|
Gene
Network Sciences:
Recreating Life on the Computer, Gene By Gene
In, 1999, the biotechnology
industry received a boost in notoriety and investment
dollars with the breakthroughs discovered through
the Human Genome Project. Having a complete
map of all the DNA in a organism, pharmaceutical
and medical research companies can now create
actual diagrams of human genetic structures
on computer, and generate the effects of experiments
on them "in silico", or via computer
simulations. Using proprietary software, Colin
Hill and his team at Gene Network Sciences -
http://www.gnsbiotech.com/
- are at the bleeding edge of recreating models
detailing the genetic structure of life. Their
products, DigitalCell™, Cell Navigator™,
and Diagrammatic Cell Language™ are just
some of the compass points giving direction
to companies looking to develop new disease
therapies and shave years off the drug discovery
process.
Black Tech Magazine interviewed
Mr. Hill to learn first, how such technology
came to exist, and second, how the intricate
technology behind bioengineering evolved into
a viable and profitable business for this young
entrepreneur. Mr. Hill, a graduate of Virginia
PolyTechnic, McGill University and Cornell University,
is carrying on both the scientific and business
effort to bring this technology to the forefront
of modern pharmaceutical development, healthcare
and scientific research.
The reason we released DigitalCell™,
in particular, is to provide a platform for
data integration for the construction of large-scale
biotechnical circuits and gene networks. There
is a real need for this in the market place
and we would like to gain brand recognition
for that.
Gene Network Sciences is hoping
to completely turn around the way new drugs
are discovered. It takes approximately $600
million dollars and 15 years to develop a new
therapeutic drug and bringing it to market.
By using a computer simulation of a drug we
can more quickly define a drug target or gene
and actually test out the drug on the computer.
Pharmaceutical companies are extremely good
at chemistry but the key is understanding how
chemical combinations interact with living organisms.
Very much so. I do not believe
we will find a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's
or any of these devastating diseases of human
kind without our technology. I don't believe
its possible because of the complexity of human
cells. These cells are amazingly complicated,
30 thousand human genes, hundreds of thousands
of proteins that form very complex networks
and feedback loops. It 's no wonder why so many
drugs fail. It's such a complicated system and
they have such a crude understanding of the
biological impact when they go in and try to
make a drug. Without a computer simulation of
the living cell I think it's hopeless. If I
were diagnosed with cancer today, I would be
doing exactly what I'm doing. I believe it's
the only we'll ever get to a cure.
Our revenue model is different
than the traditional biotechnology model. We
are more of a tool company that has tools that
help other companies develop and discover drugs.
We have a boutique investment bank in New York
City that we're working with to raise our next
round of money. We are looking to raise $4 million
dollars. So far we've raised just under $2 million
from private investors and one small mature
capital fund. We've also been awarded $2 million
dollars in government grants from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
I believe that truly revolutionary
areas of technology only come around every few
decades. I believe that those truly ground-breaking
opportunities create business models so intimately
connected to the science and the technology
it is very important to have somebody at the
helm that has a deep understanding of the technology.
This is the case, for example, of personal computing
where you had Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as the
technical wizards behind their software and
computer companies but were also the CEOs that
directed the business end. I believe that a
traditional CEO with an MBA and 15 years experience
would fail miserably at getting GNS off the
ground and getting it to this stage.
I also believe I have an aptitude
for business. I started my own coin shop and
brokerage at the age of 15 so I've always had
a head for money. To be honest, there wasn't
anyone appropriate to come in as CEO that any
of the employees would have trusted. There would
be a cultural disconnect if you had an MBA style
CEO trying to run a bleeding-edge high-tech,
biotech company. It just wouldn't work.
However, we are now entering
a business development stage and we are bringing
on a senior executive to be VP of Business Development
and another person to be COO. Its often that
you see a high-tech or biotech company with
a scientific founder that becomes a CEO typically
bring in a business oriented COO to buttress
the management team. We are not naïve to
the fact that at some point it does make sense
to have these "gray hairs" on board.
First off, you have to do what
you love to do. I was drawn to science at a
very, very young age and pursued it for many
years. Then it became clear to me that there
was an opportunity to apply much of what I had
learned to work to will be one of the greatest
revolutions in technology and business.
Once again, I felt compelled
to do this. You have to have the aptitude to
do something like this but also the drive and
the perseverance. The one thing you can't underestimate
is how much work it takes to get something like
this off the ground, especially with this kind
of economy. When we started the NASDAQ was tanking
and venture capital money was drying up. We
had to fight tooth and nail to raise funds and
not meeting our payroll and dealing with all
kinds of ups and downs. You have to be truly
committed to doing this. I would really advise
anybody who follows a similar path like I have
and starts a company based on scientific research
to really feel compelled to do it, really love
what you're doing and really feel like it's
the be all and end all.
MThe window
on IPOs has been pretty narrow over the last
year or so. We do plan that in 3-5 years to
have some kind of exit, either going public
or being acquired by a public company. Within
this space, the biotech space, whether you go
public or not, acquisition is typically the
eventual outcome. It's really a land of giants
and these giants keep eating each other up.
We would love to stay independent a long time
and then go public and to really create the
vortex of next step millennium pharmaceuticals.
|
