstein, it looks perhaps like Einstein. Okay, that's great. But it's not conscious, it is not thinking new unique thoughts, it is not aware of itself. When you say digital immortality, are you saying that we will be able to take our consciousness, Me Alex, you Dr. Kaku and upload that to a computer?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (19:06)
Yeah, I think so. I think it's [crosstalk 00:19:08].

Alex Klokus: (19:07)
By 2050?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (19:09)
Around 2050, we'll have a reasonable approximation of who we are. We'll talk to George Washington or everything known about the guy and have a great time. And also by the way, what are we going to do with this digitize personality? I say we should put all this digitized information on the laser beam and shoot it to the moon. In one second, you will be on the moon, in 15 minutes, you'll be on Mars. Four years, you'll be on the nearest star. You will be able to explore the universe at the speed of light with your digitized consciousness on a laser beam shooting at the speed of light throughout the galaxy. So I think that... and in fact, on the moon, we'll have a mainframe computer on the moon, which downloads your consciousness and puts your consciousness into an avatar.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (20:02)
And this avatar will roam Mars, roam the moon and explore the universe. In other words, a digitized version of ourselves will conquer the universe. No problems with radiation, no problems with accidents, no problems or the weightlessness, nothing, pure light. Our consciousness will colonize the galaxy at the speed of light. And in fact, I'll stick my neck out. Everything I've said so far is well within the laws of physics. I think this already exists.

Alex Klokus: (20:35)
Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (20:36)
I think in outer space there's a highway. A laser highway carrying the souls of digitized aliens, and we, humans are so stupid we don't even know that it's there.

Alex Klokus: (20:49)
Yeah, okay so-

Dr. Michio Kaku: (20:50)
Right next to us, there could be a laser highway of digitized alien souls. And we are so primitive of their technology that we don't even know about it.

Alex Klokus: (21:01)
So you've hit on something that I'm obsessed with, which is aliens. Let's just keep going. Let's keep going. Should we clap? Let's clap. Better than Paris Hilton? Better than Paris Hilton, a little bit. I love this. Okay. So aliens, a highway. You're saying there is a highway in the universe of digital remains of other intelligent life in the universe.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (21:26)
That's right.

Alex Klokus: (21:27)
And you believe this?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (21:28)
I say it's something that we have to seriously think about. And by the way, some people email me claim that I'm all washed up because the aliens are not there. They claimed that the aliens are here on the earth and they visit us. And they know that because they've been kidnapped, they've been on the flying saucers. Well, I have a word of advice. The next time you are kidnapped by a flying saucer for God's sake, steal something. There's no law of physics that puts you in jail for stealing from an extra terrestrial civilization, it's perfectly legal to steal from an alien. And you'll have proof, an alien chip, an alien hammer. That ends the debate right there.

Alex Klokus: (22:15)
But in all seriousness, and I think we'll all go home, we'll remember that note. Next time we're abducted, we'll steal something. But the Pentagon has come out, they have come out, they have said, "Hey, there is some weird going on. We don't know what it is. We've got video footage, we've got camera footage." They released an 80 page report that concluded, there were 120 incidents that cannot be explained. Have you seen the videos?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (22:42)
Yeah, I've seen all of them.

Alex Klokus: (22:43)
You've seen all of them?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (22:43)
Yeah.

Alex Klokus: (22:44)
What do you think?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (22:45)
Well, before this military report came out, it was hearsay. Now we have the gold standard. The gold standard is multiple sightings by multiple modes. Meaning not one person, but several, not just radar, but infrared sensors, optical sensors, eye witness accounts, all with one sighting using multiple individuals, multiple modes of detection. Now we have it. We physicists have analyzed frame by frame those 120 videotapes, frame by frame. And we now realize that these objects, whatever they are can travel between mark five and mark 20, 20 times the speed of sound zipping across the ocean, zipping across the planes. And when they zigzag, they create G-forces of several hundred, enough to crush the bones of any living creature that we know of inside a flying saucer. They can descend 80,000 feet within a matter of a few seconds, all of this on videotape, incredible.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (23:54)
And then these things dive into the ocean. They can actually go into the ocean and there's a videotape showing all these things. Now the military for the first time in history has now admitted, quote, "They're not one of ours." They never admitted that before. They hinted maybe it's a stealth bomber, maybe it's some kind of hush-hush project. Nope, "Not one of ours."

Alex Klokus: (24:17)
And that's unbelievable. I think that is not only unbelievable, it is unbelievably consequential. That would reshape society, it would allow us to reimagine our role in the universe, but we're not talking about it. We're all sitting here, we're at a finance conference, we're talking about the markets, we're talking about crypto, NFTs, all these other things, but this is more consequential. So why are we not talking about it? You Dr. Kaku, you are a very well-respected esteemed leader in this space, right here you are saying, "Hi, hello, something is happening. This is consequential. It seems like it could be aliens." But then that's it. Everybody goes home, we live our lives. Why are we not talking about this more? And then if you were to speculate and I promise we will not hold you to this, what do you think it is?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (25:11)
Well, first of all, we don't yet have a smoking gun. We have these suggestive videotapes. The military is saying, maybe they're Chinese, maybe they're Russian, I don't think so. But the Russians do have hypersonic drones. We are working on hypersonic drones. Hypersonic drones can duplicate some of these maneuvers, but the military admits that no, "These are more advanced than any of the hypersonic drones that we are developing in our laboratory." But we don't have the smoking gun. We don't have an alien ship, we don't have an alien hammer, an alien paperclip.

Alex Klokus: (25:45)
Do you think the government has that?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (25:47)
Well, they haven't led onto it. We can't rule it out that maybe they've been able to retrieve something from a crashed flying saucer, but I haven't seen any evidence.

Alex Klokus: (25:57)
You have not seen.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (25:58)
I'm not seeing any... I've talked to my friends and they have not seen any either.

Alex Klokus: (26:02)
Got it. But if you were to go out on a limb here and just speculate, you think that what we're seeing in these videos is some other form of intelligent species from somewhere else in the universe?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (26:16)
Well, it can't be ruled out. Now we physicist believe it or not have actually written about civilizations that are millions of years, more advanced than us. We scan the galaxy, we realized there's a hundred billion stars in the galaxy, on average, every single star has a planet going around it. I repeat on average, every single star you see at night has a planet going around it. How many of them have liquid water oceans? Maybe 10, 20%. So the galaxy is teeming with these life forms, and we physicists have categorized their level of advancement. A type one civilization is planetary, like Buck Rogers, they control the weather. They control volcanoes, earthquakes, anything planetary, they control, like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers. Then there's type two, which is stellar. They have the power of a star, they roam a piece of the galaxy like Star Trek. The Federation of planets would be a type two civilization, harnessing solar power. Then there's type three. Type three is galactic. They roam the galactic space lanes like Star Wars. Star Wars would be a type three civilization. Now on this scale, what are we?

Alex Klokus: (27:35)
We're type zero.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (27:38)
We're type zero.

Alex Klokus: (27:39)
Oh my God.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (27:40)
We don't even rate on the scale. We get our energy from dead plants, oil and coal.

Alex Klokus: (27:46)
By 2050, will we get to level one?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (27:48)
Well, by 2100, if you just do the math, by 2100, we should be a type one civilization. For example, what is the internet? Why is it so magical? The internet is the first type one system to fall into our century. It's a type one technology, it's planetary. The internet is the first planetary technology that we have. That's the glimpse of what's going to happen around 2100. Everything's going to be planetary after 2100. You'll communicate, your friendships, your relationships will all be planetary.

Alex Klokus: (28:23)
Planetary relationships. [crosstalk 00:28:25].

Dr. Michio Kaku: (28:25)
Yeah. And what language will they speak? Well already the two dominant languages on the internet are English and Mandarin, Chinese. What about type one sports? Soccer and the Olympics, the beginning of a planetary sports. What is Chanel? What is Gucci? The beginning of a type one culture. What is [crosstalk 00:28:44].

Alex Klokus: (28:43)
Wait. Chanel and Gucci are type one culture?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (28:45)
Yeah. The beginnings.

Alex Klokus: (28:46)
The beginnings. Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (28:48)
Right. What is Rock and Roll? The beginning of type one music. You see what I'm saying? We're seeing the beginning of a type one culture and the engineer is spearheading that because it's a type one technology, monetary.

Alex Klokus: (29:03)
Just so maybe we can all recap, understand, there's a lot that was said in the last 10 minutes. So you believe there is a universal digital highway in the universe that has remains of other intelligent extraterrestrial life, maybe they're sending data back all across the universe. Okay, that's happening. Now, there is some seemingly intelligent species that is coming to earth and they are evaluating us, they are looking at us, they are watching us-

Dr. Michio Kaku: (29:33)
And laughing.

Alex Klokus: (29:34)
... and laughing. They're perhaps laughing at us, but we must be important enough for them to watch us. There's got to be something... There may not be a lot of things going on here, but there's got to be something important for them to watch us.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (29:49)
Well, this is where we physicists argue with each other because we don't know, there's no hard data. Some people think they maybe it's like an interplanetary zoo, that we are the zoo animals and they are like the zookeeper, and they just come and watch us. Another possibility is when you go walking on a country road and you see a bunch of ants on the road, do you go down to the road and tell the ants, "I bring you trinkets, I bring you beads, I give you nuclear energy, take me to your aunt queen." Or maybe you step on a few of them? Well, if these aliens are entomologists, alien entomologists, they will consider us to be the aunts. In which case they would like to play with us a little bit, but after a while, they would probably lose interest.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (30:37)
If you were in a forest and you meet a squirrel, do you try to talk to the squirrel? Well, initially, yeah. But after a while you get bored because the squirrel doesn't talk back to you, the squirrel has nothing to offer you. So I think initially an alien civilization would be curious about us, but after a while they just get bored. They'll say, "What, soap operas again, turn the channel."

Alex Klokus: (31:00)
There was a great quote about this, I think from someone named Chris [Melanie 00:31:05], I believe he was at the Pentagon. He's leading a lot of this research initiative. And he said, "Hey, if we imagine, let's say we extrapolate out and we're now in 2100, we humans are exploring the universe. How would we do that? Well, what we would do is we would send an unmanned drone. They would go, they'd travel for X amount of time, many, many decades, if not centuries, until they reached their target planet. The drone would then observe, it would take a map of the planet. It would then go hide, maybe under an ocean, like what we're seeing. And then every, so often, every 20 years it would pop out, it would map everything and then it would send that data back, and it would go back into hiding." That sounds a little bit like maybe what we're seeing here. It seems like logically it checks out.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (31:48)
However, that's type one. Let's talk about type three now.

Alex Klokus: (31:52)
Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (31:52)
Type three is when you have galactic power, the power of a black hole. At that point, Einstein's equations begin to break down and you enter the realm of what I do for a living, string theory. String theory is the theory of everything. The theory before the big bang, the theory that would answer the question, is time travel possible? What happened before creation? Are there gateways to other dimensions? Is there a multiverse of universes? All these questions are far beyond Einstein's theory, but well within what I do for a living, string theory. String theory is for type three, a type three civilization is galactic. At that point, space and time could become unstable. If space and time become unstable, they may be able to break the light barrier. In which case they don't have to wait thousands of years to reach the stars, they simply create a gateway.

Alex Klokus: (32:45)
And how would we break the light barrier? Can you help us visualize and Imagine that?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (32:49)
Well, if I have a black hole... Already, we know that black holes exist, we photograph them, we study them now. But at the center of a black hole, there could be a gateway, like Alice's looking glass. Think of the looking glass of Alice. Alice sticks her hand through the looking glass and her hand winds up in Wonderland. So two universes are stuck back to back through the looking glass, and what is the looking glass, a black hole. So you need fantastic amounts of energy, like type three, before you can begin to play with hyper velocity rockets that can go faster than the speed of light. Again, this is still conjectural, we don't know for sure. String theory has not been verified.

Alex Klokus: (33:35)
Do you think it will be verified by, let's go further 2100? Do you think string theory will be verified?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (33:40)
Yeah, I think so.

Alex Klokus: (33:41)
You think so?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (33:42)
Already the next generation of Adams Smashers are the Japanese, the Chinese and the Europeans are proposing the next generation beyond the large Hadron Collider. But personally, I think that it's a math problem. Somebody who's smart enough will solve the string equations and be able to answer it once and for all, whether this is the theory of everything, the theory of the black hole, the theory of the big bang.

Alex Klokus: (34:06)
And you said somebody, what about something?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (34:09)
Or something, or somebody? If I do a TV interview, I tell people out there, that maybe one of you in the audience will discover the theory of everything.

Alex Klokus: (34:18)
This is the finest conference [crosstalk 00:34:19].

Dr. Michio Kaku: (34:21)
And if you ever find the theory of everything, tell me first, we'll split the money and the Nobel prize, you and me.

Alex Klokus: (34:31)
And so I'm curious, when you think about stage three, we are stage zero. There's another, I guess, group of thought or school of thought, which says, "Hey, maybe we're just living in a simulation. Maybe this is a simulation." There is another species, they have developed compute. They have developed their own digital world. They're now simulating their own realities. Many of them, millions of them, billions of them, trillions of them. And we are not the ultimate or the original reality. It's turtles all the way down, as they say. I know Elon Musk talks about this quite a bit, is that what you believe?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (35:11)
No. This theory says that we all live in the matrix. Somebody just hit the play button and here we are. We're nothing but a CD ROM, and somebody has to play button. First of all, why would any super being want to duplicate our life forever on a PC or a super PC? Second of all, even if you were to model the weather, just model the weather, it turns out that the number of molecules is trillions upon trillions and to model each atom would exhaust the power of any computer. The smallest object, which can simulate the weather is the weather itself.

Alex Klokus: (35:55)
That is a great line, I love that. The smallest... What did you say, the smallest what?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (35:59)
The smallest object-

Alex Klokus: (36:00)
The smallest object.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (36:01)
... that can simulate the weather is the weather itself.

Alex Klokus: (36:06)
And so when we think about the things that we simulate in our digital world, let's use maybe an example, like the Sims. Okay, are you familiar with the Sims?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (36:15)
No, but go on.

Alex Klokus: (36:15)
Okay. It's a game where you just simulate these little guys and they do basic things, like use the bathroom and talk to each other. So let's say you're talking about the smallest system that can simulate the weather is the weather. But I feel like we can simulate a lot of things in our computer, you're saying we can't simulate the weather?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (36:31)
Yeah. Because the weather has too many molecules, each molecule going in a different way. When we do something like Sim city, we're taking shortcuts, tremendous shortcuts, and as a consequence, the model we make is not realistic. To get a realistic simulation of this room, would exhaust the power of any known computer for billions and billions of years.

Alex Klokus: (36:56)
Yeah. When you say that, just so we understand, you're saying that because there's nuance. There are little things that happen in this room, there's a lot of unique actors. I can put my foot over here, I can put my foot over here, but that is not consequential, it doesn't impact the outcome of this entire experience. But you can take shortcuts. We can simulate this talk, maybe 95% of the time, it goes really well, 5% of the time you don't like me and this whole thing sucks.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:20)
That is possible. Some people say that maybe the simulation is not perfect. So that in this corner of the room, there's a ragged hole because the computer program hasn't fixed up that hole.

Alex Klokus: (37:32)
Yeah, it's like a glitch when you're playing-

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:32)
A glitch.

Alex Klokus: (37:32)
... a video game, it's not loaded.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:34)
Right.

Alex Klokus: (37:34)
Yeah.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:35)
So a simulation that is not realistic but 99% realistic, that's possible. How would you test it? You would test it by looking for rips, tears and inconsistencies in the fabric of reality. So if all of a sudden a hole erupts here, a tear, it's because ah, the computer program didn't fix that hole correctly.

Alex Klokus: (37:55)
And do we have any evidence of that at all-

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:57)
No.

Alex Klokus: (37:57)
... that you're aware of? No.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:58)
No. We see no evidence of a rip reality.

Alex Klokus: (38:01)
Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (38:01)
If you ever find one, tell me first.

Alex Klokus: (38:05)
Okay. So I think we're approaching the end here just to summarize, and then we'll end with one parting question. So 2050, we have probably some people on Mars, Elon's going to push us there. Climate change is going to be consequential, but it is not an existential risk. We will have some form of digital longevity, maybe some meaningful extension of biological age, may be in there as well. And then by 2100 things are getting extremely weird. We are talking about taking our consciousness, uploading it and shooting it via laser all across the universe, and then reanimating as avatars across every... by 2100, 80 years from now. Maybe if we're lucky enough, we'll see that. We will do that?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (38:54)
That's right. That our consciousness will explore the universe. We'll download our consciousness on the moon into an avatar, and we are now Superman. Superman, Superwomen on the Moon, Mars exploring the universe at the speed of light, downloading our consciousness into avatars. And who knows, maybe some of you are an avatar that has been downloaded from outer space visiting us right now.

Alex Klokus: (39:17)
Yeah. If anyone is an avatar, Anthony Scaramucci is the avatar, for sure. He's amazing, he's unbelievable. And then there's aliens everywhere. There's aliens perhaps here, there's aliens in the universe out there.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (39:31)
Let me say that, if our grandparents could suddenly see us, what would our great-great-grandparents think about us? They would consider us to be magicians and sorcerers, able to conjure up images and things that can fly and go into space. So our great-grand ancestors will consider us to be sorcerers. When we talk to our great, great grandkids, how will we view them? We will view them to be gods. And what do gods do? Gods have the power of life and death, they have the power over their environment. That's where we're headed. We are headed to become gods. The gods that we used to worship, we will become the gods that we used to worship, power over life and death.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (40:26)
For example, take a look at cancer. We now know that cancer is not one disease, but thousands of smaller diseases that are genetic. We'll simply live with it like a common cold. We'll never cure cancer, but it's not going to kill people. We don't worry about the common cold because we can stop it, but we don't cure it. Same thing with cancer. So in other words, our descendants will have the power over disease. If they can't conquer it, we'll simply live with it. And they'll have the power to change our environment at will.

Alex Klokus: (40:58)
I love that.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (40:58)
That's the power of a God.

Alex Klokus: (41:00)
So the parting takeaway is that, as long as we don't blow ourselves up, we as in humanity, we will become gods.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (41:12)
That's right.

Alex Klokus: (41:13)
Okay. Dr. Kaku, thank you so much. I love it. Thank you all. This was a lot of fun. I hope you stay and enjoy the rest of the conference.

Biotechnology, Wellness & the Science of Aging | #SALTNY

James Peyer is the Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of Cambrian Biopharma. He also serves as the Chairman of the Board of Sensei Biotherapeutics and board and executive roles across Cambrian’s pipeline. He has spent his entire life dedicated to the mission of finding ways of preventing people from getting diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s instead of waiting for people to get sick.

Nathaniel David has co-founded four biotechnology companies that have collectively raised over $2 billion in financing and have given rise to three IPOs, two M&A acquisitions, and four FDA-approved medicines (ALOGLIPTIN, TRELAGLIPTIN, ZEMDRI, and KYBELLA). Nathaniel holds 46 allowed patents in fields as far flung as nanovolume crystallography, antibiotic resistance, aesthetic medicine, and cellular senescence.

Kristen Fortney is the co-founder and CEO of BioAge, a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a pipeline of treatments to extend healthy lifespan by targeting the molecular causes of aging. The company uses its discovery platform, which combines quantitative analysis of proprietary longitudinal human samples with detailed health records tracking individuals over the lifespan, to map out the key molecular pathways that impact healthy human aging.

Moderator Dina Radenkovic is a Partner at SALT Fund. Dina is an academic doctor and medical technology entrepreneur. She qualified with a dual degree in medicine and physiology from UCL Medical School. Dina is a co-founder and CSO of Hooke, an elite longevity research clinic, in collaboration with the Buck Institute for Aging.

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Fortney, Kristen - Cropped.jpeg

Kristen Fortney

Chief Executive Officer

BioAge

James Peyer

Chief Executive Officer & Co-Founder

Cambrian Biopharma

 
Headshot - David, Nathaniel - Cropped.jpeg

Nathaniel David

Chief Executive Officer

Jupiter Bioventures

MODERATOR

Headshot - Radenkovic, Dr. Dina - Cropped.jpg

Dr. Dina Radenkovic

Partner

The SALT Fund

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (00:07)
Well, welcome everyone to another Longevity Panel. And this time we're going to focus a bit on biotech. How do we set build successful biotech companies in the field of aging? And then how do we invest in the age of aging, as I like to call this period where we have long living, but not necessarily healthy population. So I'm joined on stage by James Peyer, the founder, CEO of Cambrian Biopharma. Nathaniel David, who is a serial biotech founder, and also founder of Unity, a biotechnology company, and Jupiter. And then Kristin Fortney the founder and CEO of BioAge labs. So I guess the best way to start perhaps would be, why don't you all give us a very brief introduction about your companies and what is the single thing that your company is doing that you're most excited about. Ned, I guess, would you like to go first?

Nathaniel David: (01:01)
Sure. So I'll talk about, thanks, Dina. And so Dina mentioned that I'm a serial company builder. So I'll just talk about, and I've been doing this for about 22 years, four approved medicines. Two of my companies, Unity is a company that makes medicines that eliminate old cells. These are cells that don't divide anymore and they drive a bunch of disease. And we tried it first in arthritis in human beings, didn't work there. It was a pretty big clinical failure there. And then we moved into diseases of the aging retina and we have beautiful data happening there where when we dose a patient with a disease of the aging retina, they can gain within 24 hours as much as 20 letters on an eye chart, like at the DMV. So that's really cool, that's Unity.

Nathaniel David: (01:53)
And brand new company we're starting called [Cavalry 00:01:56]. What we're doing is we're taking growth factors, these are things that float around in your body and tell your tissue what to do. And we're putting little zip codes on them so we can send them, so they swim to very specific spots. And we have one that we're building that can swim into the plaques in your arteries, functioning like a molecular stint. And we're building another one that can swim into your muscles to treat various muscular dystrophies. And a similar one for bone. And we call those molecules cupids. And they're pretty cool.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (02:29)
Yeah, I love the cupids. Kristen, tell us a bit about BioAge.

Kristen Fortney: (02:33)
Thanks, Dina, for having me here today. So BioAge is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing a pipeline of therapies that treat diseases of aging, and that ultimately might help extend the healthy lifespan. So we currently have three different programs in the clinic. Our most advanced one, so that's probably the most exciting piece of data right now. It's right in the middle of a phase two trial. And this drug we think rejuvenates certain aspects of immune aging. So in particular, as you get older, if you're challenged with pretty much any virus or bacteria, your dendritic cells don't migrate as well to where they're needed to wake up your T cells. And this drug can correct that. And so it can help improve your response to the flu, but also to COVID, which is clearly a disease of immune aging. If everybody here has the immune system of a 20 year old, it would be a very different pandemic.

Kristen Fortney: (03:21)
So that first trial was that drug where we're in the middle of the phase two, it's an older COVID-19 patient population that's hospitalized that we're going into. And these are people who still, 30% of these people because of their age are progressing to really poor outcomes like ventilator or even death. We have two additional programs that are in clinical stage right now, focused on muscle aging and really a pipeline of therapies. We want to bring several more clinical programs up forward over the coming years. And another important point to mention about BioAge is that all of these programs is different mechanistic bets on these molecular biology of aging are coming from our human data platform. So we have invested a lot in understanding how humans age from middle-age and onwards to death, and that's where our discoveries and our pipelines and our targets are coming from.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (04:14)
And James, Cambrian.

James Peyer: (04:16)
Thanks Dina. Thanks everyone for coming in. So I run a company called Cambrian, which was created to capture a bit of a promise of this longevity biotech industry, which is really in its infancy but a pretty exciting infancy. And so I've spent most of my career working with academics from around the world who have made a key discovery that can extend the healthy lifespan of an animal, usually a mouse. And figuring out with them, how do you take that discovery in a mouse and build it into a human medicine. And so Cambrian has created a whole series of subsidiaries. We have 12 different companies under our umbrella advancing 14 different programs, each of which has already shown that it can impact both a fundamental pathway in aging and another disease in mouse models. And now those programs are marching towards the clinic. And we're kind of along this path where we're bringing between five and eight new scientific discoveries under our umbrella every single year, which is a fun place to be.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (05:29)
A few things that we're going to dive deeper later on in discussion that you've mentioned, but that's just basically an overview. Should we start with giving a bit of background on aging. So even going into aging as a clinician, right. Going from, oh, we want to prevent heart disease. And then I just ended up, oh, heart disease is actually linked to the immune system. So why didn't I devote my career to actually preventing the causes of the causes. So all of you are creating drugs that address these causes of the causes. All of you are addressing aging in one way or the other. Could you tell us why does aging even happen? I don't know, Ned, what are your thoughts?

Nathaniel David: (06:08)
So first I'll just say, as a scientist, we do not know why we age. For example, a mouse lives three years, a human 85 years, a Greenland shark, 400 years. We do not have any real idea why these differences exist. And we are clearly missing something very big. But if you ask me what do I think? Okay, so I'll express why I think we age through a movie metaphor. So I don't know if you guys have ever seen this 1970s movie called Gray Gardens. It's a movie shown at the Cannes Film Festival. And it was this movie about these aging socialites living in this house that used to be this grand house out in the Hamptons. And they lived there for 50 years in ever increasing poverty and they never repaired anything. So after 50 years of this, they're hanging out and they're raccoons that are now living inside the house, feral cats live there, it's infested with fleas. The water doesn't work and there are holes in the roof. The health department was trying to evict them.

Nathaniel David: (07:29)
So why am I telling this story about a 1970s movie? Well, I think aging is a lot like that house in Gray Gardens. If you look at biology as we age, at every level of organization from the very lowest level where your DNA sequences to the very highest level of organization, when you look at an old person and what you see with your eyes when you look at them. If you look at your DNA, it mutates as you age throughout your body. If you click up another level of organization, you see that the cells that are centrally encoded by your DNA, you begin to lose them. You actually have fewer cells as you get older which is a little disturbing. Click up another layer to the layer of tissue organization, your tissues, which when you're young have beautiful organization. If you look in the retina, the retina of a 20 year old has these beautiful structural divisions between the various layers within the retina, which are lost as you age.

Nathaniel David: (08:34)
Or if you look in skin of a young person, which is defined with these beautiful demarcations between the epidermis and dermis. As you age, it becomes this chaotic undulating landscape where you can't even tell the difference anymore. And if you look at the highest level, when you simply look at an older person and you see the performance loss and all of the hallmarks you think of as aging, that you see disorder there as well. And I think that like in Gray Gardens, biology never figured out how to resist disorder. It never figured out how to resist it or how to reverse it because it was never selected on. But clearly the Greenland shark knows something we don't know about resisting disorder. And if we knew, I think we could start to build tools that would do that.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (09:24)
You want to make a comment?

James Peyer: (09:25)
It's an interesting point to leap off of. Ned mentioned, we just didn't evolve this. It's I think really important to remember in this space that the major killer of humankind was not these diseases of aging until the 20th century. And so the fact that we are as a society grappling with them is still a relatively new phenomenon compared to our ancestral and evolutionary predators, the infectious disease, right. And so we were programmed in some ways by evolution or selected for an evolution to become healthily into our reproductive ages. And then after that there's like some benefits of growing a little bit beyond that, but not huge ones. And so now this engineering problem that we have is like, okay, can we add in what evolution would have liked to do, but wasn't being selected for hard enough. Can we figure out those mechanisms and put them into a much more long lived society, which is what we're all becoming.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (10:27)
Fascinating, couldn't agree more. But anyway, I think where we want to take this panel forward is really provide the audience with some tips or like, what is a good longevity company. So let's structure it in three parts. Let's talk about the measuring things, how do we assess a good longevity acid. Then let's talk about the structure of a longevity company. And then perhaps about the computational approaches, proprietary data sets. If for example, BioAge has been pioneering to create a longevity company of high value. So James, let's start with biomarkers and perhaps we could talk about this further. People always talk about, oh, it's very difficult to do clinical trials of aging because how I'm going to follow up people over 50 years and then find out in 50 years time if this is going to affect their aging.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (11:14)
And then we talked a lot and there's been a lot of research about developing some surrogate biomarkers. So things that can tell us in only a short period of time how one's biological age is changing. But we ended up having, we are having different clocks, but not a single one has been validated. Do you think that a longevity company needs to invest in this biomarkers? And then what is Cambrian doing in this bioinformatics biomarker space so that we're able to actually conduct trials so that we can show aha, this intervention over this five-year trial affects aging and will extend your life if you take it for 20 years. And you're going to get, I don't know, 35 years of extra healthy life expectancy.

James Peyer: (11:56)
So the short, short answer to that question is yes, but just giving a little bit more data there and to reemphasize the point, the fundamental challenge of building a company in this emerging longevity space is what Dina just mentioned. If we chop the room in half and gave half of you an experimental aging drug and put half of you on a placebo, what do we expect that drug to actually do? We expect that people's house would grow into disorder slower, right? And we'd get less cancer, less Alzheimer's disease, less muscle weakness, all of these things that happen as we age. But if this was our experimental group, how long would we have to wait to see all of those changes start happening?

James Peyer: (12:40)
And so, as Dina mentioned, there is a way in developing medicines that can help us get around that problem and not have to wait for 15 years. And that is by developing a surrogate biomarker of age related disease risk. And this is something we don't know exactly what this will be yet, but this is going to be the fulcrum point where you change from a whole bunch of interesting medicines built on pathways and longevity to an industry that I think will eclipse the rest of the pharmaceutical industry. And so in my view, each longevity biotech company has to have these two things in mind. First, how do you take medicines that target fundamental pathways in aging, show them to be safe, effective, and get them on the market in some disease today. And secondly, how can you lay the foundations for this inflection point that will come to dominate how we think about medicines for the deadliest diseases of our time.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (13:40)
Fascinating. And I guess going back to the structure of this longevity company that we're all hoping for and hopefully multiple companies. And we also invest at SALT in some of these longevity companies. So how should this company be structured? Should it be a single company that has got multiple clinical programs? Should it be a distributed company, more like an LLC structure with multiple subsidiaries? Kristen, could you tell us a bit more about how you set up BioAge and which model did you choose for. And which model do you think is the best one? And there are pros and cons that we will discuss together.

Kristen Fortney: (14:14)
I mean, that's a challenging problem. I think what is the optimal model in biotech, and I think it's evolving. It depends as a function of what the investment climate is, but also what your strategy is as a company. And in our case at BioAge, all our targets are coming from our platform and we've invested a lot in really the human datasets to evaluate the targets, to do risk our clinical indications, but also just the really old mice that we use to test out all our interventions in the common indications that are our focus areas. So leveraging those over and over again, we're going to be a platform style company which has worked out well for a lot of other, I would say, comparables in our space like Recursion and others, [Denali 00:14:55], yeah.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (14:57)
I guess people often say could be easier to go public if you concluded everything, but how do you even stratify. And Ned, you've done both. Can you tell us a bit about your experience? You've been in both worlds.

Nathaniel David: (15:09)
So I wish I knew what was best. We are in the midst of lived experience right now, but I've, over the last 22 years, all the companies I built were normal. When I say normal, meaning you set up a C Corp, you divide up stock, you put people in it, you raise money. And that seemed to work well enough. Jupiter, my new vehicle is actually set up much the way Cambrian is set up where it's a structure where we have a sort of top co on top with, well, with Jupiter of course it has moons. So every one of the companies we start actually begins with a moon of Jupiter name, there's lots of moons of Jupiter, 79 at last count. So we've got a lot of names we can work with. And so we're giving that a try and I think actually James has a really good explanation as to why this works. James, you want to talk about the academic?

James Peyer: (16:05)
Yeah, sure. I'll jump in. So my general view on the biotech space broadly, not just the longevity world, is that discoveries coming... Most discoveries are coming out of universities at some point. And those discoveries are going to fall into two broad types of categories. Discoveries that create a platform that allow you to make a number of other fundamental discoveries. This is kind of what BioAge has, a platform company. And then individual breakthroughs that lead to a single opportunity to make a drug, a single hypothesis, but that has binary risk, right. Where you're going to, it's either going to work or it's not going to. And my view is that these are going to develop into two types of biotech companies that can live on the public markets. One is these platform companies like Moderna, a lot that we've seen in the biotech space today. And then another are what I call engines, where it's more about how do you source and operationalize these individual discoveries from around the world and then wrap them together into a single risk diversified entity. And that's what Cambrian is.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (17:14)
And could you elaborate a bit more about that, about your holding companies, subsidiaries. How you put it together because some traditional biotech investors would say, why would they invest in such a holding company because I'm essentially paying fees and fees. If the biotech fund invest into a holding company and then the holding company goes and acquire assets, why would I go for substructure? And what we're seeing right now in this world of biotech, an agent needs really this intersection off, it's kind of taking a step back, it's cross hybridization of multiple fields. So we have different set of investors and we've got a lot of tech investors and they're more open in this structure. For them it's like, okay, I understand this model. We can fail and iterate quickly, I like it. But biotech investors are still very cautious. So what do you say about that? And how have you created that system that it goes smoothly and you have multiple subsidiaries? Give us a bit more color there.

James Peyer: (18:06)
And I could talk about the financial engineering here until we all would hope for some aging drugs, but let me kind of just be general on it. I think that the fees on fees argument doesn't actually play out when you're operating these companies. So I used to run a VC fund before I started Cambrian. And we took, as one of our principle financial objectives, all of the fees that you would pay a VC fund plus all of the salaries and so on that you would pay to an executive team to run all of these different assets if you wanted to make individual bets. We can run their company for about 75% of what this would be, and then eliminate a lot of that extra management layer. In some ways, the inefficiencies of single VC bets. And so I think that that doesn't really hold water when you get down into the operation of these companies.

James Peyer: (19:02)
And then secondly, one of the big challenges of early stage biotech companies is finding a team that knows how to develop drugs. Academics are trained to make breakthroughs. It's different teams that are trained to develop drugs. And so building a centralized expert team that knows how to work with academics to bring those drugs forward is the differentiator between many of the companies that make it and many that don't. And it has been, you can get incredible people who you can deploy extremely efficiently in one of these roll-up models. I think that's part of the reason that I've really fallen in love with the structure.

Nathaniel David: (19:40)
I will say Dina, though, that this structure definitely gives the classic sandhill road, biotech VCs, sort of a conniption fit. And my classical, the VCs that I've invested with for years, Arch and Venrock, they don't want to invest actually in Jupiter. They want to invest in Jupiter's moons. And that works okay too, okay. I will say also there's no fees in our model because every single dollar that winds up going into Jupiter, winds up being converted into ownership in the moons. So there's literally zero. That was 100% capital efficient.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (20:20)
Fascinating. Well, I think the Biden model does need to change because we do need to remove that binary risk of finding true love. It might work, it might not. Kristen, what about the IP? So if we are just starting a longevity company, and again, how we're assessing longevity company. You started with a lot of proprietary data, and then you have managed to acquire clinical assets and really accelerated. I mean, it's extremely rare to find longevity biotech that has got two clinical assets almost. Do you think that that was the key? And how did you do that?

Kristen Fortney: (20:55)
Yeah, sure, great question. I mean, our whole approach at BioAge is aging is really complicated, right? You've heard that today. There's all these different things that are going wrong, and from the panel earlier. And we believe that, our thesis is that we want to learn from what's already working. And what I mean by that is that there were already all these human experiments and they're people that are living 90 or 100 plus. Their brains still work. Their bodies still work. What's different about their biology that we can learn from. And so at BioAge we've invested a lot in mapping out how humans age. We've made a number of special relationships with biobanks, where we have proprietary and exclusive data that started, they are very special biobanks. They started collecting samples from middle-aged people as long as 50 years ago. So there's like blood that's been in the freezer 50 for years. Collected longitudinally, and then coupled to health records that track these individuals for the entire rest of their lives. And so that's our starting point, right.

Kristen Fortney: (21:50)
And what we do is we go into these samples, we enumerate every molecule in there with modern technologies. That's thousands of proteins with the proteome, thousands of metabolites, tens of thousands of RNA transcripts, make a big list of stuff. And then from these data sets, you can ask a whole bunch of questions. So you can say, what's changing with age? But even more importantly you can say, what is predicting the future? What is different about those 50 year olds who are going on to live 90 plus with great muscle strength, with cognitive function from the rest of us, and start to build a map of those differences.

Kristen Fortney: (22:21)
And that's the science that underlies what we do. And as you might expect, because so many different things are going wrong, there are several dozen important pathways for aging. And then from that point onward, because aging is a new space, it's in biotech, it's hard. We want to start with the most de-risked programs possible. So we started with the intersection of these pathways that are important for aging in the human data, with the clinical assets that are already out there because there's a lot of risk in developing a drug and taking it through R&D, taking it to that first clinical trial, even looking at the safety signal. So our criteria for our first set of drugs, while it's have already been in a phase one, you have to know that it's already safe. You can know that it hits its target. Then we can go immediately into a phase two, proof of concepts study, an important agent indication. And we're making three such clinical stage bets today. And I'd like us to make as many as 10 over the next couple of years.

Kristen Fortney: (23:12)
An important point too, right, I think that's the first wave of targets emerging from our data sets. It's going to be these ones where the clinical stage assets exist. Then we can start to look at the assets that are near IMD and we can start to work on discovery programs. An important point too I I think, especially in the context of academic sciences, one reason we love our human cohorts is because we think it's like a human overlay on all of what's known about aging biology, right? So there's going to be a lot of things that are really important for how a mouse ages or how a rumor fly ages, which is really still the focus of academic science. And many of those are just not going to matter for us. Mice, for example, die exclusively of cancer. Heart disease is not a bottleneck to their lifespan. Alzheimer's never happens, which is why they've been a terrible model for Alzheimer's drug discovery.

Kristen Fortney: (23:57)
So we like being able to use our human data to say, like most, and I can tell you, right, most of the things that work on animals, you don't see human signal. And that doesn't mean that they're not going to work, but it just, they're much less compelling than the ones where you see a massive human signal. So for example, the drug that we brought in most recently from Amgen, it's an agonist of apollon receptor, apollon is an exokine that circulates in your blood. There was a nature medicine paper from one of our collaborators a couple of years ago, showing that it can increase mouse health span. So it actually, if you gave it to older mice, they ran better on their wheels.

Kristen Fortney: (24:33)
But then when we looked in our human data, you saw this really strong signal where if you had higher levels of apollon in that middle age, you're living longer, your brain works better and longer, your muscles work better and longer. And that's the kind of data package we really lik to see. And the way that we work is we see the human signal, then we reach out to a company to get an asset and we stick it into our in vivo models. So we did a whole bevy of muscle aging models in mice with Amgen's drug. And we are very excited by the results, and we're going to start that trial in after a few months.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (25:04)
Absolutely. And you've touched on a very important topic and which is clinical trials. Regardless of how excited we are about aging, aging is not recognized as an indication by the FDA. And a drug needs to pass through trials and show some results in order to be approved, in order to be licensed. So often a challenge of these companies is, what indication, what disease should I almost pitch this drug to so that I can have a good trial and then my drug will be in the market. And then we can potentially use this drug to cure other things and potentially be used for prevention of aging. Ned, I think you do need to tell a story there about how did you struggle once you identified a scientific pathway with indication and how you managed to find the right indication. And how should longevity companies think about conducting clinical trials.

Nathaniel David: (25:59)
So I come at this question pretty differently than James, probably more similar to the way Kristen thinks about it. So I'm a drug hunter by trade, okay. I don't necessarily try to cure aging. I use aging to help discover drugs. And so the way I came at this was really with the grain in terms of how FDA and similar agencies want us to discover drugs today. Which is pick a disease that you can point at, that you know people suffer from, and make a medicine for that disease. Hey, if it impacts aging, great. But please don't talk about it, right? And so that's the approach we took at Unity, going after first, arthritis, which is the primary reason it hurts to be old. I would say that's pretty close to aging. And then of course, diseases of the aging retina.

Nathaniel David: (26:59)
And so we shied away in a very intentional way from trying to use some sort of biomarker of aging and stuck squarely to diseases of aging. I think that an agency like FDA which views itself primarily, and it's in the DNA of the organization, as a protector of the populace. After all, they started regulating food before they did drugs. And the notion that they would allow you to make a medicine that would impact the very slowest thing that happens to us, which is aging, is just against their DNA. It's against their culture. Now, will that change occur? Sure, maybe. But I think it's a very uphill battle. And I think it's a really tough slog.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (27:52)
I see.

Kristen Fortney: (27:52)
I'd like to comment here too actually, because this is probably, it's drug developers and aging, it's like a central topic, right. How do you actually, if you believe you have an aging drug in your hands, like in our case, it's rejuvenating muscle, rejuvenating aging, how do you get the most out of that? And in our case, we're committing to mechanisms that we think ultimately could be safely administered to a large population chronically. We've made those decisions so far, but yes, you have to start with an acute indication that's a real disease because otherwise it's a hard road.

Kristen Fortney: (28:21)
We're trying to have the best of both worlds by going to town on secondary end points, right, because we're giving our drug, which we think is addressing an aging mechanism in a specific disease context. But we want to know, are we also slowing their aging? So we're very interested in collecting like omex biomarkers and using wearables to collect motion data and learn as much as we can about the aging of these people as well. Hopefully it's like to guided indication selection, right. There are a handful of examples, like statins which are prescribed like an aging drug today, right. But which had that more narrow start indication labeled, widening over time. And I think we can learn from this.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (28:57)
We can use it as a way in and then expand the indications. And I guess the final question, this is still an audience that actively invests and supports new technologies. What single technology or breakthrough that you think will happen in this decade are you most excited about and you think will have an impact of human longevity. Who wants to go first? It's a difficult one. All right, Ned.

Nathaniel David: (29:21)
So this decade?

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (29:22)
Yes.

Nathaniel David: (29:23)
So it's going to be how to properly dose rapamycin. So rapamycin is a drug that's approved in the United States for, believe it or not, when you get a kidney transplant so you don't reject it. So you take this drug every day and it tamps down your immune system. Now, turns out this drug given at a much lower dose, about one seventh of the dose, will extend the lifespan of rodents by 30%. And it works in flies, rodents, every species we've tried it in, this drug works. And this, but no one knows how to dose it. And no one really even understands why it extends life. It's a mystery. But figuring out a safe and efficacious dose of this molecule is going to happen this decade. And it's going to be something that will, when figured out, be used by tens of millions of people.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (30:25)
Fascinating. There were actually studies and we mentioned that rapamycin or rapamycin analogs might even be used as immune boosters together with effect vaccines. So it's something that I think has accelerated an interest into the field as we battled through.

Nathaniel David: (30:41)
Yeah, there's an extensive literature using rapamycin, both in humans as well as in animals. In which your response to vaccination doesn't go down as you might intuitively think, but goes up. Again mysterious as to why.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (31:00)
James?

James Peyer: (31:02)
So I guess I'm going to, it would be fun to just talk about rapa for a while and we could have a panel just on that. But I'm going to depart a little bit and say, talk about the biggest innovations in this field, I think that they're actually organizational and strategic as opposed to scientific. I think that the last decade saw enough scientific breakthroughs in this aging space to fill an awful lot of corporate pipelines. And all of those innovations addressing the question of how you take these fundamental insights into pathways of aging biology, and get those into human clinical trials, that's the experiment that in some ways the three of us are here taking different shots on goal at, taking different, I think very thoughtful, strategic approaches to building big biotech companies addressing this space.

James Peyer: (31:53)
And then somewhere around the end of this decade, there's going to be this strategic inflection point. And in my view, as Ned was just talking about, it's going to be around the time that the FDA or if the US is too slow and too conservative, another regulatory agency elsewhere in the world takes the plunge and allows companies that have safe and effective drugs that target an aging pathway to be tested in healthy people with a short surrogate endpoint clinical trial. And the moment that happens, the world starts to change forever. And I think that that can happen this decade.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (32:27)
It would be like [inaudible 00:32:28] and Bitcoin. We have to give Kristen a chance to answer this question.

Kristen Fortney: (32:32)
Yeah, for sure. So I mean, the kinds of enabling technologies that I'm the most bullish on are really these genomic scale technologies to interrogate and also intervene in biology. And, for example, that's what BioAge uses with proteomics and human cohorts or that's what a CRISPR screen is, right. And the reason why I think these are so important is because they allow you to brute force what are otherwise, incredibly challenging problems. Like Ned mentioned, we still don't actually know how rapamycin works, right. But it does work. And it's a matter of figuring out how to dose it. And if we could, I mean, whenever someone is doing an exome scale experiment to find a PCSK9, or another genetic variant that predisposes to, protects you from disease, it's the kind of a brute force in experiment.

Kristen Fortney: (33:14)
So now that we have these technologies and the AI and the computation to analyze these data sets for millions of points, I think there's a lot of really important problems in aging we can apply them to. And again, I'm a big believer in copying what already works, right. So bowhead whales, Greenland sharks, they're doing something different. We have the tools now to figure out what. Even epigenetic reprogramming, right? These are the tools that are going to teach us how it works. So I think the space is going to get a lot bigger.

Nathaniel David: (33:39)
Well, I was just going to say that it would be hard, well, much of what you said is true. There's all this stuff we can work on to make medicines out of. But the notion that that could be more exciting than knowing why a Greenland shark lives 400 years, that stretches it, I think. Because, I mean, when we start to piece that narrative together, oh my Lord, think of what we will be able to do.

James Peyer: (34:09)
I'm with you. I mean, as a scientist, nothing gets me more jazzed about that. But I think that the inflection point for this field is not going to be finding the next rapamycin or the next, whatever's driving the 400 year lifespans of the Greenland shark. It's to create an ecosystem where everyone in the world cares desperately about that problem. And I think that if we hit that inflection point, we enter a world where it's not just like the folks up here that know all about this, but all of you guys are thinking every single day about what that next scientific breakthrough that's going to elucidate how the Greenland shark lives to 400 years, because it will affect your lives in the impending future. And that I think is where I want to push this space. And I think that's where we're going to see stuff this decade.

Kristen Fortney: (34:59)
Well, the first approved drug for aging, I think it's going to be such an important milestone, right. It's still such a tiny field. There are a handful of biotechs, we are probably most of them. Clinical or near clinical working on aging and, but there are dozens of mechanisms that could be brought forward that could extend health span and lifespan. And I think that yes, getting that first program through which is probably already exists either in academia or the clinic is going to be transformational.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (35:24)
Well, the creation to a creation of a longevity ecosystem. And thank you everyone for the life of this question. And thank you to the audience for listening in.