Breakthrough drugs aren't always driven by novel biological targets. Major successes like Humira or GLP-1s often succeeded through a superior modality (a humanized antibody) or a contrarian bet on a market (obesity). This shows that business and technical execution can be more critical than being the first to discover a biological mechanism.

The relationship between a multi-specific antibody's design and its function is often non-intuitive. LabGenius's ML platform excels by exploring this complex "fitness landscape" without human bias, identifying high-performing molecules that a rational designer would deem too unconventional or "crazy."

The industry's focus on antibodies, which are easy to generate, may be a case of technology dictating the science. Dr. Radvanyi argues that natural ligand-receptor interactions, which often rely on lower affinity and higher avidity, could offer a more nuanced and effective way to modulate immune pathways than high-affinity agonist antibodies.

Contrary to the popular belief that antibody development is a bespoke craft, modern methods enable a reproducible, systematic engineering process. This allows for predictable creation of antibodies with specific properties, such as matching affinity for human and animal targets, a feat once considered a "flight of fancy."

Biotech companies create more value by focusing on de-risking molecules for clinical success, not engineering them from scratch. Specialized platforms can create molecules faster and more reliably, allowing developers to focus their core competency on advancing de-risked assets through the pipeline.

The fundamental purpose of any biotech company is to leverage a novel technology or insight that increases the probability of clinical trial success. This reframes the mission away from just "cool science" to having a core thesis for beating the industry's dismal odds of getting a drug to market.

When seeking partnerships, biotechs should structure their narrative around three core questions pharma asks: What is the modality? How does the mechanism work? And most importantly, why is this the best differentiated approach to solve a specific clinical challenge and fit into the competitive landscape?

Gene therapy companies, which are inherently technology-heavy, risk becoming too focused on their platform. The ultimate stakeholder is the patient, who is indifferent to whether a cure comes from gene editing, a small molecule, or an antibody. The key is solving the disease, not forcing a specific technological solution onto every problem.

All therapeutic discoveries fall into two types. The first is a biological insight, where the challenge is to find a way to drug it. The second is a technical advancement, like a new platform technology, where the challenge is to find the right clinical application for it. This clarifies a startup's core problem.