Based on an article in slate by Tim Harford featuring the concept of Positive Black Swans
Mario Capecchi already as a student at Harvard had a reputation for brilliance and productivity. Despite strong endorsement to do his major work at Harvard, he decided that the Harvard environment demanded results in too much of a hurry. He wanted to do great work, to “change the world”. To do that, he thought, “you had to give yourself space to breathe”. Harvard for him represented predictable steps along well-signposted pathways - "a bastion of short-term gratification". He choose, instead of Harvard, the University of Utah, where a brand-new department was being set up. "He had spotted, in Utah, a Galapagan island on which to develop his ideas”.
In 1980, Mario Capecchi applied for a grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The NIH decided that Capecchi's plans sounded like science fiction. They downgraded his application and strongly advised him to drop the speculative third project. However, they did agree to fund his application on the basis of the other two solid, results-oriented projects. Capecchi took the NIH's money, and, ignoring their admonitions, he poured almost all of it into his risky gene-targeting project. It was a big gamble. If he hadn't been able to show strong enough initial results in the three-to-five-year time scale demanded by the NIH, they would have cut off his funding. Without their seal of approval, he might have found it hard to get funding from elsewhere. His career would have been severely set back, his research assistants looking for other work. His laboratory might not have survived.
In 2007, Mario Capecchi was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for this work on mouse genes. As the NIH's expert panel had earlier admitted, when agreeing to renew his funding: "We are glad you didn't follow our advice." (Capecchi's autobiographical essay is on the Nobel Prize website.)
According to the article about Capecchi - The NIH's expert-led, results-based, rational evaluation of projects is a sensible way to produce a steady stream of high-quality, can't-go-wrong scientific research. But it is exactly the wrong way to fund lottery-ticket projects that offer a small probability of a revolutionary breakthrough. It is a funding system designed to avoid risks — one that puts more emphasis on forestalling failure than achieving success. Such an attitude to funding is understandable in any organization.
AEBi – without knowing it at the time - applied the principles of the Capecchi approach, but with private money, funding a fundamental research\platfrom with a breakthrough potential. Having been rejected by the Israeli Office of the Chief Scientist a few times for follow-up programs for various reasons, AEBi turned to the Israeli private venture market. In a rare combination of circumstances, a group of Israeli and international investors (with strong connections to Israel) were willing to fund AEBi's dream of a breakthrough platform. AEBi faced many challanges during the years: financial, management, science-based, PR-based. Some of the obstacles we faced are shared by other startups: a struggle for funding, investors' impatience, etc.
AEBi experienced additional challanges unique to its field. When discussing our platform with Big Pharma\Venture Funds, we heard:
"We already have a Phage Display platform. Prove to us that yours is functional and we'll talk".
Similarly to what Clayton Christensen had described, on contact with mid-level Pharma management, we were asked to manipulate the platform so that it could fit with current research objectives of Big Pharma as dictated by senior management.
Since it took a long time to develop the platform, most of the people that followed our efforts since the company's inception, changed either companies or positions in companies.
AEBi followed a strict policy of 'no premature PR' and 'no investors who are looking for a quick fix'. While others were getting positive feedback and PR headlines, our investor-base, year after year, during the holidays and special occasions, had to explain to their families that the company is getting there slowly but surely. We completely adopted the Richard Feynman approach: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
Recent comments: What took you so long and what have you done all this time?
"We already have a Phage Display platform. Prove to us that yours is functional and we'll talk".
Similarly to what Clayton Christensen had described, on contact with mid-level Pharma management, we were asked to manipulate the platform so that it could fit with current research objectives of Big Pharma as dictated by senior management.
Since it took a long time to develop the platform, most of the people that followed our efforts since the company's inception, changed either companies or positions in companies.
AEBi followed a strict policy of 'no premature PR' and 'no investors who are looking for a quick fix'. While others were getting positive feedback and PR headlines, our investor-base, year after year, during the holidays and special occasions, had to explain to their families that the company is getting there slowly but surely. We completely adopted the Richard Feynman approach: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
Recent comments: What took you so long and what have you done all this time?
There is no clinical tryout at the moment of MuTaTo in Israel or outside of Israel.
Our team are research scientists (Ph.D.) and are not attending Dr.
We are working now for the 20th year entering our 21th year of R&D effort (in June 2022).
We don’t have a Clinique and we can not advise nor refer to any specific case.
We initially intend to target: lung, colon, head & neck cancers.
The treatment, in any case, has to be individually adapted to the patient.
We are a small team and have an influx of e-mail.
We try to answer at least initial emails but can not promise it.
This website may contain certain statements, estimations, projections, assessments and other information with respect to the anticipated future performance of the Company and/or its market and involve risks and uncertainties. Actual results or future business decisions of the Company may differ materially from any expectations, projections or predictions made or implicated in statements made in this website. While the Company believes that the information contained herein is accurate, it expressly disclaims any and all liability for representations or warranties, expressed or implied, contained in, or for omissions from, this website or any other communication transmitted or made available herein. Any prospective website user acknowledges his/her responsibility to perform a due diligence review prior to consummating a transaction with the Company. Included in this website are certain declarations by the Company with respect to its anticipated future performance. These declarations are based on estimates and assumptions by the Company that are subject to economic and competitive uncertainties beyond the control of the Company. The Company does not provide representation or warranty with regard to the declarations and there can be no assurance that the future results will be realized or that actual results will not be significantly different from those projected. The Company is not obligated to update or revise any future declarations. The Company and its respective affiliates, directors, officers, employees, consultants and representatives expressly disclaim any and all liability relating to or resulting from the utilization of any information contented in this website. The Company does not have any obligation to provide with access to additional information.