TRANSCRIPT
Welcome To The Chain
Announcement
Welcome
to
The
Chain,
the
podcast
exploring
the
lives,
careers,
research,
and
discoveries
of
protein
engineers,
scientists,
and
biotech
professionals.
We
look
at
the
impact
their
work
is
having
on
the
field
and
where
the
industry
is
headed.
Tune
in
to
stay
up
to
date
on
the
newest
advancements
and
to
hear
the
stories
that
are
impacting
the
world
of
biologics.
Paul Carter
Well,
welcome
everybody.
I'm
Paul
Carter.
I
currently
serve
as
a
Genentech
Fellow
at
Genentech.
I've
been
blessed
with
numerous
opportunities
in
antibody
engineering
and
antibody
therapeutics
since
1990.
Today
I
have
the
immense
honor
and
pleasure
of
being
in
conversation
with
Dr.
Janice
Reichert.
So,
as
many
of
you
know,
Janice
is
an
internationally
recognized
expert
in
the
development
of
antibody
therapeutics.
She's
also
founder
and
editor-in-chief
of
mAbs.
This
is
a
thriving
peer-reviewed
journal
that
focuses
on
topics
relevant
to
antibody
research
and
development.
Janice
is
also
founder
and
managing
director
of
Reichert
Biotechnology
Consulting,
a
pharmaceutical
business
intelligence
research
firm.
From
2010
to
early
2025,
Janice
also
served
in
various
roles
at
the
Antibody
Society.
So
the
Antibody
Society,
or
chaps,
as
I
will
call
it,
is
a
nonprofit
association
representing
individuals
and
organizations
that
engage
in
antibody
research
and
development.
Paul Carter
So
Dr.
Reichert
writes
frequently
on
development
trends
for
antibody
therapeutics,
including
the
very
popular
annual
antibodies
to
watch
articles
published
in
mAbs.
Dr.
Reichert
has
presented
her
research
results
as
an
invited
speaker
at
many
conferences
held
worldwide.
So,
on
a
personal
note,
I've
had
the
wonderful
experience
of
knowing
Janice
for
about
two
decades,
including
several
years,
when
I
had
the
privilege
of
working
closely
with
her
on
the
board
of
directors
of
the
Antibody
Society.
I've
also
worked
closely
with
Janice
as
an
author
and
as
a
reviewer
for
mAbs.
Personally,
I'm
really
inspired
by
Janice's
dedication,
commitment
to
excellence,
and
scholarship
in
building
mAbs
into
the
fine
generalities
today.
So
Why mAbs Was Created
Paul Carter
let's
begin
our
conversation
with
the
origin
of
mAbs.
So,
Janice,
please
could
you
tell
us
the
backstory
of
how
you
started
mAbs?
I'm
curious.
And
I
believe
that
this
topic
will
be
of
high
interest
to
our
listeners
too.
Janice Reichert
Sure.
And
thanks
very
much
for
that
very
kind
introduction.
On
a
basic
level,
I
created
mAbs
because
the
opportunity
presented
itself.
Ron
Landis,
who
was
the
founder
and
the
publisher
of
the
publisher
at
Landis
Bioscience,
contacted
me
in
late
2007
and
asked
me
if
I'd
be
interested
in
starting
a
journal
about
either
monoclonal
antibodies
or
biosimilars.
I
really
would
never
have
thought
of
doing
such
a
thing
myself,
but
I
thought,
hmm,
eh,
how
hard
can
it
be?
How
hard
can
it
be?
And
I
said,
yes.
I
believe
I
chose
wisely
by
selecting
monoclonal
antibodies
as
the
topic.
Landis
Bioscience
was
later
bought
by
Taylor
and
Francis,
and
Taylor
and
Francis
is
the
current
publisher
of
mAbs.
The
literal
creation
of
the
journal
occurred
in
2008.
Pre-launch
activities
like
deciding
on
the
mission
and
scope,
establishing
the
editorial
board,
finding
assistant
editors,
issuing
a
call
for
manuscripts,
and
selecting
those
papers
for
publication
all
had
to
be
done
prior
to
January
2009
when
the
first
issue
of
mAbs
was
published.
Paul Carter
I
think
I'm
personally
grateful,
and
I
think
that
the
Fiord
is
enormously
grateful
and
has
has
benefited
so
much
for
from
your
decisions
at
that
time.
So
looking
back,
why
why
do
you
think
that
Ron
Lendez
chose
you
to
lead
mAbs?
Janice Reichert
Well,
Ron,
I
have
to
say,
was
quite
insightful
in
his
selection
of
editors
in
chief
for
mAbs.
He
very
specifically
wanted
someone
who
had
a
global
overview
of
the
area,
but
was
not
based
at
a
company.
I
came
to
his
attention
because
I'd
already
had
about
10
years
of
experience
in
researching
trends
in
the
commercial
development
of
biopharmaceuticals
and
in
particular
antibody
therapeutics.
I
was
working
at
Tufts
University
at
the
time
as
a
neutral
third-party
researcher,
collecting
and
analyzing
data
about
the
process
of
drug
development.
So
my
research
results
were
published
during
the
2000s
in
journals
such
as
Nature
Biotechnology
and
Nature
Reviews
Drug
Discovery.
And
as
a
consequence,
I
was
invited
to
give
presentations
at
numerous
conferences.
By
2008,
I
had
developed
a
reasonably
considerable
network
of
people
involved
in
antibody
therapeutics
development.
Overall,
the
biopharmaceutical
industry
did
seem
quite
happy
with
my
work,
as
the
publications
were
from
an
academic
institution
considered
reputable
and
authoritative.
The
benchmarking
data
was
useful
as
external
validation,
and
the
trends
I
reported
for
antibody
therapeutics
were
mostly
positive.
So
my
experience,
expertise,
and
reputation
around
2008
was
what
prompted
Ron
to
ask
me
to
start
mAbs.
And
I'm
very
glad
that
I
accepted
that
challenge.
Paul Carter
Me
too,
Janice.
So
kind
of
looking
back
on
that
time,
of
course,
there
were
a
number
of
pioneering
individuals
and
organizations
that
created
and
refined
some
of
the
foundational
antibody
technologies
in
the
1980s
and
1990s.
So
looking
back
on
innovation
at
the
time,
we
had
chimerization,
humanization,
and
the
emergence
of
robust
routes
to
follow
human
antibodies,
including
the
use
of
transgenic
mice
and
phage
and
ribosome
display
technologies.
However,
it's
also
true
that
at
the
beginning
of
this
millennium
was
still
early
days
with
respect
to
the
clinical
pipeline
with
antibodies.
So,
Janice,
what
trends
were
evidenced
in
your
data
from
that
time?
Early Approval Trends For Antibodies
Janice Reichert
Well,
all
of
what
you
just
said
is
absolutely
true.
But
one
key
trend
that
I
was
able
to
pick
out
of
the
data
was
the
greater
approval
success
rate
for
humanized
antibody
therapeutics
compared
to
marine
or
chimeric
antibodies.
So
that
may
seem
super
obvious
right
now,
but
at
the
time
it
was
an
eye-opener
when
I
reported
that
in
2001.
More
importantly,
the
rate
I
reported
was
substantially
higher
than
previously
reported
approval
success
rates
for
small
molecule
drugs.
This
result,
again,
coming
from
an
academic
group
well
known
for
reporting
drug
development
metrics,
was
exactly
the
kind
of
external
validation
needed
at
the
time
to
justify
investments
in
relevant
technologies
and
development
programs.
As
you
mentioned,
Paul,
it
really
was
early
days
for
the
industry.
As
of
the
time
when
the
paper
was
written,
exactly
five
humanized
antibodies
had
been
granted
an
approval.
The
data
for
human
antibodies
was
even
more
limited.
As
of
2001,
antibody
therapeutics
development
was
still
struggling
a
bit
to
be
taken
seriously.
I
have
to
say,
looking
back
at
my
documentation
of
the
landscape
at
that
time
now
is
a
bit
amusing.
As
reported
in
the
paper,
the
annual
number
of
antibodies
entering
clinical
study
did
not
exceed
17
during
the
years
1980
to
200.
In
2000,
the
number
was
11.
For
comparison,
in
the
past
few
years,
the
annual
number
of
antibodies
entering
clinical
studies
has
been
in
the
range
of,
I'd
say,
about
275
to
325.
Nostalgic
listeners
can
find
my
results
published
in
Nature
Biotechnology
in
September
2001.
Paul Carter
My
goodness,
that's
quite
a
change
over
the
years.
I'm
curious,
right,
kind
of
looking
back
to
those
early
days,
what
trends
were
you
seeing
in
the
different
types
of
antibodies
being
approved?
Janice Reichert
Well,
but
probably
now
a
lot
of
this
is
kind
of
self-evident,
but
that's
looking
back
in
time.
In
the
2000s,
other
key
trends
showing
up
in
my
data
was
certainly
the
gradually
increasing
numbers
of
antibody
drug
conjugates
and
bi-specifics,
as
well
as
those
just
human
and
humanized
antibodies
of
any
format
that
were
entering
clinical
studies
and
importantly
progressing,
progressing
to
regulatory
review
and
approval.
My
job
at
the
time,
collecting
and
analyzing
all
of
this
kind
of
data,
set
the
stage
perfectly
for
the
first
antibodies
to
watch
article
in
2010.
Paul Carter
And
so
that
kind
of
begs
the
question:
how
how
did
you
decide
to
start
the
antibody
to
watch
article
series?
And
another
question
is
did
you
have
any
inkling
at
that
time
of
the
the
year
the
explosive
growth
in
the
antibody
theater
over
the
subsequent
15
years
or
so?
Antibodies To Watch Origin Story
Janice Reichert
The
first
article,
Antibodies
to
Watch
in
2010,
very
nicely
solved
a
problem
that
cropped
up
towards
the
end
of
MAB's
first
year
of
publication
in
2009.
As
it
turned
out,
unbeknownst
to
me
when
I
took
the
job,
Iran
was
offering.
A
key
hurdle
for
a
new
journal
is
the
initial
lack
of
indexing.
At
the
time,
journals
could
be
indexed
in
PubMed
only
after
a
committee
met
in
person
and
reviewed
four
print
issues.
And
this
committee
only
met
a
couple
of
times
per
year.
By
October
2009,
we
had
passed
that
challenge.
We
had
been
approved
for
indexing,
but
the
process
is
slow,
and
it
would
take
several
months
for
published
articles
to
begin
to
appear
in
PubMed.
Because
of
this,
my
author
Pool
is
getting
a
little
bit
skittish.
Everybody
wants
their
articles
indexed
in
PubMed.
That's
understandable.
And
the
deadline
for
submissions
for
the
January-February
2010
issue
was
fast
approaching.
Janice Reichert
So
around
that
time,
I
was
getting
mighty
nervous.
Necessity
being
the
mother
of
invention,
I
then
had
the,
of
course,
absolutely
brilliant
idea
of
writing
a
paper
myself
about
the
late-stage
pipeline,
antibody
therapeutics
in
review,
and
those
recently
approved.
Everyone
by
now
will
recognize
that
as
core
antibodies
to
watch
content.
And
I
already
had
all
of
the
relevant
data,
so
it
was
easy
peasy.
Antibodies
to
Watch,
I
don't
know,
it
just
popped
into
my
head.
It
seemed
like
a
catchy
title.
And
the
rest
is
history.
Now,
to
answer
your
second
question,
I
of
course
had
no
idea
how
much
the
field
of
antibody
research
and
development
would
grow
and
expand
over
the
next
15
years.
Antibodies
to
Watch
in
2010
documented
26
antibody
therapeutics
in
late-stage
clinical
studies
at
the
time.
Antibodies
to
Watch
in
2027
is
likely
to
include
approximately
250
late-stage
molecules,
so
nearly
10
times
the
number
that
I
counted
in
2010.
Janice Reichert
The
article
series
does
capture
an
annual
snapshot
of
the
most
advanced
stage
of
the
molecules.
So
that
growth
in
the
late-stage
pipeline
occurred
regardless
of
the
many
transitions
to
regulatory
review
or
determinations
that
may
have
happened
because
molecules
that
undergo
such
transitions
are
excluded
from
the
late-stage
count.
So,
Paul,
I've
been
talking
a
bit
here
about
antibody
therapeutics
development
from
my
perspective
as
a
third-party
observer
of
the
process,
working
in
the
academic,
nonprofit,
and
consulting
sectors
over
the
past
25
years.
You,
however,
have
extensive
experience
in
industry.
So
I'd
love
to
hear
your
perspective
on
key
advances
in
the
fields.
Which
do
you
think
were
truly
transformative?
Transformative Breakthroughs And Manufacturing
Paul Carter
So,
Janice,
thank
you
for
this
excellent
question.
So,
my
esteemed
Genentech
colleagues,
Andy
Chan,
Greg
Mond,
Greg
Martin,
and
I
pondered
this
topic
in
writing
an
article
for
Nature
Reviews
Immunology
in
2025.
So,
our
main
writing
goal
was
to
celebrate
the
50th
anniversary
of
the
invention
of
monoclonal
antibodies
by
Keller
and
Millstein
by
providing
a
historical
perspective
on
the
evolution
of
the
field.
Writing
this
review
brought
home
to
me
the
large
number
and
complexity
of
problems
spanning
different
disciplines
that
we'd
sold
as
a
field
to
develop
antibodies
as
therapeutics.
So
let
me
try
to
give
you
a
flavor
for
this.
Of
course,
a
lot
of
basic
research
had
to
happen
into
understanding
the
pathobiology
of
disease,
target
identification,
coming
up
with
therapeutic
hypotheses
to
intervene
with
antibodies.
Paul Carter
No,
the
next
step
was
sort
of
antibody
generation,
then
preclinical
and
clinical
testing
for
safety
and
efficacy.
Of
course,
we
quickly
found
out,
as
a
field,
the
kind
of
limitations
of
mouse
antibodies
as
therapeutics,
and
that
spawned
a
lot
of
innovation
with
chimeric
humanized
and
human
antibodies
to
address
these
challenges.
I
think
one
thing
in
writing
this
review,
you
kind
of
realized
what
was
sort
of
a
non-sung
area
of
innovation
with
antibody
therapeutics
was
biof
manufacturing
of
pharmaceutical
grade
antibodies
on
a
kilogram
to
ton
scale.
So
now
we're
gonna
back
and
start
asking
all
the
questions.
Hey,
I
thought
I
was
the
interview,
but
there
you
go.
Um
let
me
pronounce
this
section
with
with
a
comment.
And
so
we're
kind
of
looking
at
the
field,
we
have
over
200
antibodies
that
have
been
approved
worldwide.
And
as
a
field,
we've
gained
an
enormous
amount
of
knowledge
on
how
to
design
antibodies,
how
to
develop
them
as
therapeutics,
including
selection
of
targets,
different
mechanisms
of
action,
better
understanding
developability.
Paul Carter
So
think
that
this
would
help
and
we
would
our
success
rate
would
go
up.
But
there,
on
the
other
hand,
we're
constantly
pushing
the
envelopers
afield
with
merging
biology,
new
technologies,
bi-specific,
tri-specifics,
multi-specifics,
conditional
activity,
and
you
think
we
would
actually
make
the
success
rate
go
down.
So
you're
kind
of
in
a
in
a
unique
position
of
having
tracked
this
metrics
meticulously
for
decades.
So
I'd
love
to
hear
from
you
what
you're
seeing
with
success
rates
with
antibody
therapeutics
and
how
how
these
have
changed
or
not
over
time.
What Success Rates Really Show
Janice Reichert
Well,
still,
very
importantly,
relative
to
small
molecules,
antibody
therapeutics
are
more
likely
to
survive
that
gauntlet
of
clinical
trials.
Since
my
initial
report
about
approval
success
rates
in
2001,
I
have
returned
to
this
topic
multiple
times.
The
most
recent
analyses
were
published
in
Antibodies
to
Watch
in
2019,
the
2024
version,
as
well
as
the
2025
versions.
The
most
recent
analyses
were
published
in
Antibodies
to
Watch
in
2019,
2024,
and
2025.
The
results
do
depend
a
lot
on
the
stratification
of
variables,
such
as
the
period
of
clinical
entry,
therapeutic
area,
as
well
as
format.
Overall,
the
rates
have
been
reasonably
consistent
over
time,
with
antibodies
for
non-cancer
indications
having
higher
success
rates
compared
to
those
for
cancer,
and
naked
and
by
specific
antibodies
having
higher
success
rates
compared
to
antibody
drug
conjugates.
It
is
a
complicated
topic,
so
I
direct
interested
listeners
to
the
antibodies
to
watch
papers
for
specifics.
Paul Carter
Thank
you,
Janice.
So
let
me
ask
you
another
series
of
questions
related
to
trends.
I'm curious
from
your
unique
vantage
points
of
editor-in-chief
of
mAbs,
what
really
excites
you
today
in
terms
of
trends
with
antibody
therapeutics?
Janice Reichert
I'm
very
Complex Formats Raising The Bar
Janice Reichert
excited
about
the
current
trend
toward
radically
enhancing
the
functionality
of
the
molecules,
particularly
by
mixing
and
matching
formats.
There
are
many
examples
of
this
in
the
ADC
space,
including
the
bispecific
ADCs,
dual
payload
ADCs,
and
dual
payload
bispecific
ADCs.
Unconventional
ADCs
are
also
an
exciting
development.
These
are
antibodies
conjugated
to
something
other
than
a
small
molecule
toxin.
In
particular,
conjugating
and
oligonucleotides
such
as
SIRNA
has
a
lot
of
potential
to
expand
the
functionality
of
antibodies.
An
antibody
oligoconjugate
recently
entered
clinical
review,
and
several
are
in
late-stage
studies.
Paul Carter
So
clearly
there's
a
lot
of
innovation
with
ADCs,
including
different
payloads
and
formats.
You
know,
beyond
this,
I'm
wondering
what
else
kind
of
excites
you
and
trends
that
you're
seeing
with
antibody
therapeutics
perhaps
in
the
different
formatting
area.
Janice Reichert
Yeah,
beyond
the
ADCs,
there's
also
a
lot
of
diversity
in
the
multi-specific
antibody
space.
Nearly
50
trispecific
antibodies
are
in
clinical
development,
along
with
several
tetraspecifics.
Another
way
to
enhance
functionality
is
to
design
molecules
so
they're
selectively
activated
in
the
tumor
microenvironment.
Several
such
conditionally
active
bispecifics
are
in
clinical
studies.
I
don't
know
of
any
conditionally
active
multi-specifics
in
the
clinic
yet,
but
some
are
in
preclinical
developments.
One
caveat
I
want
to
point
out,
though,
is
that
no
matter
how
clever
the
design,
the
molecules
must
be
developable,
manufacturable
at
a
suitable
scale,
and
of
course
they
must
be
safe
and
effective
in
patients.
These
are
substantial
challenges
for
the
complex
formats.
Progress
is
being
made,
though,
and
I
look
forward
to
including
more
of
these
types
of
molecules
in
future
installments
of
antibodies
to
watch.
Letting
me
turn
the
tables
again
here,
Paul.
Do
you
have
favorites
among
the
complex
formats?
And
of
course,
what
do
you
think
are
their
greatest
benefits?
Paul Carter
Well,
thank
you
for
the
question.
And
certainly
this
is
a
topic
gross
to
my
heart,
having
worked
in
the
biospecific
field
for
you
know
many
years.
And
you
know,
in
in
reviewing
the
approved
biospecifics,
or
now
over
20
that
are
approved,
and
they
represent
a
handful
of
different
formats.
And
of
course,
there
are
many,
many
more
which
are
have
been
developed
frequently.
Fragments,
biospecific
IgGs,
different
different
valency.
Truly,
I
think
one
of
the
strengths
of
this
field
is
having
multiple
different
formats
and
and
the
ability
to
customize
the
design
for
the
particular
clinical
application.
So
it's
not
a
case
that
one
site,
one
kind
of
format
of
bi-specific
is
always
going
to
work
best.
And
I
and
I
think
you
know,
in
an
ideal
situation,
well,
one
will
both
include
design
and
empirical
testing
of
different
formats
pre-clinically
to
figure
out
what
works
best.
So
with
that,
let's
transition
to
another
topic.
And
again,
it's
a
trend
that
I
I
became
more
aware
of
in
working
on
the
the
the
nature
of
use
immunology
article.
China’s Rapid Rise In Antibodies
Paul Carter
And
specifically,
I'd
noticed
in
recent
years
the
growing
number
of
first
approvals
of
antibody
therapeutics
outside
of
the
USA
and
Europe,
particularly
in
China.
So,
Janice,
I'm
wondering
what
are
your
thoughts
on
how
China
has
emerged
as
a
major
player
in
developing
antibody
therapeutics?
Janice Reichert
I
have
to
say,
the
rise
of
China's
biopharmaceutical
sector
in
the
past
decade
is
an
absolutely
fascinating
topic.
For
perspective,
the
current
global
commercial
clinical
pipeline
includes
at
least
1,700
antibody
therapeutics.
Of
these,
around
700
or
about
40%
of
them,
they
come
from
or
they
originated
at
firms
headquartered
in
China.
Of
the
remaining
60%,
half
are
from
US-based
companies
and
half
are
from
companies
based
in
other
countries.
China
began
focusing
on
growth
in
the
biotech
sector,
starting
with
a
five-year
plan
that
covered
2016
to
2020,
and
it
has
continued
to
do
so
in
the
subsequent
plans
covering
2021
through
2030.
Broadly
speaking,
they
achieved
this
growth
by
increasing
RD
investment,
improving
manufacturing,
and
increasing
the
efficiency
of
both
clinical
trials
and
the
processes
of
China's
regulatory
agency,
the
NMPA.
As
just
a
small
example
of
what
a
difference
this
can
make.
In
the
2010s,
it
was
not
unusual
for
NMPA
to
take
several
years
to
approve
an
IND,
which
is
of
course
needed
to
get
your
clinical
studies
started.
And
that
delay
severely
hampered
developments.
Now,
NMPA
approves
INDs
within
several
months.
I
do
have
to
point
out
that
Chinese
companies
did
tend
to
focus
on
development
of
fast
followers
during
the
2016
to
2020
period.
The
first
mention
of
China
origin
antibodies
and
antibodies
to
watch
seemed
to
be
in
2018.
That
paper
included
the
anti-PD1
antibodies
Camrolysimab
and
Cintelimab
in
the
late-stage
pipeline.
PD1,
at
that
time,
of
course,
was
already
a
well-validated
target.
But
here
we
are,
some
five
years
later,
and
Chinese
companies
have
become
highly
adept
at
creating
the
complex
formats
that
Paul
and
I
were
just
discussing.
Sylvia
Criscioli
and
I
published
a
brief
report
on
this
topic
in
Nature
Review's
drug
discovery.
In
that
paper,
we
note
that
over
half
of
the
complex
format
antibodies
in
clinical
studies
were
created
by
Chinese
companies.
Paul Carter
Thank
you,
Janice,
for
that
overview
of
our
fascinating
overview
of
activity
in
China.
Antibody Society And A Field Shock
Paul Carter
Now
we'll
switch
gears
a
bit
and
talk
about
scientific
collaboration
and
community.
As
I
mentioned
earlier
in
this
podcast,
Janice
and
I
served
together
on
the
board
of
directors
of
the
Antibody
Society,
which
plays
a
critical
role
in
bridging
academia,
industry,
and
regulatory
bodies.
Janice,
you
joined
the
board
much
earlier
than
me.
What
prompted
you
to
get
involved?
Janice Reichert
To
understand
that,
I
have
to
tell
you
about
Jim
Houston,
who
founded
the
Antibody
Society.
Jim
was
an
is
undoubtedly
well
known
to
our
listeners
as
a
pioneer
in
antibody
engineering
and
the
driving
force
behind
the
creation
of
single-chain
variable
fragments
in
the
late
1980s.
As
a
person,
he
was
a
natural
at
communication
and
collaboration.
He
just
loved
to
get
people
together,
to
talk
and
exchange
ideas.
He
was
also
a
genuinely
warm
and
generous
person,
and
he
was
relentlessly
optimistic.
Everyone
liked
Jim,
and
everyone
said
yes
if
he
asked
them
to
do
something.
As
part
of
his
quest
to
foster
collaboration,
Jim
started
an
annual
antibody
engineering
meeting
in
the
early
1990s.
Fast
forward
to
March
2006,
Jim
and
the
entire
antibody
therapeutics
field
was
absolutely
shocked
by
the
Tegenero
incident,
in
which
six
people
were
nearly
killed
when
they
were
dosed
with
an
antibody
during
a
first
inhuman
study
in
Europe.
This
happened
because
the
antibody
triggered
a
severe
cytokine
storm.
This
result,
though,
surprised
everyone
because
it
was
seemingly
unpredictable,
and
so
it
introduced
a
great
deal
of
uncertainty
regarding
all
antibody
therapeutics
development
at
the
time.
Paul Carter
Yeah,
going
back
to
2006,
I
could
remember
hearing
about
the
Tijonero
incident,
and
I
could
tell
you
exactly
where
it
was
on
a
particular
freeway
at
the
time.
It
was
just
so
shocking.
I'm
just
wondering
how
how
that
very
unfortunate
Tijonero
incident
influenced
the
founding
of
the
Antibody
Society.
Announcement
Are
you
enjoying
the
conversation?
We'd
love
to
hear
from
you.
Please
subscribe
to
the
podcast
and
give
us
a
rating.
It
helps
other
people
find
and
join
the
conversation.
If
you've
got
speaker
or
topic
ideas,
we'd
love
to
hear
those
too.
You
can
send
them
in
a
podcast
review.
Janice Reichert
After
that
rather
devastating
blow
to
the
field,
Jim
had
the
idea
of
starting
a
nonprofit
that
would
focus
on
the
concerns
of
companies
that
engaged
in
antibody
research
and
development.
Similar
to
bio,
but
focused
exclusively
on
antibodies.
The
board
of
directors
was
composed
of
Jim
and
fellow
session
chairs
of
the
antibody
engineering
meeting.
The
Antibody
Society
was
formally
designated
a
nonprofit
in
2007.
As
I
mentioned,
I
was
casting
about
for
editorial
board
members
for
mAbs
in
2008,
and
I
coincidentally
contacted
nearly
all
the
society's
board
members
about
this.
Of
course,
they
were
all
well-known
scientists
active
in
antibody
therapeutics.
Through
these
connections,
I
was
asked
to
join
the
board
and
did
so
in
2010.
And
I
think
anyone
asked
would
be
honored
to
join
such
a
prestigious
group
of
scientists.
I
know
I
Naming Controversy And Science Diplomacy
Janice Reichert
was.
Now,
one
of
the
key
achievements
of
the
society
was
the
diplomatic
managing
of
the
INN
controversy
that
resulted
from
changes
WHO
made
in
the
early
2010s.
Paul,
as
it
turns
out,
you
were
actually
involved
in
that
effort.
What
was
your
experience
with
respect
to
the
unique
role
the
society
played?
Paul Carter
Well,
thank
you
for
the
question.
And
maybe
I
should
comment
briefly
on
the
sub
the
INN
controversy.
And
that
was
at
that
time,
you
know,
the
WHO
changed
their
INN
sort
of
naming
system.
And
that
caught
many
of
us
in
the
field,
certainly
me,
kind
of
flat-footed
and
trying
to
understand
what
these
naming
changes
were.
And
they
were
they
were
confusing
to
many
of
us,
even
those
of
us
who
thought
we
actually
knew
quite
a
bit
about
antibodies.
And
so
we're
there
as
a
as
a
backdrop.
I
think
Tabs
was
uniquely
well
positioned
to
tackle
this
challenge.
And
so
as
a
as
a
nonprofit
science-driven
organization,
it
was
arguably
in
a
much
stronger
police
position
to
dialogue
with
the
WHO
on
INN
than
any
individual
company
or
or
any
individual
academic
institution.
So
I
think
that's
something
which
I've
sort
of
you
know
proud
of
what
we
did
as
a
with
the
the
antibodies
society
and
working
together
with
with
different
companies
and
and
leading
academic
investigators.
And
I
think
we
we
did
engage
the
WHO
on
this
important
topic
in
in
a
very
credible
way,
because
I
think
we'd
sort
of
come
together
and
say,
here
are
our
concerns
and
here
are
ways
that
we
can
potentially
provide
our
input
and
resolve
this.
So
I
think
that
was
definitely
an
important
accomplishment
for
the
antibody
society.
Peer Review Under Preprints And AI
Paul Carter
So
now
I'd
like
to
kind
of
continue
on
the
theme
of
of
the
scientific
collaboration
and
community,
but
but
kind
of
change
the
emphasis
a
little
bit
and
and
talk
about
you
know
publishing
peer-reviewed
science
and
and
you
know
the
current
scrutiny
and
and
evolution,
particularly
under
the
pressure
of
the
preprint
culture
and
AI,
including
AI
generated
um
papers.
So,
Janice,
how
how
do
you
keep
a
prestigious
journal
like
mAbs
adaptable,
you
know,
while
while
maintaining
scientific
integrity
in
this
you
know
new
era
of
AI?
Janice Reichert
Well,
I
do
have
to
say
it
is
a
challenge
to
find
the
right
balance.
Authors,
and
quite
frankly,
the
publisher,
want
a
speedy
review
process.
After
all,
as
you
mentioned,
authors
can
and
do
just
post
their
manuscripts
to
Bioarchive
or
some
other
preprint
server
for
anyone
to
read.
I
do
believe
strongly,
though,
that
scrutiny
by
editors
and
peer
reviewers
with
suitable
expertise
in
the
topic
can
substantially
improve
the
quality
as
well
as
the
presentation
of
the
work,
and
it
adds
a
lot
of
value.
At
mAbs,
manuscripts
typically
undergo
five
rounds
of
evaluation.
First,
I
do
initial
check
for
relevance
and
perceived
impact
on
the
field.
If
I
think
the
manuscript
has
potential,
it
goes
to
an
assistant
editor
with
expertise
in
the
specific
content,
and
they
will
assess
it
for
novelty,
interest,
scientific
merit,
as
well
as
clarity.
If
the
AE
thinks
the
manuscript
has
potential,
then
reviewers
are
invited
to
further
scrutinize
the
work
and
offer
input.
If
the
reviewers
have
a
generally
positive
view
at
the
end
of
this
third
round,
authors
then
revise
the
work
to
meet
the
expectations
of
the
AE
and
the
reviewers.
And
in
the
fourth
round,
the
AE
and
the
reviewers
evaluate
the
revised
work
and
hopefully
at
that
point
recommend
acceptance.
However,
my
authors
are
still
not
out
of
the
woods.
We
also
have
a
fifth
round
of
evaluation,
and
it
is
intended
to
give
authors
a
chance
to
polish
the
language,
incorporate
fine
details,
and
meet
my
expectation
of
high-quality
presentation
of
the
work.
The
final
round
typically
catches
errors
and
small
irregularities
that
reviewers
may
have
missed.
I
cannot
say
for
sure,
but
I
do
not
think
that
many,
if
any,
journals
without
full-time
paid
staff
provide
this
service.
I
believe
error
combination
of
expert
evaluation
and
attention
to
detail
is
what
attracts
our
authors
and
readers
and
ensures
publication
of
high-quality
work.
Paul Carter
So
I'm
going
to
ask
you
a
follow-up
question.
Before
I
do
that,
I
feel
sort
of
compelled
just
to
say
how
much
I
personally
have
benefited
from
their,
you
know,
just
your
kind
of
scholarship
and
excellence
with
mAbs
with
the
peer
review.
I
think
every
paper
that
we've
submitted
to
mAbs
has
has
been
substantially
stronger
when
ultimately
published,
both
by
insightful
comments
from
peer
reviewers
and
also
your
own
comments.
So
you
know,
thank
you.
And
on
behalf
of
the
community,
we
we've
we've
undoubtedly
benefited
greatly.
And
so
let's
can
sort
of
continue
on
the
you
know
the
AI
theme.
And
I'm
probably
gonna
mix
metaphors
here.
A
AI
is
is
probably
the
and/or
that's
out
of
the
box.
You
know,
at
the
same
time,
there
there
are
clearly
some
benefits
and
and
risks
for
from
AI
in
writing
manuscripts
in
review
in
reviewing
manuscripts.
And
I
know
this
is
very
much
a
work
in
progress,
but
maybe
you
could
from
your
unique
vantage
point
of
editor-in-chief
of
mAbs,
if
you
could
share
some
thoughts
on
what
you
think
are
ways
to
mitigate
risks
and
and
to
benefit
from
from
the
from
the
what
one
can
do
with
with
the
AI.
Janice Reichert
Well,
consulting
AI
in
its
that
in
itself
is
okay.
But
AI
generated
papers
are
another
matter.
So
it
is
this
matter
of
degree,
since
many
authors
do
commonly
consult
chatbots.
Their
use
for
refining
language
needs
to
be
divulged.
That
actually
is
part
of
the
process
now
is
to
divulge
how
much
you've
used
AI.
But
there's
nothing
inherently
wrong
with
it.
In
my
opinion,
though,
authors
definitely
cannot
rely
on
AI,
at
least
at
this
point,
to
do
research
and
writing.
The
issues
are
most
apparent
in
review
manuscripts.
We
see
this.
AI-generated
reviews
contain
a
lot
of
compiled
data,
but
is
not
necessarily
comprehensive,
and
these
types
of
reviews
likely
do
not
contain
useful
analysis
or
insights
that
would
come
from
an
expert.
Our
multiple
rounds
of
evaluations,
which
I
just
mentioned,
will
catch
this
type
of
poor
quality
review,
and
they're
rejected,
of
course.
But
we
do
have
to
take
the
time
to
do
that,
and
I'd
rather
spend
my
time
on
high-quality
papers.
Paul Carter
Great.
Thank
you,
Janice.
Next Decade Drivers And Career Advice
Paul Carter
So,
Janice,
what
do
you
think
will
drive
the
biggest
changes
in
the
industry
in
the
next
decade?
Janice Reichert
Well,
I
point
to
three
situations
to
watch.
The
first
is
clinical
outcomes
for
the
complex
formats
that
we
discussed.
Most
of
them
are
unproven,
and
shifts
in
direction
by
companies
should
be
expected
as
both
positive
and
negative
clinical
data
are
released.
The
second
is
the
nature
of
the
interactions
between
China-based
and
Western
companies
and
their
respective
governments.
I'm
sure
our
listeners
will
have
heard
about
BMS
and
Pfizer's
recent
licensing
deals
with
Chinese
companies,
which
collectively
are
worth
up
to
about
25
billion
USD
in
total.
Viewed
in
a
positive
light,
these
collaborations
may
be
highly
beneficial
and
serve
to
bring
new,
safe,
and
effective
medicines
to
patients
as
quickly
and
efficiently
as
possible.
That
is
the
objective.
In
that
case,
the
practice
should
be
encouraged.
However,
in
the
U.S.,
concerns
have
been
raised
about
China's
state
support
and
pricing
practices
in
the
biotech
sector.
The
concerns,
of
course,
are
due
to
the
growing
realization
that
the
US
and
Europe
are
falling
behind
China
in
the
biopharmaceutical
sector,
particularly
with
respect
to
productivity.
Cost
is
lower,
speed
is
higher
in
China,
drug
discovery
work
is
high
quality,
and
Chinese
companies
are
ambitious
and
clearly
competent.
In
the
U.S.,
if
technologies
associated
with
biopharmaceutical
development
are
designated
as
strategic,
the
government
could
institute
policy
interventions
that
could
drive
substantial
changes
in
the
industry.
The
third
situation
involves
AI,
which
may
turn
out
to
be
the
West
solution
to
competition
with
China.
Every
aspect
of
drug
discovery
and
development
can
be
changed
by
it,
including
research,
manufacturing,
and
clinical
trials.
So
improving
productivity
through
application
of
AI
is
definitely
possible.
Paul Carter
Thank
you,
Janice.
As
we
move
into
this
brave
new
world,
what
advice
would
you
give
to
a
young
scientist
or
entrepreneur
looking
at
the
biopharma
landscape
today
and
wondering
how
to
make
their
mark?
Janice Reichert
Well,
you
know,
I'd
have
to
go
with
advice
that
is
tried
and
true.
First,
know
yourself.
What
resonates
with
you?
What
are
your
natural
inclinations?
It's
really
helpful
to
know
your
superpowers,
what
you're
good
at,
and
what
is
not
your
strong
suit.
Second,
be
open
to
opportunities
and
seek
them
out.
Collaborate
when
possible,
participate
in
meetings,
volunteer
to
help
coordinate
an
event
or
give
a
talk.
Find
a
mentor
or
offer
to
be
a
mentor.
These
are
all
great
ways
to
meet
people
and
network.
Volunteer
to
review
manuscripts.
That
is
a
great
way
to
learn.
Third,
be
adaptable.
Not
everything
will
work
out
perfectly,
and
that's
okay.
Take
what
you've
learned
and
move
on.
As
with
my
experience,
one
thing
is
likely
to
lead
to
another.
Paul Carter
So
any
final
remarks,
Janice,
that
you'd
like
to
share
with
our
listeners?
Janice Reichert
Well,
first,
thanks
so
much
for
hosting
the
podcast,
Paul.
This
was
really
fun.
I
want
to
take
a
moment
here,
though,
to
thank
all
mAbs'
assistant
and
associate
editors
and
reviewers,
as
well
as
the
editorial
board
members,
past
and
present,
for
their
contributions.
And
of
course,
Paul,
that
includes
you.
All
our
experts
in
their
fields
and
their
input
on
what
we
publish
and
what
we
pass
on
has
been
critical
to
our
success.
In
addition,
I'm
very
grateful
to
our
many
authors
and
readers
and
really
appreciate
their
support.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
my
collaborator,
Sylvia
Kriscioli,
for
the
contribution
of
her
time
and
considerable
expertise
to
our
numerous
ongoing
projects,
including
Antibodies
to
Watch.
Paul Carter
So,
in
closing,
Janice,
thank
you
so
much
for
being
in
conversation
with
me
today.
That
was
so
much
fun.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
Christina
Lingham
and
the
entire
Cambridge
Innovation
Institute
team
for
the
ongoing
efforts
to
inform
and
educate
the
antibody
research
and
development
community
and
for
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
this
podcast.
Thanks
also
to
our
listeners.
We
hope
that
you
enjoyed
this
podcast.