Archive | Interviews RSS feed for this section

RESI San Diego 2026 Program Guide Released 

16 Jun

By Dennis Ford, Founder & CEO, Life Science Nation (LSN)

DF-News-09142022

Life Science Nation (LSN) is pleased to release the RESI San Diego 2026 Program Guide for its upcoming hybrid conference, taking place June 22 in person at the JULEP Venue in San Diego, followed by four days of virtual partnering on June 23–24 and June 29–30. 

RESI San Diego brings together early-stage life science companies, active investors, strategic partners, and industry leaders during one of the most important weeks in biotechnology. The conference features the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge, investor panels, educational workshops, company showcases, and a dynamic partnering platform designed to facilitate meaningful fundraising and business development conversations. 

The Program Guide provides a comprehensive look at this year’s agenda, including sessions covering therapeutics, medtech, diagnostics, digital health, corporate venture capital, artificial intelligence in healthcare, strategic partnerships, and emerging investment trends. Attendees can also explore participating investors, sponsors, exhibitors, and networking opportunities available throughout the five-day partnering event. 

With partnering already underway and meeting calendars continuing to fill, RESI San Diego offers a unique opportunity for innovators to connect directly with the investors and strategic stakeholders shaping the future of healthcare. 

View the RESI San Diego 2026 Program Guide and secure your place today at RESI San Diego.

Register for RESI San Diego

Don’t Underestimate the Importance of the Line 

9 Jun

By Dennis Ford, Founder & CEO, Life Science Nation (LSN)

DF-News-09142022

There is a line between deciding to pursue investors and partners and pursuing them. Most people believe they cross it the moment they decide. They don’t. Deciding is private. The line is the part the market can see, and the market only sees behavior. You can be completely certain you are committed and still be, as far as anyone outside your own head can tell, standing exactly where you were a year ago.

The market doesn’t care what you declare. It responds to what you do. What it reads is presence, whether you are in the room when it counts. There are moments when it counts more than others, when the people who fund and license and partner are not scattered across a thousand calendars but gathered in one place at one time, looking for their next opportunity. Those moments are real, and they are on the calendar. The wave forms whether you are ready or not. The only question it puts to you is whether you are in the water when it arrives.

Here is the part that surprises people. The companies that are serious about this do not try to be efficient about it. You would think the sophisticated move is to be selective, to take only the meetings that obviously matter and skip the rest. It isn’t, and there is a hard reason why. The meeting that changes your company does not announce itself going in. The lead investor is hidden inside a large number of conversations that look, beforehand, exactly like the ones that lead nowhere. The licensing partner is buried in a stack of introductions you cannot tell apart until you are sitting in them. You cannot reason your way to the one that counts and avoid the others. The only way to reach it is to go through the volume. So the serious company does not look for reasons to take fewer meetings. It looks for reasons to take more, because every additional relevant room is another draw from the deck the one card is hidden in. Most of the draws are blanks. That is not a flaw in the method. That is the method.

Activity guarantees nothing, and no one who has done this for long will tell you otherwise. What inactivity guarantees is the opposite. The company that is not in the room is not weighed, and ends up passed over. It is simply never seen, and the market does not hold a seat open for the company that didn’t show. It gives the seat to one that did. Which brings me to the week of June 22 in San Diego. That is a week the market gathers. The city fills with meetings, events, and venues all competing for the same hours, and RESI, on June 22, is built for exactly the thing I have been describing, a room assembled out of investors, licensing teams, and business development people who came specifically to find companies like yours.

Some of you reading this are already going to be there. You have a reason to be in San Diego that week, and you still have not decided to be in this particular room. Sit with that for a second. You will be in the same city, on the same days, with the market gathered a few miles away, and you are on the fence about walking in. There is a word for standing that close to the water, dressed to swim, watching the set roll past. The word is not caution. It is hesitation, and from the outside the market cannot tell the difference between a company that hesitated and a company that was never there.

The line we started with is not crossed by deciding you are ready. It is crossed in the open, by being where the market is while the market is there. If you believe you are ready, the week of June 22 is where that belief becomes visible or doesn’t. Register for RESI San Diego, June 22.

Don’t underestimate the importance of the line.

Register for RESI San Diego

StimOxyGen on Advancing SGEN-33 Following First Place Win at RESI Europe 

12 May

After securing 1st Place in the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge at RESI Europe, StimOxyGen is gaining momentum as it advances its lead program, SGEN-33, toward clinical development. In this interview, Sian Farrell discusses the science behind the platform, upcoming milestones, and how the RESI experience has accelerated investor engagement.

Sian Farrell
CEO, StimOxyGen
Caitlin Dolegowski
Program Director, LSN

Caitlin Dolegowski (CD): For those new to StimOxyGen, how would you describe SGEN-33 and the problem it is solving in a way that resonates with investors?

Sian Farrell (SF): SGEN-33 is a pH-responsive, oxygen-generating nanoparticle designed to overcome tumour hypoxia, one of the biggest barriers limiting the effectiveness of radiotherapy and other cancer treatments. Many aggressive solid tumours, particularly pancreatic cancer, are severely oxygen deprived, making them highly resistant to therapy. SGEN-33 selectively activates within the acidic tumour microenvironment, releasing oxygen directly where it is needed to help re-sensitise tumours to treatment. What makes the opportunity particularly compelling is that we are addressing a fundamental biological resistance mechanism that impacts multiple high-value oncology indications. Rather than replacing existing therapies, SGEN-33 is designed to enhance them, positioning StimOxyGen within the growing combination of therapy landscape.

CD: What makes this approach particularly compelling from a commercial and clinical perspective compared to existing strategies?

SF: Clinically, our approach is differentiated because SGEN-33 generates oxygen directly within the tumour microenvironment rather than relying on systemic oxygen delivery methods, which have historically shown limited success. Existing hypoxia-targeting strategies such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy or intratumoural injections face significant limitations in practicality, scalability, or clinical adoption. In contrast, SGEN-33 is designed for intravenous administration and tumour-selective activation, offering a scalable and clinically feasible solution. Commercially, we believe this creates a highly attractive platform opportunity. Radiotherapy is used in approximately 60% of cancer patients worldwide, yet hypoxia remains a major unresolved challenge. By integrating into existing standards of care, SGEN-33 has the potential to enhance multiple treatment modalities across several solid tumour types without requiring clinicians to completely change current workflows. Importantly, we have already demonstrated strong preclinical efficacy and safety data in highly hypoxic tumour models, including pancreatic cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, and aggressive prostate cancer. Our studies have shown significant tumour growth reduction and survival benefit when SGEN-33 is combined with radiotherapy.

CD: What key milestones or inflection points should investors be watching as you move toward clinical development?

SF: The next 18–24 months represent a highly important period for StimOxyGen as we advance SGEN-33 toward clinical development. Our current focus is on completing key IND-enabling activities, including GLP toxicology and DMPK studies, GMP manufacturing scale-up, FDA regulatory engagement, and expansion of our radiotherapy-immunotherapy datasets. Alongside these milestones, we are progressing collaborations with leading translational oncology centres including Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), advancing early clinical strategy and trial design activities, and continuing to strengthen our scientific and clinical advisory network. A particularly exciting area is the growing evidence of immune-mediated effects observed in our preclinical studies, which may create future opportunities in combination with immunotherapy approaches.

CD: What are your current fundraising priorities, and what types of investors or partners are you looking to engage at this stage?

SF: We are currently raising $7.5 million to advance SGEN-33 through IND-enabling development and position the programme for First-in-Human clinical studies, with a target close by Q1 2027. The financing will support key value-creation milestones including GLP toxicology, DMPK studies, GMP manufacturing scale-up, FDA regulatory engagement, and continued expansion of our radiotherapy-immunotherapy datasets. In parallel, we are progressing clinical strategy and early trial design activities through collaborations with leading translational oncology centres, including Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). We are particularly interested in engaging with specialist life science investors, oncology-focused funds, and strategic partners with expertise in radiotherapy, immuno-oncology, nanomedicine, and translational drug development.

CD: How did participating in RESI Europe and the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge impact your visibility and conversations with investors?

SF: Participating in RESI Europe was hugely valuable for StimOxyGen from both a networking and visibility perspective. Having the conference based in Lisbon created an important opportunity to expand beyond the UK ecosystem and connect more directly with the broader European life science investment community. It allowed us to significantly grow our investor network and establish new relationships with international investors and strategic partners. Winning 1st Place in the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge increased our visibility and credibility within the global biotech community and created strong momentum in investor conversations. An additional benefit is the opportunity to attend future RESI conferences, including events in the United States, which will help us continue expanding our US investor and strategic partner network as we move toward clinical development. Beyond the exposure itself, the experience also provided a significant confidence boost for our team and reinforced that the work we are doing is resonating internationally.

CD: What stood out most about the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge experience compared to other pitch opportunities?

SF: What stood out most was the quality and relevance of the audience. I’ve participated in pitch competitions previously, but many were more sector-agnostic and included a broad mix of industries and technologies. At RESI, it was particularly meaningful to receive recognition in a highly relevant and competitive life sciences environment, surrounded by innovative biotech and healthcare companies tackling major clinical challenges. The discussions also felt far more relationship-driven than transactional. Conversations extended beyond the pitch itself and focused on clinical strategy, regulatory pathways, commercialization, and long-term value creation. Importantly, the support from the Life Science Nation (LSN) team did not feel like a “one-and-done” experience. The ongoing opportunities through future RESI events and the wider LSN network create continued momentum and provide a strong platform for us to further expand our international investor and strategic partner network moving forward.

CD: Following your win, what are the next key priorities for StimOxyGen as you move into your next phase of growth?

SF: Our biggest priority is maintaining the momentum we have built over the past 18 months as we advance SGEN-33 toward clinical development. Since completing our first VC financing round in January 2025, we have continued to de-risk the technology, expand our international investor network, progress collaborations with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), and strengthen our translational and regulatory strategy. Winning the RESI Europe Innovator’s Pitch Challenge was another important milestone that reinforced the growing momentum around the company. Over the next phase of growth, our focus is on advancing SGEN-33 through IND-enabling development, progressing FDA engagement, scaling manufacturing capabilities, and continuing to strengthen our clinical strategy. Of course, securing the capital required to move the programme into the clinic remains a critical priority. We believe StimOxyGen is at a genuinely exciting inflection point, and we are actively looking to partner with investors who share both our ambition and our sense of urgency. At the heart of everything we do is the patient. We are working on therapies for people facing some of the most difficult-to-treat cancers, where treatment options are limited and outcomes remain devastatingly poor. That reality keeps our team focused every day and drives our determination to move as quickly and responsibly as possible toward the clinic. For us, this is about far more than building a company — it is about giving patients and families hope where too often there currently is very little. And, if our story resonates with you, we would love to continue the conversation.

Additional Innovator’s Pitch Challenge (IPC) slots are now available, giving companies the opportunity to pitch directly to investors, receive live feedback, and boost visibility ahead of the event. Applications close May 22.

Apply to Pitch at RESI San Diego

From Story to Outcome: Exit Risk 

12 May

By Dennis Ford, Founder & CEO, Life Science Nation (LSN)

DF-News-09142022

As part of Life Science Nation’s series on converting scientific innovation into investable signal, the final layer of the De-Risk Stack addresses exit risk. (Explore the full series here) After market, technical, regulatory, execution, economic, and financing risks are reduced, the final question becomes clear: how does this become a return?

Exit Risk

From Story to Outcome

At the top of the stack is the question every investor ultimately asks: how does this become a return?

Exit risk is not about predicting a specific transaction. It is about defining a realistic, evidence-based path to liquidity. Without that, even well-executed companies remain difficult to fund across multiple rounds.

This begins with clarity on the most likely exit path, acquisition, licensing, or public markets, aligned with the type of company you are building and the norms of your sector.

From there, you must be able to name a credible buyer universe: specific pharmaceutical, biotechnology, device, or platform companies for whom your asset would represent strategic value. Strategic fit explains why those buyers should care, how your product fills a pipeline gap, extends an existing franchise, enables a new modality, or provides differentiated access to a market.

Timing and value inflection points determine when the asset becomes relevant to those buyers. Clinical data, regulatory milestones, partnership signals, and early commercial traction all influence when interest peaks.

Competitive positioning answers why your asset would be selected over alternatives. Deal structure reality grounds expectations in how transactions are done in your space, including licensing terms, milestones, royalties, and acquisition patterns.

Finally, return potential must align with the expectations of the capital investing in the company. A good company is not always a good investment. The scale and timing of the likely outcome must match the risk and capital required to get there.

Exit risk is resolved when the company presents a credible path from development to liquidity, with clear buyers, clear triggers, and realistic structures.

Core Elements of Exit Risk

  • Exit path clarity
  • Buyer universe
  • Strategic fit
  • Timing
  • Value inflection points
  • Competitive positioning
  • Deal structure reality
  • Return potential

Sequence and Progression

These risks do not resolve independently. The order in which they are addressed determines outcome.

Market clarity precedes technical validation. Technical validation precedes regulatory definition. Regulatory definition precedes scaled execution. Execution enables economic validation. Economic validation supports structured financing. Financing makes an eventual exit possible.

When this sequence is followed, uncertainty is reduced efficiently and value compounds. When it is not, capital is consumed without progress and even strong assets can stall.

From Risk to Signal

The purpose of de-risking is to generate signal.

Investors do not fund ideas; they fund signal, coherent, cross-validated evidence that enough uncertainty has been removed to justify action. Each layer of the stack produces a different class of signal: market signal, technical signal, regulatory signal, execution signal, economic signal, financing signal, exit signal. As these accumulate and align, an opportunity becomes not just understandable, but investable.

Fundraising, in this view, is not persuasion. It is the systematic production and communication of signal.

Implications

For founders, progress is defined by the reduction of uncertainty, not by the volume of activity or the length of the roadmap.

For investors, the De-Risk Stack provides a structured framework for evaluation, what is resolved, what remains unresolved, and what must be proven next.

For ecosystems, it highlights the missing infrastructure between innovation and capital: shared standards, de-risking platforms, and operating systems that help assets move through this process more reliably.

From Framework to System

The De-Risk Stack defines how life science companies become investable. Implementation defines how that process is executed.

At the company level, this means shaping opportunities deliberately, targeting specific layers of risk, executing against clear milestones, and running structured fundraising campaigns.

At the ecosystem level, it means building infrastructure that can systematically identify, assess, and advance assets through the stack, so promising technologies do not stall for avoidable reasons.

When applied consistently, the De-Risk Stack becomes more than a framework. It becomes a system for converting scientific innovation into investable opportunity.

Closing

The challenge in life science is not discovery. It is the disciplined conversion of discovery into investable signal.

De-Risking, Signal, and Investability Series:

  1. The Problem Is Not the Science: A Seven-Part Series on De-Risking, Signal, and Investability
  2. Technical Risk – From Belief to Evidence
  3. From Proof to Approval: Regulatory Risk
  4. From Plan to Progress: Execution Risk
  5. From Progress to Viability: Economic Risk
  6. From Viability to Capital: Financing Risk
  7. From Story to Outcome: Exit Risk

From Viability to Capital: Financing Risk 

5 May

By Dennis Ford, Founder & CEO, Life Science Nation (LSN)

DF-News-09142022

As part of Life Science Nation’s series on converting scientific innovation into investable signal, the focus now shifts to financing risk. After establishing market need, technical proof, regulatory clarity, execution capability, and economic viability, the next question becomes whether the company can actually secure the capital required to move forward.

Financing risk is where opportunity must become an investable campaign. It is not about whether capital exists, but whether a company can access it in a structured, disciplined way that aligns with how risk is being reduced, and whether the capital required to reach market is a financially viable prospect.

This article examines how companies define capital requirements, link funding to milestone-driven progress, align with the right investors, and build a credible fundraising strategy.

From syndicate formation to campaign execution and timing, this layer of the De-Risk Stack determines whether capital follows signal—or stalls in uncertainty.

Financing Risk

From Opportunity to Investable Campaign

Once a clear plan exists and economic logic is credible, the question becomes whether capital can be raised to support execution at each stage.

Financing risk is not about whether capital exists. There is significant capital available globally for life science. The real question is whether your company can access it in a disciplined and repeatable way that matches how risk is being reduced.

This starts with capital requirement clarity. You need to know how much capital is required to reach the next set of milestones, based on your actual operating plan, not a generic estimate. If milestones are unclear, capital requirements will be too.

Next is the linkage between capital and milestones. Every dollar raised should be tied to the removal of specific risks and the creation of specific signals. Investors are not funding time; they are funding progress.

Stage alignment and investor fit determine which capital you should pursue. Different investors specialize in different stages, risk profiles, and modalities. Misalignment here leads to wasted time and damaged narratives.

Most meaningful rounds require syndicate formation. That means identifying a plausible lead and realistic co-investors, and understanding their incentives and constraints.

Fundraising itself must be approached as a structured campaign, not a series of disconnected meetings. That includes building a sufficiently large and relevant investor universe, sequencing outreach, managing follow-up, and maintaining momentum over time.

Timing closes the loop. Capital must be raised when sufficient progress has been made to justify the next step, but before the company is under acute pressure. Raising too early or too late increases risk and narrows options. Additionally, accepting a bad deal can have a negative impact on future rounds, with potential investors backing out due to unfavorable terms.

Financing risk is resolved when capital follows the systematic reduction of risk—when each round is underpinned by new signal rather than hope.

Core Elements of Financing Risk

  • Capital requirement clarity
  • Linkage between capital and milestones
  • Stage alignment
  • Investor fit
  • Syndicate formation
  • Fundraising strategy
  • Campaign execution
  • Timing

Next in the series: Exit Risk — Defining the Path to Liquidity

Previous Articles:

  1. Technical Risk – From Belief to Evidence
  2. The Problem Is Not the Science: A Seven-Part Series on De-Risking, Signal, and Investability
  3. From Proof to Approval: Regulatory Risk
  4. From Plan to Progress: Execution Risk
  5. From Progress to Viability: Economic Risk

From Progress to Viability: Economic Risk 

28 Apr

By Dennis Ford, Founder & CEO, Life Science Nation (LSN)

DF-News-09142022

As part of Life Science Nation’s series on converting scientific innovation into investable signal, the focus now shifts to economic risk. After market, technical, regulatory, and execution risks are addressed, the next question becomes whether the product creates enough real-world value to support sustainable adoption.

Economic risk is where value must become viability. Even if a product works and can be approved, it must still fit within the financial realities of healthcare systems, payers, providers, and patients.

This article examines how companies define and validate their economic case through value proposition, pricing strategy, reimbursement pathways, health economic impact, and competitive positioning.

From proving clinical benefit to demonstrating sustainable commercial value, this layer of the De-Risk Stack determines whether innovation can succeed not just scientifically—but economically.

Even if a product works and can be approved, it must still make economic sense within the healthcare systems that will use and pay for it.

Economic risk is often treated as secondary to clinical and technical considerations. In practice, it frequently determines whether adoption occurs at scale and whether the business is sustainable.

The core question is whether the product creates value that is recognized, fundable, and durable.

This begins with the value proposition. The product must deliver a meaningful clinical or economic benefit that is understood by payers, providers, and health systems. The value must be evidence-based, not speculative.

Pricing strategy must then align with that value while remaining acceptable within system constraints. A product priced far above perceived value will struggle; a product priced too low to sustain the business simply moves risk downstream.

A viable reimbursement pathway is essential. This means understanding existing codes, coverage policies, and benefit designs, and knowing whether the product fits into current structures or requires new ones to be established.

Health economic impact and budget impact analyses translate the value story into system terms. Products that improve outcomes at acceptable or lower cost are easier to adopt; products that create near-term budget spikes can face resistance even if they are cost-effective in the long run.

Adoption economics define why providers would choose this product. That includes workflow impact, revenue implications, and perceived risk for clinicians and institutions. Competitive economics compare the full economic case—including acquisition cost, utilization, and downstream impact—against available alternatives.

Economic risk is resolved when the product creates clear, measurable, and fundable value within the actual economic and budget constraints of the system.

Core Elements of Economic Risk

  • Value proposition
  • Pricing strategy
  • Reimbursement pathway
  • Health economic impact
  • Budget impact
  • Adoption economics
  • Competitive economics

Next in the series: Financing Risk — From Opportunity to Investable Campaign

Previous Articles:

  1. Technical Risk – From Belief to Evidence
  2. The Problem Is Not the Science: A Seven-Part Series on De-Risking, Signal, and Investability
  3. From Proof to Approval: Regulatory Risk
  4. From Plan to Progress: Execution Risk

From Plan to Progress: Execution Risk 

21 Apr

By Dennis Ford, Founder & CEO, Life Science Nation (LSN)

DF-News-09142022

As part of Life Science Nation’s series on converting scientific innovation into investable signal, the focus now moves to execution risk. Once a company has established market needs, demonstrated technical feasibility, and defined a regulatory path, the next question becomes whether the team can actually deliver.

Execution risks are about the company’s ability to move from strategy to progress. It includes leadership, operational discipline, hiring, partnerships, timelines, and the ability to consistently hit milestones. Even strong science and a compelling opportunity can lose credibility if a company cannot execute against its plan.

This article examines how companies build confidence through clear priorities, realistic timelines, strong teams, and the operational structure needed to keep momentum moving forward.

Execution Risk

From Plan to Progress

With market, technical, and regulatory clarity in place, the question shifts from possibility to delivery: can this actually be executed?

Execution risk reflects whether the company can translate its strategy into measurable progress. Strong science and a well-articulated plan are not enough. Investors are funding the ability to execute under real constraints.

Many companies struggle here not because they lack vision, but because they lack operational discipline. Plans remain high-level, milestones are vague, and capital is deployed without direct linkage to risk reduction.

Execution begins with the team. You need the right mix of scientific, clinical, regulatory, and operational experience for the stage you are in, and leadership that can make decisions under uncertainty. Capability matters, but so does judgment.

Milestone discipline provides structure. Progress must be broken into clear, achievable steps, where each milestone reduces a specific element of risk and moves the company toward a defined value inflection point. A 12-, 24-, and 36-month roadmap ties these milestones together and forces trade-offs.

Operational planning, resource management, and partner oversight determine whether those milestones can be met. Most life science companies depend heavily on CROs, CMOs, and other external partners; selecting and managing them is a central part of execution, not a peripheral task.

Speed and adaptability maintain momentum. Development rarely proceeds linearly. Data will force changes. The ability to adjust direction without losing focus or burning through capital is a defining feature of strong execution.

Governance and structure close the loop. Board composition, information flow, and accountability mechanisms determine how quickly issues are surfaced and addressed. Without this, even high-quality teams drift.

Execution risk is resolved when plans reliably convert into measurable progress and capital consistently turns into risk reduction rather than motion.

Core Elements of Execution Risk

  • Team capability
  • Leadership and decision making
  • Milestone discipline
  • Milestone roadmap
  • Operational plan
  • Resource management
  • External partner management
  • Speed and adaptability
  • Governance and structure

Next in the series: Economic Risk — Defining the Value Creation Opportunity

Previous Articles:

  1. Technical Risk – From Belief to Evidence
  2. The Problem Is Not the Science: A Seven-Part Series on De-Risking, Signal, and Investability
  3. From Proof to Approval: Regulatory Risk