Unlike most biotechs that start with researchers, CRISPR prioritized hiring manufacturing and process development experts early. This 'backwards' approach was crucial for solving the challenge of scaling cell editing from lab to GMP, which they identified as a primary risk.
CRISPR reframes its commercial strategy away from traditional drug launches. By viewing gene editing as a 'molecular surgery,' the company adopts a go-to-market approach similar to medical devices, focusing on paradigm shifts in hospital procedures and physician training.
A CEO's primary role differs fundamentally based on company type. In an asset-centric biotech, the CEO must act as a hands-on program manager, micromanaging execution. In a platform company, the CEO must be deeply embedded in the science to predict and leverage the technology's long-term trajectory.
Astute biotech leaders leverage the tension between public financing and strategic pharma partnerships. When public markets are down, pursue pharma deals as a better source of capital. Conversely, use the threat of a public offering to negotiate more favorable terms in pharma deals, treating them as interchangeable capital sources.
A sophisticated capital strategy involves mapping out major industry milestones, like a competitor's Phase 3 data release. By timing your company's human proof-of-concept (POC) data to land just before that event, you can capitalize on peak market attention and position your asset favorably.
CRISPR's CEO suggests a specific financial rule: never spend more than 11% of market cap in one year. Spending above 14-15% risks a 'dilution spiral,' while spending only 6-7% means you aren't taking enough aggressive risks. This provides a clear guardrail for R&D investment.