Nicolas Tilmans

On the edge of biochemistry+tech. Waffle enthusiast.

Founder/CEO Anagenex (acquired 2025), VP Engineering Lumiata (acquired 2022), Stanford Biochem PhD 2013

[Scott Gottlieb, MD 🇺🇸 @ScottGottliebMD]

China's new rules require approval before Chinese tech is transferred overseas. But U.S. drug tech is open for Chinese firms to parse for molecular leads that are quickly turned into competing medicine. Knowledge flows in one direction: into China not out
https://t.co/IC3hhficC9

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@drrichjlaw @jrkelly @daphnezohar @PeterKolchinsky Agreed! Still major gaps on chemistry, and assay dev is always hard robot or human, but there is progress.

Thing is this takes a lot of investment and it’s hard to sustain $ and interest when so much pressure to (short sightedly) pick-the-least-cost.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@drrichjlaw @jrkelly @daphnezohar @PeterKolchinsky R&D matters too. If you only Design in US, with no capability to Make-Test quickly, you will necessarily iterate more slowly.

If/when the Make-Test workshop is cut off, you’re at risk. (You also miss out on the innovations within the Make-Test process)

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@SylvainGariel @pharmabro0782 I think these are all good concepts! Although I've also favored priority review approaches, I lament that it relies on a default slow FDA, which shouldn't be the case generally.

Still, I think this is a good framework and hope more ideas come forward!

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky But you'd say: "US will be slower+more expensive"

If creative US cos have enough help getting started and enough incoming business, I suspect they'd get more efficient and the gap might close.

No VC or investor wants to compete with Wuxi though. So we don't know US cos can.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

Xiaomi makes phones & cars. Also drones. Xiaomi biotech gives China an edge solving the next pandemic.

I'd rather we do it first.

If we can't domestically innovate cancer treatments, we lose the muscles to stop the next pandemic.

Biotech innovation is national security.

6/

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky I don't have perfect answers. It's a hard problem. Some ideas:

1. Add regulations to eliminate the back door
2. Create incentives to use US labs (min. spends, maybe fast track review)
3. Capex+Overhead incentives
4. Other ideas?

With your expertise I'm sure you also have ideas.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky But with no approved drugs at the time. Would you require US manufacturing at Phase 2? Or just on Phase 3 success?

Could mitigate risk, I still think it's good we didn't have to ask the question.

And if Moderna isn't a good example, then Paxlovid.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

More game theory: what if Moderna (RA Cap. investment) was Chinese in 2020?

What's the game theory of breaking patents?

Was RA ok breaking patents in 2020? (nope. kills innovation)

If all discovery->phase 1/2 work is outsourced to China could you even leverage the patents?

3/

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky "As long as we could too" is doing a lot of work there. The entire disagreement is whether we will get worse at it.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky If a pure ban doesn't get me what I want, help design other incentives to build lab teams here.

You seem to disagree that's even a worthwhile objective. I think that long term you need labs to stay good at innovation. China's actions suggest it agrees! You don't.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky I'm skeptical that if functionally all lab work is done in China that we will maintain the ecosystem sustaining that innovation.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

"But the ecosystem is still healthy! We're funding things in the US all the time!" Oh wait...

Why is 42% of lab space in Boston vacant? Maybe all the innovators don't need labs? Where are they working?

https://t.co/h4hFc3DapD

8/

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky This is the disagreement: China becoming equivalent to US biotech won't affect our ability to conceive of drugs.

You don't think we will, because NIH funds early innovation and that means we'll keep having strong US trained scientists to do that invention.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky The same arguments applied to industries such as ship building. Or electronics manufacturing. Today we've forgotten how to build boats and drones it's a clear national security threat.

Forgetting how to do med chem and cell bio will do the same for our ability to find cures.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

UMass Lowell used to be "Lowell Textile School". UMass Dartmouth used to be "New Bedford Textile School".

Death of the textile industry in US killed nearly all textile programs in the US.

Death of discovery will be the same for Bio/Chemistry, who will innovate then?

13/

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky Sure, textiles are a little different b/c workers don't usually transition into designers.

But, in drug discovery, workers (PhDs then Scientists) become drug designers.

I argue shrinking lab work in the US will kill the feedstock of drug designers. You seem to disagree though.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky Just saying they're investing more capital than we are and that risks losing our innovative edge.

I think it's a unique and important edge to attract the best minds to the US. Maybe you disagree.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

"And China saying Biotech is a "key area" doesn't mean it will subsidize to gain every advantage." Oh wait...

https://t.co/AplaML6h6m

We still have an edge in basic research, but how long does that last? China can just flip the switch and catch up!

9/

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky In your paper you cite Chinese cars being unavailable here as tragic inefficiency. But vehicle production is a crucial national security industry. Keeping it is worth some inefficiency.

You don't think biotech is such an industry, or at least not in the same way. I think it is.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

COVID showed us the power of US-driven biotech innovation.

Deep, creative science funded and shepherded in the US saved the world & boosted our standing.

We must keep that edge.

14/

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky "Efficiency" isn't worth trading a key innovative capability.

From your paper I don't understand how we stay "really good at evaluating drug discovery" when subsidies and being local means that any Chinese Biotech moves (and learns) at 2x the speed of US Biotech.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@SylvainGariel @jrkelly @PeterKolchinsky Bans could include transferring certain assays and know-how, though could be hard to police and already naturally dis-incentivized by existing IP concerns.

Could also include bans on working with certain CCP associated companies.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

Deeply respect @PeterKolchinsky & worthwhile argument. Left unsaid:

- 3 days ago we launched a China focused SPAC.
- We definitely aren't losing US discovery->Phase 1/2 innovation.
- But it's fine if we do, b/c we'll ignore patents if we need to!

OK kinda said the last 2.

1/

[Peter Kolchinsky @PeterKolchinsky]

The paradox of biotech protectionism: Why walling off China biotech weakens America

US ban on Chinese biotech/trials would return pharma leadership to Europe, slow US patient access to new meds, & lead to US dependency protectionism claims to prevent.

https://t.co/DJAkWQfd5X

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@SylvainGariel @jrkelly @PeterKolchinsky It's a really hard problem, I don't have comprehensive or perfect ideas.

Starting with discovery chemistry:
- Subsidize capital+overhead expenditures (China does)
- Incentivize US chemistry use

Incentives could be things like priority review vouchers.

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

Maybe today's regulations suck. Then make them better. And improve funding.

But @jrkelly is right. Re-shore Biotech fully. Discovery through phase 3.

That will take tons of domestic innovation. And yes, maybe that requires some targeted protectionism & subsidies.

16/end

[Nicolas Tilmans @ntilmans]

@PeterKolchinsky is partly right: bad regulation makes for bad game theory consequences.

But the right answer isn't: "Leave us alone except make US trials easier and on-shore some manufacturing".

It's better regulation to keep innovation in the US.

15/