Please subscribe and tell your friends why it’s worthwhile. Quality journalism costs money. When you subscribe to Timmerman Report at $199 per year, you reward quality independent biotech reporting, and encourage more.
Please subscribe and tell your friends why it’s worthwhile. Quality journalism costs money. When you subscribe to Timmerman Report at $199 per year, you reward quality independent biotech reporting, and encourage more.
Marc Tessier-Lavigne is today’s guest on The Long Run.
Marc is the chairman and CEO of South San Francisco-based Xaira Therapeutics.
Marc Tessier-Lavigne, chairman and CEO, Xaira therapeutics
Xaira is using computers to design protein drugs from scratch, building on work from co-founder David Baker’s lab at the University of Washington.
Designing protein drugs on computers with ideal properties is a plenty big idea that won Baker the Nobel Prize in 2024. But there’s more to the company. Xaira is building a platform for drug discovery that gathers multiple types of biological data – genomic, proteomic, etc. – and feeds that into AI models to hopefully tease apart what’s causing disease, versus what’s merely hanging along for the ride. That information on what’s causing disease is supposed to help guide the design of these new targeted protein drugs from the ground up.
The hope at Xaira, and all other AI-assisted drug discovery companies, is ultimately to create a system that can make drug R&D faster, less expensive, and more predictable.
Xaira was co-founded and incubated by Arch Venture Partners and Foresite Labs. It debuted with $1 billion in committed capital in April 2024.
Marc is a neuroscientist by training. He was on the faculty at UCSF before he took an R&D leadership role at Genentech during its storied ascent as the leading cancer drug developer of the early 2000s. He returned to academia as president at Rockefeller University and then Stanford University. He left Stanford in 2023 amid some controversy, before he came back to industry with Xaira in 2024. Right now, he has the advantage of being in a startup at a moment of technological possibility – Xaira has a lot of money, brilliant people, and a clean slate to do something consequential for all of biopharma R&D. It doesn’t need to unlearn a lot of things to start doing them a different way.
Before we get started, a word from the sponsor of The Long Run.
Are you tired of inconsistent bioanalysis results and waiting months for data that should take days?
Dash is the only bioanalysis CRO built from the ground up with a tech-first approach, designed to deliver better, faster, and cheaper than anyone else.
With Dash, you get:
From preclinical to late-stage studies, Dash helps you move from assay development and validation to sample analysis with unmatched speed. Founded by industry veterans who’ve felt the pain of traditional CROs, Dash is the partner researchers and clinical leaders actually need: reliable, fast, and easy to work with.
So if slow bioanalysis CROs are costing you money and missed deadlines—put Dash to the test.
Visit www.dash.bio and see how fast bioanalysis can be.
Please enjoy this conversation with Marc Tessier-Lavigne on The Long Run.
Please subscribe and tell your friends why it’s worthwhile. Quality journalism costs money. When you subscribe to Timmerman Report at $199 per year, you reward quality independent biotech reporting, and encourage more.
Leslie Williams, biotech entrepreneur and board member
Over the last decade, China-based biotech companies learned from the best —us.
They studied how the US biotech ecosystem was built: a fusion of basic science, venture capital, and entrepreneurial risk-taking. They learned how our scientists turned NIH-funded discoveries into startups, how our venture model backed innovation years before potential profit, and how collaboration between academia, biotech, and pharma fueled breakthroughs from recombinant proteins to RNA medicines.
They saw how a science-based regulatory agency fostered confidence in marketed products, and how transparent stock markets protected investors and helped them best allocate capital toward promising companies. They saw the key infrastructure at work and sought to build it for themselves.
Through it all, they followed the science.
They observed how U.S. biotech created platform companies around novel modalities — mRNA, gene editing, t-RNA therapeutics, and CAR-T — and they built their own. They watched how we used CROs to increase efficiency and flexibility, then scaled that concept into global networks that now serve the entire industry. They understood that innovation requires speed, capital efficiency, and quality — and they applied those lessons with relentless intensity. They brought a can-do engineering mindset to the task.
While Chinabuilt up its innovative capacity, it also played to its existing strengths. China continued to invest in large-scale global manufacturing capacity that the US once dominated, but no longer does. While the US was debating drug pricing and health insurance policy over the past decade, China was building bioparks, GMP facilities, and end-to-end supply chains that operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
They trained their scientists abroad in the US and Europe, and recruited many to return home with a deep understanding of the science — and a national mission to lead in it.
Now, 10 years later, they are good. Very good.
They are not just manufacturing efficiently; they are developing medicines faster. Chinese biotech companies are aggressively licensing assets to the West — antibodies, cell therapies, and novel oncology drugs — moving them into patients at a pace that outstrips the US regulatory and development cycle. Take bispecific antibodies: while we’ve spent years refining and testing our constructs, Chinese developers can take a similar design, tweak the sequence, and advance to first-in-human studies within months. They’ve turned speed into a strategic advantage.
And it’s time we learn from them.
From China, we can learn how to prioritize scale and speed without losing sight of science. We can learn how to move a molecule from concept to clinic in half the time, through coordinated teams, decisive leadership, and streamlined regulatory alignment. They’ve shown what’s possible when national strategy, capital, and execution converge behind a scientific goal.
But we must not forget what makes the US unique — our freedom to think differently. Innovation here comes from friction: the clash of ideas, the courage to challenge convention, the belief that failure is part of discovery. If we spend the next decade simply trying to compete with China on cost or manufacturing capacity, we’ll lose sight of what we are good at — that creative spark.
The reasons we struggle to compete in manufacturing are deeply woven into our national fabric — labor unions, complex zoning, and a society that still sees biopharma with some suspicion. We value individual rights and environmental safeguards — and we should — but they make it challenging to match China’s speed and efficiency. That’s not a weakness; it’s a reflection of who we are. But we must be honest about what that means.
Yet this dependence on China for manufacturing has a cost. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how fragile global supply chains can be — and how vulnerable we become when critical drug components or manufacturing capabilities lie overseas. We can’t afford that risk again.
To safeguard national security and ensure access to essential medicines, we must invest in building and maintaining advanced biomanufacturing capacity here at home — not to replace global partnerships, but to create redundancy and resilience. Backup plants, regional hubs, and flexible production networks across the US could protect both innovation and preparedness.
This will require public–private coordination, new incentives, and policy frameworks that make it viable to build and sustain manufacturing on US soil. This means leveraging strengths of world-leading biotech clusters like Boston, San Francisco and San Diego, while building stronger alliances with other US regions that have their own scientific assets and room to ramp up domestic manufacturing. We should approach this not as isolationism, but as smart insurance — ensuring that when global systems falter, our science and supply remain strong.
Our challenge is to protect our innovation engine while ensuring biosecurity and maintaining global leadership. Recent US policies designed to limit Chinese investment and partnerships may improve national security — but if applied too broadly, they could isolate our science, fragment our supply chains, and slow our ability to deliver life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the capital markets in Hong Kong are robust, and Chinese biotech doesn’t need capital from American investors to continue making progress.
Let’s remember what’s at stake. Many of today’s breakthrough therapies — from PD-1 antibodies to RNA vaccines to cell therapies — were developed through global collaboration. Manufacturing in Shenzhen, clinical trials in Australia, reagents from Shanghai, analytics from San Diego — these efforts save lives, not based on nationality or race, but on shared human purpose. The medicine your child, spouse, or parent may need tomorrow could be born from both American discovery and Chinese delivery.
A wise leader knows what they are good at and what they are not — and partners to fill the gaps. The US excels at discovery, translational and clinical insight, and the courage to pioneer. China excels at speed, cost, and execution. We should protect what’s uniquely ours — our innovation — while respecting and leveraging what they’ve built.
If we choose to compete wisely and collaborate thoughtfully, we can create a symbiosis that accelerates global health. That’s not naïveté — that’s pragmatism rooted in hope.
Because in the end, the true competition isn’t between nations.
It’s between disease and time.
And I, for one, am holding on to a hope that won’t fade.
Please subscribe and tell your friends why it’s worthwhile. Quality journalism costs money. When you subscribe to Timmerman Report at $199 per year, you reward quality independent biotech reporting, and encourage more.
Please subscribe and tell your friends why it’s worthwhile. Quality journalism costs money. When you subscribe to Timmerman Report at $199 per year, you reward quality independent biotech reporting, and encourage more.
David Shaywitz
A lifestyle intervention delivered by AI was found to be as effective as validated traditional interventions delivered by trained experts in a carefully conducted implementation study conducted by Johns Hopkins researchers and just published in JAMA.
These results have broad significance and speak to the promise of AI to deliver promising behavior-change interventions at unprecedented scale.
The core of the study involved a striking and unexpected finding from a classic study, the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), conducted two decades ago, and led by Dr. David Nathan of the MGH Diabetes Center.
Dr. David M. Nathan
The DPP was designed to examine whether one of three potential interventions administered to patients at high risk for diabetes could prevent or delayed their progression to the full-blown disease, compared to placebo.
The interventions examined by the DPP originally included one of two medicines (metformin or troglitazone), although the troglitazone was soon dropped due to safety concerns. The third intervention evaluated was intensive lifestyle coaching.
In 2002, the DPP investigators reported that intensive lifestyle coaching reduced incidence of diabetes by a staggering 58% compared to placebo over three years; metformin reduced incidence by 31% compared to placebo over the same time.
This 58% reduction has become the benchmark – a consistently elusive benchmark – that researchers and companies have chased ever since.
As I discussed in Forbes in 2012, in piece about the (at the time, nascent) digital health company, Omada Health leveraging digital tools to try to emulate the DPP success, the secret sauce of the DPP is the intensity and dedication of the coaching provided.
I had particular visibility into the nature of this coaching since my endocrinology training was at MGH, where I was mentored in diabetes by Dr. Nathan and his colleagues at the MGH Diabetes Center, and learned about the nature of the DPP lifestyle interventions directly from some of the coaches who administered them.
My takeaway: these coaches were determined and relentless, deeply dedicated to connecting with their patients individually, understanding their challenges, and urging them onwards. From what I saw, there was nothing pro-forma or box-checking about any of it – the coaches (compassionately) pestered patients, exhorted them, humored them, listened to them, and believed in them – ultimately to great effect.
But duplicating these efforts – and this commitment – has been challenging.
Even when the same protocol has been followed, and coaches appropriately trained, the results have never been quite as impressive, and usually come in at about half the efficacy seen in the original DPP. This impact is still clinically meaningful, to be sure, but not at the level seen in the DPP.
Challenges include matching the original intensity (particularly when trying to deliver the program with less resources to larger populations) and maintaining participant engagement and retention.
The latest study randomized patients at high risk of diabetes into two groups: one received a DPP-style intervention administered by AI, while patients in the other group received an DPP-protocol intensive intervention delivered by human coaches. The initial intent was for these sessions to be in person, but this was changed to virtual sessions due to COVID, a change that may have actually helped the study, since as an excellent editorial by Dr. Leigh Perreault accompanying the JAMA publication observed, “the human-led DPP group saw higher-than-typical participation rates when delivered virtually compared with historical in-person rates.”
As the study authors note, “The AI used in the intervention consisted of a reinforcement learning algorithm that did not use large language models. It personalized messaging by continuously learning which prompts, timing, and content elicited greater user engagement.”
The result of the non-inferiority study, using a composite endpoint incorporating measures of glucose control, physical activity, and weight loss, was a tie: the two approaches delivered similar outcomes: about 32% of patients in each group achieved the pre-specified outcome, suggesting that for this population, the AI intervention did as well as the human coaches.
A closer look at the results highlights an important nuance: fewer patients randomized to the human coaches actually initiated the program (only about 83%), while more than 93% of patients allocated to AI coach started that intervention. Doing the math, this means that the human coaches were slightly more effective on the patients they actually reached – but the AI reached more people, and these effects netted out to the same impact.
The ability of AI to achieve the same efficacy for a study population as human coaches using a well-validated approach has significance for at least three reasons that take us far beyond an encouraging proof of principle.
An important question I continue to have is whether this approach will plateau at a point that is still below the level of the most expert practitioners who deliver the intervention in person.
I think about the next-level DPP coaches at the MGH Diabetes Center, for example, or the late, next level cystic fibrosis doctor Warren Warwick at Fairview-University Children’s Hospital, in Minneapolis, so memorably profiled in The New Yorker by Atul Gawande.
In theory, it might be possible to capture and systematize much of what the MGH diabetes coaches and Dr. Warwick have done so well, and to use technology to deliver at scale, and iteratively improve the approach to a level that matches or even exceeds that of these exemplars.
I’m curious about this possibility, but skeptical.
Gawande writes about other medical centers trying to replicate Warwick’s CF success, and reflects,
“Yet you have to wonder whether it is possible to replicate people like Warwick, with their intense drive and constant experimenting. In the two years since the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation began bringing together centers willing to share their data, certain patterns have begun to emerge, according to Bruce Marshall, the head of quality improvement for the foundation. All the centers appear to have made significant progress. None, however, have progressed more than centers like Fairview.”
The ability of technology to scale means that reasonably effective interventions delivered consistently can benefit large swaths of patients.
But it feels comforting to know, or at least to believe, that there may be something special, powerful, ineffable and deeply human that lies beyond the reach of even the most impressive digital technologies.
Art Krieg is today’s guest on The Long Run.
Art is the founder and CEO of a Cambridge, Mass.-based startup called Zola Therapeutics.
Art Krieg, founder and CEO, Zola Therapeutics
Zola is developing an oligonucleotide drug candidate to activate a family of Toll-like receptors known as TLR7 TLR8 and TLR9. Activating these receptors is thought to spur the innate immune system to attack cancer cells.
Art designed the molecule himself and believes it could be the biggest thing he’s done in a long and distinguished career. He is a physician-scientist who’s considered one of the founders of the field of oligonucleotide therapies. These drugs consist of short strands of synthetic RNA or DNA to do some specific job.
Art became enthralled with this type of medicine when he was a rheumatologist, thinking about how oligos might modulate the immune system. When he was on the faculty at the University of Iowa in the 1990s, Art discovered the immune stimulatory CpG DNA motif, which led to a new approach to immunotherapy and vaccine adjuvants. He then moved over from academia to industry, living through a historic boom in cancer immunotherapy in the 2010s. His most recent company, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, developed a TLR9 agonist for cancer which was acquired by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals for $250 million in 2022.
Before we get started, a word from the sponsor of The Long Run…Dash Bio.
Are you tired of inconsistent bioanalysis results and waiting months for data that should take days?
Dash is the only bioanalysis CRO built from the ground up with a tech-first approach, designed to deliver better, faster, and cheaper than anyone else.
With Dash, you get:
From preclinical to late-stage studies, Dash helps you move from assay development and validation to sample analysis with unmatched speed. Founded by industry veterans who’ve felt the pain of traditional CROs, Dash is the partner researchers and clinical leaders actually need: reliable, fast, and easy to work with.
So if slow bioanalysis CROs are costing you money and missed deadlines—put Dash to the test.
Visit www.dash.bio and see how fast bioanalysis can be.
Now, please enjoy this conversation with Art Krieg on The Long Run.
David Li, co-founder and CEO, Meliora Therapeutics
Chinese biotechs opened 2025 with a bang at JPM week, and the momentum has continued.
Much of the conversation early this year was about how the US could rise to the challenge, and hold onto its historic position as the world leader in biotech innovation (see my Jan. 8, 2025 editorial in TR).
The evidence of a China biotech renaissance was overwhelming and could no longer be downplayed. Recall a flurry of deals from January totaling billions in upfront and milestone payments, including Innovent / Roche, Kelun / Harbour – Windward Bio, Keymed / Innocare – Prolium, Duality Bio – Avenzo, KeyMed – Timberlyne, among others.
Six months later, a Jefferies report showed that one in three licensing deals for all new drug candidates — 32 percent — trace their origins to China. Even as US biotech has shown signs of recovery this fall, Chinese biotechs are maintaining a competitive pace.
Last month, I traveled to Beijing, Shanghai, and surrounding areas on a 10-day business trip to see with my own eyes. I wanted to explore opportunities for my company, San Francisco-based Meliora Therapeutics, and spot the latest trends. I met with local biotech startups, established pharmas, and Chinese VC funds.
Here are my top impressions:
Chinese biotechs have burst on the scene the past five years to become a dominant force in antibody engineering and biologics development. This is mainly attributable to their advantages in cost, efficiency, and speed.
The deals speak for themselves: BioNTech’s $800 million upfront deal value with Biotheus for their PD-L1/VEGF bispecific, and Merck’s acquisition of a PD-1/VEGF bispecific from LaNova Medicines for $588 million upfront and up to $2.7 billion in milestone payments are a couple recent examples.
This year, we have seen Chinese biotechs pursue with in vivo CAR T-cell therapies and other genetic engineering technologies with a similar fervor.
This is exemplified by recent deals like Vitalgen licensing a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) construct from GRIT Biotechnology for in vivo CAR-T applications and Porton Advanced partnering with RongCan Biotech to develop ionizable LNPs aimed at mRNA, gene editing, and in vivo CAR-T payloads. This is just the tip of the spear. By latest count, there are over *150* China-based in vivo CAR-T companies now.
Most of these companies will not survive, but such is the market in China. The Darwinian selection pressure is intense, but it also drives breathtaking speed.
China’s advantages in cost and velocity are even more apparent in this modality, with some companies claiming timelines of nine months to development candidate for RNA and other genetic medicine programs. This is perhaps 3X+ faster than the norm in the US.
For many years, the critique of Chinese biotech has been they are fast followers, not innovators. This narrative is beginning to shift, albeit slowly.
On my trip in September 2025, I counted at least a dozen instances of startups genuinely pursuing novel biology, from novel rare disease targets identified through proprietary human genetic databases to first-in-class oncology programs that are not simply leveraging Western academic & industry publications as starting points for scaffolds and molecules.
The competition among biotechs inside China is intense. The CEOs leading these biopharma companies understand that novel biology is the one differentiator that can help them stand out in a field of many me-toos seeking investment dollars.
The larger pharmas in China all now have R&D groups that are exploring novel targets and mechanisms via small molecules, antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific T-cell engaging antibodies, and more. Most of Chinese biotech still operates in the validated target space. But the desire and capability to explore novel biology is evident. Green shoots are visible.
The constraint, as always, is talent. China has extraordinary depth in antibody engineering, chemistry, process development, formulation, and manufacturing science. It has growing – but still limited – talent depth in translational medicine and disease biology. The companies making the leap into novel biology are typically those that have successfully recruited native-born Chinese scientists who were educated in the US and Europe, and who are now returning to China to lead their R&D efforts.
In 2024, newco activities were all the rage. Windward Bio, Prolium Bioscience, and Timberlyne Therapeutics were a few of the startups that debuted, each raising substantial rounds of venture capital. At the time, Western VCs were looking for clinical stage assets that could reach clinical value inflection points quickly, and Chinese biotechs were willing sellers of assets given financing difficulties in their market.
Fewer new companies are being formed in China with assets to out-license to the US and Europe this year, but it’s still happening.
First, the financing environments in China have recovered faster than in the US, meaning existing biotechs in China are not desperate to do outlicensing deals to stay alive. Second, valuation expectations are higher after substantial deals like those mentioned earlier have set the high-water mark. Third, and perhaps most importantly, many of the obvious targets and clinic-ready assets are gone.
While newco activity as slowed, it hasn’t gone away completely. San Francisco-based Expedition Therapeutics recently raised a $165 million round, and Boston-based Bambusa Therapeutics raised a $90 million Series A. Both companies are built around assets from China.
Additionally, licensing activity remains robust as mentioned by the Jefferies report. The difference is that deals are increasingly happening at earlier stages and with more creative structures. For example, there are now meaningful examples of Western biotechs licensing Chinese platform technologies for speed and cost advantages in manufacturing and formulation, e.g. Kite / Gilead & Pregene, rather than licensing specific assets.
This is still early innings, but the trend is notable in that it demonstrates Western pharma’s interest in leveraging Chinese platform capabilities broadly.
During my visit, it became apparent there is a new slogan for the major Chinese biopharma companies today, whether Hengrui, Sino Biopharma, Simcere, or Innovent: “go global.”
Their model? Takeda, which over decades built a truly global R&D and commercial presence that transcended its Japanese origins.
The aspiration is clear and understandable. After spending the better part of two decades building innovative R&D capabilities and seeing those capabilities validated through licensing deals and promising clinical data, Chinese pharmas are asking the logical next question: why stop at outlicensing when we could capture the full value ourselves? The domestic market, while large, is hyper competitive and subject to aggressive volume-based procurement policies from the main buyer of its products – the Chinese central government. That squeezes profit margins. Global expansion is seen as both a growth opportunity and a strategic hedge.
While this aspiration is clear, there are still challenges that should not be underestimated. The capital intensity of global registrational trials is much higher than domestic or regional studies. Clinical development expertise for navigating FDA, EMA, and other global regulatory authorities has not been fully developed internally yet, and hiring clinical development organizations internationally represents a significant commitment in both cost and management attention.
Only the best financed and profitable of the Chinese biopharma are likely to make the jump successfully, but make no mistake, this is an industrywide goal that was uttered many times on this most recent trip.
As China’s home-grown pharma companies start generating meaningful cash flow domestically from innovative therapeutics, they have set their sights on commercializing that innovation in global markets. This will be a key theme to watch in the coming quarters and years. The first Chinese biopharma to successfully launch and commercialize a novel drug in the US or Europe without a partner will be a watershed moment.
The pace of China’s development continues to astound. Every quarter the Chinese biotech ecosystem has a new “feel,” and progress is relentless if uneven. Some areas surge ahead while others stumble, but the overall trajectory is unmistakable.
For observers in the West, particularly those making capital allocation or partnership decisions, the imperative is clear: the world would benefit from continuing to watch this market closely as Chinese biotech continues to make strides.
David Shaywitz
Digital health, fitness, and longevity platforms have focused on the constant measurement and relentless optimization of biometric parameters, an often-valuable effort but one that has systematically left behind vital components of health and flourishing – such as social connection — that are more difficult to measure.
Robust longitudinal studies, including the Harvard Study of Adult Development, and Northwestern’s Super Agers study, have demonstrated that a critical determinant of longevity is warm human relationships. The Harvard research, for example, “found that the people who stayed healthiest and lived longest were the people who had the strongest connections to others,” according to a Harvard School of Public Health summary of the work.
Moreover, a 2021 review by Jaime Vila of 23 meta-analyses of studies conducted over the last sixty years, involving over a billion subjects, found a “significant association of functional and structural measures of social support with health and longevity.”
Vila continues, “The strength of this association is equivalent to that documented for other well-documented risk factors such as smoking or obesity.”
The health importance of social connection is also a key theme of Why Brains Need Friends, a new book by neurobiologist (and social media phenomenon) Ben Rein that I recently reviewed for the Wall Street Journal.
Rein’s bottom line: “I really think you should spend more time socializing.” He adds, “Your brain is counting on you.”
Geroscience pioneer Steve Horvath
This message is reinforced by a pair of just-published papers that used “aging clocks” to explore the impact of social connection. One of these papers was highlighted by geroscience researcher Steve Horvath at the 2025 Biomarkers of Aging conference held this week at Harvard Medical School.
Before we get to these papers, I thought it might be useful to share a few thoughts from this meeting with TR readers.
As a first-time attendee (and I only was able to make it to some of the sessions), I was struck by the remarkable (and welcome!) degree of energy, hope, and optimism among so many of the speakers, including many (like Horvath) who were toiling in the field long before it became so trendy.
Much of the work presented involved various measures of aging, so-called “aging clocks” that relate specific patterns of biological or structural measurements to estimates of age and health. For example, patterns of DNA methylation accumulate as individuals age, and seem to build up faster in less healthy people; thus, this measurement can reveal someone is “older” or “younger” than their chronological age would otherwise suggest.
The first multi-tissue aging clock, based on DNA methylation, was developed by Horvath back when he was a geneticist at UCLA; today, he works at Altos Labs. (This 2024 interview of Horvath by Dr. Eric Topol on the Ground Truths podcast explores the fascinating origin story, rich in serendipity, of aging clocks, and is highly recommended.) Perhaps not surprisingly, a colleague referred to Horvath as the “King of Clocks” in a discussion at the conference.
The attraction of ever more researchers to geroscience is easy to understand. As Nobel Laureate Venki Ramakrishnan writes in Why We Die, “aging is connected intimately with so many biological processes,” and captures the attention of scientists in so many disciplines.
These connections weren’t always so apparent. Ramakrishnan, an RNA biologist (see his wonderful first book, Gene Machine), explains “when I started my career, I had no idea that anything I did would be connect with the problem of why we age and die.”
But more recently, Ramakrishnan says, he’s learned that his life’s research on “the problems of how proteins are made” is highly relevant to aging, since “much of aging has to do with how our body regulates the production and destruction of proteins.”
As palpable as the attendees’ excitement, however, was a frustration, perhaps even impatience, with a nagging sense that their work is still not quite taken seriously by the biomedical “establishment” – even as they appreciate that many patients (or more precisely, individuals who are hoping to forestall becoming patients) are drawn to the field looking for answers.
Among the promising initiatives to integrate longevity into medicine were:
Professor Andrea Maier, National University of Singapore
Dr. Evelyne Bischof
Other prominent centers in geroscience include the Buck Institute in Novato, California, “an independent biomedical research institute that researches aging and age-related disease,” and was founded in 1999; and the Abu Dhabi-based Institute for Healthier Living, which characterizes itself as “the world’s first specialized healthy longevity medicine center.”
Professor Terrie Moffitt, Duke University
On many levels, I especially appreciated the presentation from Duke’s Terrie Moffitt, a psychologist who first pursued the roots of antisocial behavior, and who — by following the Dunedin birth cohort across five decades — has helped redefine how we understand biological aging.
Her group’s DunedinPACE clock, now widely regarded as one of the most rigorous measures of biological aging, is even featured in the Rejuvenation Olympics (although, as Open Evidence reminds us, Dunedin aging measures “are not yet established for routine clinical practice”).
In her talk, Moffitt described a range of new clocks the team is developing, including one based on neuroimaging (the DunedInPACENI) that aims to predict overall aging rate (not the aging rate of the brain, specifically).
The conference presenters included several leaders from several emerging biotechs focused on aging, and with established pharma partnerships. These include:
Kristen Fortney, CEO BioAge
Alex Zhavoronkov, CEO Insilico Medicine
The only speaker from an established and comparatively large biopharma was David Glass, a world expert in muscle biology who is now Vice President, Research, Aging/Age-Related Disorders, at Regeneron. Glass thoughtfully discussed important (and easily-overlooked) nuances of the molecular study of sarcopenia in rats vs mice.
David Glass, VP Research, Aging/Age-Related Disorders, Regeneron
A final observation from this conference is simply that as I considered the ever-increasing number of biological clocks available, their remarkable ease of use, and the tendency to use multiple clocks in single studies, I found it all too easy to imagine p-hacking efforts (whether deliberate or just self-deception) where, if you test enough clocks in enough conditions, eventually you find some association, and then can persuade yourself (or others) that you’ve found a way to reverse aging – or have discovered a factor that accelerates it. If most everything can be tied to alterations in some biomarker of aging, then it will be increasingly challenging to identify meaningful signal beneath the volume of noise.
Fortunately, while one of studies we’re about to discuss does consider multiple measures of aging, it was performed rigorously, and accounts for multiple comparisons in their statistical analysis.
Social connection, as we’ve discussed, is good for your health. Two research groups have recently published findings reflecting their efforts to relate measures of biological aging to social connection and dissect the most impactful components. Interesting, the teams both analyzed the same basic dataset — a well-characterized cohort, the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) project that includes extensive self-report data as well as biobanked samples — but approached their analyses in slightly different, fairly complementary fashions.
One team — Anthony Ong of Cornell, Frank Mann of Stony Brook, and senior author Laura Kubzansky of Harvard – analyzed data from over 2000 MIDUS subjects, with an average age of about 55.
Professor Laura Kubzansky, Harvard School of Public Health
The authors utilized a measure – “cumulative social advantage” (CSA) – they previous developed, intended to capture and integrate social resources across four broad domains:
These were assessed by self-report, using several questions for each domain.
Then, the researchers analyzed samples by using a range of stress and aging, including several biological clocks, serum measures of inflammation, and urine measures of neuroendocrine function. The numbers were then crunched, comparing the singular, composite assessment of connection (CSA) to each of these measures of stress and aging, explicitly correcting for the multiple comparisons.
The result: higher CSA scores were linked in statistically significant manner to slower biological aging, and also with lower levels of IL-6 (a marker of inflammation), even after accounting for a comprehensive set of sociodemographic (eg socioeconomic status) and health-related (eg smoking history) confounders.
Within the CSA construct, the component of social integration–measured by the self-reported response to ‘I feel close to other people in my community’–accounted for much of the variability in CSA scores. The contribution of perceived community closeness to the observed association between CSA and slower biological aging and lower inflammation was inferred from its central role within the CSA composite.
The second team of scientists – Holly Prigerson and Paul Maciejewski of Cornell, together David Russell of Appalachian State University – examined data from 1309 MIDUS subjects, average age about 51.
Professor Holly Prigerson, Cornell University
This team explored the relationship between (presumptive) positive social experiences (such as volunteering for organizations) and negative social experiences (eg dropping out of school), on the one hand and two measures of biological aging on the others. The intention was to determine, after adjusting for known confounders (critical!), which experiences most impact aging, and also to explore whether there was a relationship between the net ratio of positive/negative experiences and aging.
The key findings: engaging in social meetings had the strongest (and highly significant) positive effect on aging; also scoring well: marriage and giving assistance to others. On the negative side, a strikingly deleterious effect on aging was associated with dropping out of school and with the subject’s parents experiencing drug problems.
Perhaps not surprisingly, a respondent’s total number of positive experiences were associated with slower aging, and total number of negative experiences were associated with accelerated aging. Comparison of subjects with “net positive” ratio of experiences to those with “net negative” revealed a profound difference between these two groups, with the “net negative” group aging much faster.
Interestingly, perceived social support was not found to be associated with aging in this publication.
While both studies link aspects of social connection with aging, they don’t speak directly either to causation (the social factors measured may reflect a deeper underlying driver of stress and aging, say) or to the biological mechanisms by which social connectivity exerts its putative effect on the biology.
Also not addressed: the potential impact on aging of interventions focused on enhancing social connectivity – a critical question for those seeking to improve health rather than just measure it.
Social connection exerts a powerful effect on health and aging, with robust evidence linking greater social engagement and support to reduced morbidity, mortality, and slower biological aging. These relationships deserve greater attention in longevity-promoting efforts, including digital health and wellness platforms. Geroscience research is experiencing a remarkable intensification of interest, partly due to the availability of biological aging measures, though consumer enthusiasm for these tools often exceeds their current scientific validation. The ability to connect social connection to biological aging, and to use these measures to dissect and optimize social interventions, represents an exciting but still nascent approach to developing meaningful, targeted strategies for healthy aging.
Please subscribe and tell your friends why it’s worthwhile. Quality journalism costs money. When you subscribe to Timmerman Report at $199 per year, you reward quality independent biotech reporting, and encourage more.
Please subscribe and tell your friends why it’s worthwhile. Quality journalism costs money. When you subscribe to Timmerman Report at $199 per year, you reward quality independent biotech reporting, and encourage more.
Today’s guest on The Long Run is Eric Fischer.
Eric is a professor at Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. His structural biology and chemical biology expertise has led him down a path to become one of the world’s experts in an emerging category of medicine that includes targeted protein degraders and molecular glues.
Eric Fischer, professor, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
These novel chemical entities can be made to interact with disease targets inside cells that traditional drugs – small molecule compounds and genetically engineered biologics – haven’t been effective against.
This is an exciting new frontier emerging at the nexus of structural biology, chemical biology, and drug discovery.
Eric was one of the key scientists, along with Nathanael Gray, who were tapped to lead a Center for Protein Degradation at Dana-Farber supported with $80 million from Deerfield Management, an investment firm, in 2018.
Some of this research has led to startup activity. Civetta Therapeutics and Neomorph are a couple of the companies Fischer has co-founded.
This episode of The Long Run is sponsored by Dash Bio.
Are you tired of inconsistent bioanalysis results and waiting months for data that should take days?
Dash is the only bioanalysis CRO built from the ground up with a tech-first approach, designed to deliver better, faster, and cheaper than anyone else.
With Dash, you get:
From preclinical to late-stage studies, Dash helps you move from assay development and validation to sample analysis with unmatched speed. Founded by industry veterans who’ve felt the pain of traditional CROs, Dash is the partner researchers and clinical leaders actually need: reliable, fast, and easy to work with.
So if slow bioanalysis CROs are costing you money and missed deadlines—put Dash to the test.
Visit www.dash.bio and see how fast bioanalysis can be.
Now, please enjoy this conversation with Eric Fischer on The Long Run.
Please subscribe and tell your friends why it’s worthwhile. Quality journalism costs money. When you subscribe to Timmerman Report at $199 per year, you reward quality independent biotech reporting, and encourage more.
John Archer, partner, Catalyst Advisors
There is a persistent myth in life sciences that once a company transitions from a scrappy startup into a more mature company, its board will naturally evolve to meet those new, more complex challenges.
The reality is that these boards all too often fail to keep pace with their organizations. Those gaps leave management teams without the strategic guidance and governance needed for sustainable growth and enterprise value creation.
It doesn’t have to be that way.
Board evolution is typically a gradual process. Early-stage companies assemble boards composed of initial investors, past or current business colleagues, scientific or clinical luminaries or collaborators, and trusted allies. As companies approach commercialization or a strategic exit, they add functional experts to their boards: financial, commercial, R&D, and regulatory specialists.
While these moves are logical, they are often reactive and piecemeal—not part of a comprehensive plan for board effectiveness. These new board members may bring impressive credentials and deep subject-matter knowledge, but they remain focused on narrow functional silos rather than enterprise-wide stewardship. They become “financial guardians” rather than proactive advisors who can help the CEO and leadership team navigate the complexities of a maturing organization and think more strategically about the long-term future.
In short, they may be better suited to be consultants to the companies, not board members.
For companies otherwise poised for growth—that is, they may be developing differentiated clinical assets and a diversified portfolio; they have strong leadership and ample capital—the drag from an ineffectual board can be significant.
Those companies are more vulnerable to missed opportunities and value destruction. They struggle to raise capital in challenging markets and fail to commercialize products optimally. In the most extreme scenarios, these factors can collectively trigger a downward spiral that can be hard to bounce back from—a decline that can even gain the unwelcome attention of an activist shareholder. In these scenarios, the blame for that collapse typically goes to the leadership teams, while the board’s role in allowing that unraveling often escapes scrutiny.
Recent events with Dynavax Technologies illustrate how a sleepy board can fuel an activist challenge. Earlier this year, investor Deep Track Capital challenged the company’s strategic direction, arguing that it should focus on the products that drove its core value, not diversifying its vaccine portfolio. Deep Track wasn’t able to make any headway in conversations with the company leadership, and eventually launched a proxy fight, nominating four new directors to run against those chosen by the board. While Deep Track’s slate was ultimately unsuccessful, its challenge to the Dynavax leadership underscored valid concerns about the company’s spend rate, capital returns to shareholders, and M&A expertise.
Over three decades, I’ve helped recruit hundreds of board members. I’ve seen the good, the bad, and everything in between. What stands out for me is how many boards are stuck with a sub-optimal makeup for their needs and how slow boards are to move on from ineffective members, even when they correctly diagnose the gap. I’m not saying that it is quick or easy to swap out board members. But it’s important that board chairs start that process sooner rather than later.
CEOs can also hinder the development of the board. They sometimes simply accept (or even opt for) a board relationship that is frictionless. A rubber stamp might be what the CEO wants, but it isn’t what the CEO needs. Change demands work, and it’s vital that CEOs are active members in the board succession process.
Even when a board has the perfect makeup, the culture can be problematic. Whether board members engage with each other constructively determines the body’s overall value. It’s important that boards have ways to encourage the less extroverted to comment. There is sometimes an inverse relationship between how long a board has been place and its effectiveness. Boards, like anything else, can get stale over time.
Beyond that, it goes without saying that with any bad behavior among members, boards need to nip it in the bud quickly.
Given all that, what distinguishes an effective board from an ineffective one? In my experience, there are three key areas:
–Enterprise-Wide Stewardship: Effective board members bring not only deep functional expertise but also the ability to think across the enterprise.
–Proactive Recruitment: Boards recruit new members based on a clear, forward-looking plan rather than reacting to immediate needs.
–Constructive Engagement: Effective boards are hands-on advisors, not passive observers or harsh critics.
To set themselves up for success, the boards of companies that haven’t yet developed commercially and clinically viable products must take the following steps:
–Elevate Board Succession Planning: Boards should make succession planning a strategic priority rather than an afterthought triggered by immediate vacancies or crises. This means establishing a formal, ongoing process for reviewing the board’s composition; identifying gaps in expertise; and forecasting future requirements based on the company’s direction. Tapping external advisors or governance consultants can help the company avoid insular thinking.
It’s critical to cultivate relationships with potential candidates well before seats open up—so there is a steady pipeline of qualified directors. This approach allows boards to anticipate shifts in market dynamics, technology, or business models, and to refresh their membership accordingly.
–Prioritize Enterprise-Wide Thinking: Boards should seek out individuals with a demonstrated ability to connect the dots across the business and who are known for challenging assumptions when necessary. Candidates with experience in major transformations, enterprise risk management, or leading initiatives that span multiple disciplines bring valuable perspective to the boardroom. Diversity in professional background and industry experience is also crucial. I was looking at the board roster of one company the other day where five of the seven board members are either current or former CEOs. While this may sound like a dream team board, it’s akin to an NBA team sending out a starting lineup of five power forwards. The best boards, like the best teams, have players with clearly defined roles – point guard, shooting guard, forward, center, etc.
Once they are brought on, directors should be oriented toward the company’s overall strategy and value drivers, not just their own specialties. Comprehensive onboarding and ongoing education sessions should focus on emerging trends and enterprise-wide challenges.
–Stay Ahead of Activism: Boards must remain vigilant about the risk of activist investors, but they cannot allow fear to drive decision-making. Staying ahead of activism requires a deft and delicate level of engagement with major shareholders. Some shareholders bring a natural balance of short- and long-term vision, while others can be quick to want change just because things aren’t going well in the moment. One big (and often overlooked) role of the chair is well-organized interaction with these disparate shareholders.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical provides an example of a board that deftly handled a potential activist. In that case, outside shareholder Elliott Investment Management was advocating for more discipline with operating expenses and faster performance improvements. After initial resistance from the leadership, Elliott raised its concerns with the board, which negotiated a resolution that temporarily expanded the board and installed Elliott’s nominees. This coincided with a CEO transition, giving Elliott significant influence over the leadership change and prompting the formation of a new committee to review BioMarin’s operations, capital allocation, and long-term planning. The skillful negotiation led by the board—particularly the lead outside director—helped address shareholder demands and headed off a potentially more disruptive activist scenario.
More often than you might think, boards of mature life sciences companies are failing to live up to their responsibilities, and in the process, they are causing long-term shareholder-value destruction. The solution is to build boards that are proactive and enterprise-minded. Only then will they be true partners with the leadership team and make sure the company doesn’t backslide into irrelevance.
David Shaywitz
Outside the glare of hyperbolic headlines, organizations of all sizes – including most in healthcare – are urgently trying to figure out how AI will fit into their workflows and business plans.
Perhaps the most interesting recent discussion I’ve heard on this subject involved a trio of Andreessen-Horowitz (a16z) partners — Erik Torenberg, Martin Casado, and Steven Sinofsky — who were joined by Aaron Levie, the CEO and co-founder of Box.
Torenberg, Casado, Levie, and Sinofsky
The entire conversation is an essential listen (or view, since it can be difficult on audio to distinguish the voices of the four men).
The most important takeaway: the greatest productivity gains (albeit self-reported) seem to be achieved by users, generally software developers, who are impassioned, engaged, curious, and forgiving – and who start off with a fair amount of expertise.
As Levie describes it,
“…the biggest gains of AI go to people who have some degree of expertise in an area to know what is actually true, what is not going to work, what should I integrate from the output of this AI … If you don’t have a deep understanding of your particular space or field or domain, you aren’t able to then have the right judgment to make all of those decisions. So I think the experts just get more powerful in this world.”
Or, as Casado says,
“The more senior small teams that use AI are superhuman. It’s like they woke up and they were all f–king Tony Stark and it’s unbelievable. And like, their productivity is insane. But they’re all they’re all super senior [i.e. experienced/expert].”
Levie notes that the most successful adopters of AI can also be really young engineers who are AI native and super engaged with the technology. He explains,
“They would have been maybe 10x engineers in a prior world, but now they’re like 100x engineers. And so, senior in terms of in their own kind of relative cohort, but like the way that they are building their startups are just like completely different.”
These pioneers – I’ve favored the term “lead users” — are able to guide the AI thoughtfully and constructively, in an intrinsically bottom-up approach. This is exactly what I’ve advocated (see below, reproduced from a recent TR column), but not necessarily how many biopharmas are tackling the problem.
Flashback to TR column from 11 September 2025.
As Casado notes, a recipe for failure, and what might account for the astonishingly high (95%) observed in AI pilots, is precisely this top-down approach favored by large companies. As he describes it,
“If you actually look at the reports on ‘enterprise things fail’ and look at what they were measuring, it’s clearly some internal project pushed down by the board where they hired some consultant to do it – it’s going fail.”
Sinofsky adds that AI is the latest example of “bottom-up adoption…really changing the productivity equation,” noting, “Big companies do not know how to deal with that because they need to control it. They worry about safety and security and privacy and all of their corporate rules.”
The distinction between AI adoption in established organizations and startups can also be observed in healthcare.
Dr. Karandeep Singh
For example, in a recent (and resonant) NEJM-AI podcast, Dr. Karandeep Singh, the Chief Health AI Officer at UC San Diego Health, emphasized the lived complexities of AI adoption he’s experienced in an established healthcare system.
A key learning, offered by the NEJM-AI episode blurb: “the best AI is guided by patient care, deep expertise, and humility about the limits of technology.”
Contrast this cautious, thoughtful incrementalism with the disruption emphasized by a16z healthcare partner Julie Yoo in this post – not to mention a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen’s declaration, on the “Cheeky Pint” podcast, that “ChatGPT is in fact a better doctor than your doctor today with almost 100% certainty.”
Andreessen added that a key limitation in the speed with which AI can transform medicine are pesky regulatory and licensure requirements, adding that the fields that will move the fastest, and attract the best and most ambitious talent, are those like many areas of software development that aren’t so encumbered.
A reinforcing example of Silicon Valley’s belief in the inevitability of AI transformation in healthcare comes from a recent job posting from chip maker NVIDIA, a company now worth about $4.5T (yes, that’s a “T”). Keen to expand AI adoption in healthcare and life sciences, they are hiring a “Director, Healthcare AI startups.”
In particular, they “are seeking a passionate Global Healthcare Life Science (HCLS) Startup Director to scale NVIDIA’s developer ecosystem worldwide…This role centers on building programs that drive adoption of NVIDIA technology by the HCLS startup community.”
So far, very reasonable.
Yet it turns out that in this role centered on enabling technology for drug developers and healthcare providers, actual experience in drug development or healthcare is apparently not required (other than industry/ecosystem contacts).
In contrast, helpful attributes for candidates to possess include “prior experience with AI, machine learning, or high-performance computing” and “background in venture capital, startup acceleration, or developer advocacy.”
In so many words: “AI is all you need.”
—
Additional recommended AI-related content:
Human Values Project that Zak Kohane is spearheading.
NYT on Eliezer Yudkowsky, AI’s “Prophet of Doom”
“Click Here” podcast episode (“AI’s giant pool of hype”) featuring AI skeptic Gary Marcus
With access to two leaked a16z LP decks, Leslie Feinzaig explains in Fast Company why a16z is “moving upstream,” pursuing bigger and bigger funds (you probably don’t need AI, just a rudimentary understanding of management fee math, to figure out the reason).
Incredibly captivating new “Acquired” podcast episode on Google and AI.
The Timmerman Traverse for Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation had a spectacular experience on Mt. Katahdin in Maine on Saturday.
Weather was glorious. Fall colors were vibrant. The team was fit and mentally ready for rocky, rugged terrain. They got a rich outdoor experience with a steep rock scramble on Cathedral Path, then crossing Katahdin’s famous Knife Edge ridge.
This trip represents an iteration of the Timmerman Traverse. Expect more of this type of outing in 2026. Many are expressing interest in shorter trips closer to home, but that still combine giving and community building. I’m listening.
My vision is to explore trails for the Timmerman Traverse in naturally beautiful places in Washington, Colorado, Wyoming, Maine, New Hampshire, British Columbia and the Eastern Sierras of California.
These trips are about getting out in nature. Doing hard things. Making friends. Supporting good causes.
This work strengthens community.
Please enjoy a few photos from a memorable day on Mt. Katahdin, Oct. 4, 2025.
Want to participate or sponsor in 2026? luke@timmermanreport.com.
Participants on Katahdin 2025:
David Shaywitz
While “nutrition science” often seems to cry out for air quotes around “science,” we are fortunate now to have a new book on the topic written by one of the most thoughtful and deliberate nutrition researchers of the modern age: Kevin Hall.
Hall has consistently steered a course of thoughtful rigor, leading a succession of highly impactful studies at the NIH before departing earlier this year, citing concerns about censorship from the Robert F. Kennedy Jr regime.
Kevin Hall
In September, Hall, together with journalist Julia Belluz, published Food Intelligence, a much-anticipated, highly engaging book reviewing the current state of nutrition science, including Hall’s critical contributions to our current understanding.
Key takeaways include:
“The evidence on optimal nutrition has been clear and consistent over decades; it’s boring by this point: Eat more vegetables, along with fiber, legumes, whole grains, and fruits. Limit sodium, sugar, saturated fat, and junk foods.”
Julia Belluz
The authors are deeply skeptical of platforms offering “cutting-edge” putatively precise approaches to healthy eating, and suggest the term “imprecision nutrition” might be more apt. In particular, they report:
Beyond their robust summary of nutritional science, Hall and Belluz offer recommendations that are mostly focused on broad, structural changes to alter the way we encounter food in our environment.
As Hall explained to me,
“…we did not want to write a book filled with diet advice for individuals… Rather, we wanted to focus on explaining the fascinating world of nutrition & metabolism science, including how food intake is biologically controlled and the influence of our food environment in likely driving the increased prevalence of diet-related chronic disease.”
Their emphasis on the impact of environmental factors that influence health aging reminded me of the work of UK researcher Michael Kelly, in particular the paper “Why Is Changing Health-Related Behavior So Difficult,” as I’ve discussed with TR readers.
A key conclusion Kelly and Baker reach is the importance of deeply understanding the specific context in which behaviors occur; abstract away these pesky details, they write, and you miss critical insights.
When pursuing change – including health-promoting behavior change, such as reducing smoking or improving how we eat — there’s an enduring tension between whether to focus on individuals (bottom up) or on structural obstacles (top down).
While Hall and Beluz acknowledge that there’s some individual responsibility in healthy eating, they predominantly direct their attention to what they see as powerful external dynamics that have rendered resistance to unhealthy deliciousness virtually futile.
A useful discussion of exactly this type of tension can be found in the latest episode of the (always worthwhile) “Excellence, Actually” podcast – in particular the insights offered by co-host Brad Stulberg
Stulberg cites a September “Excellence, Actually” episode featuring sports psychologist George Mumford, who has famously helped athletes such as Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant stay mentally fit and resilient.
George Mumford
On the September podcast, Mumford poignantly described examples of racial discrimination he endured earlier in his career, but to Stulberg’s surprise, Mumford emphasized the importance of focusing on individual agency.
In the latest episode, Stulberg describes what happened when he pressed Mumford on the point:
“And he’s like, damn right there are structural issues, but you got agency and you can’t control the structure. What you can control is your agency. And if you want to sit and complain about the structure, see how that’s working for you. What’s that getting you? And you can’t go fix a broken world if you yourself are broken, if you, yourself aren’t working on self-improvement.”
Stulberg adds that if you “actually look at people who have reason to … complain about structures, they’re the ones that are like, ‘I need agency. Because if I don’t have agency, I got no one there to help me.’”
Brad Stulberg
That said, Stulberg also emphasizes that in deciding whether to focus your energy on changing individuals or structures, it should be “both/and” rather than “either/or”:
“If you want to be a badass performer and a badass person in the world, you need to realize that you have agency and you have responsibility and you need to get your sh-t together and you want to commit to getting better and taking on big goals and striving for them… You also want to make sure that you’re checking in on your neighbors and your community and you don’t want to bury your head in your sand and turn a blind eye to structural problems.”
Hall and Belluz, explicitly inspired by the long, difficult, and ultimately successful effort to depopularize smoking in the United States through top-down changes (Sid Mukherjee’s discussion of this effort in Emperor of All Maladies is a great read on the topic), believe a similar approach will be required to improve our eating.
I would have appreciated a deeper look at what individuals might do, particularly enabled by technology. Such approaches, if widely adopted, can also drive broader change, from the bottom up; the Yuka app, as I’ve highlighted for TR readers, may represent an example of how technology can help drive broader change by integrating the voices of many individuals.
Of course, the same bottom-up approach can also lead to scientifically questionable outcomes, such as the stigmatization of GMOs (to say nothing of essential childhood vaccines).
I appreciate – deeply, viscerally appreciate – the challenges of healthy eating, and the difficulty of resisting temptation in a world where you are constantly surrounded by meticulously engineered, hyperpalatable, calorie-dense highly processed deliciousness.
It’s a constant struggle at so many levels, from the social to the subcellular – a complex challenge Hall and Belluz help us more completely understand.
Please subscribe and tell your friends why it’s worthwhile. Quality journalism costs money. When you subscribe to Timmerman Report at $199 per year, you reward quality independent biotech reporting, and encourage more.
