We sat down with Liliane Chamas, Principal, and Lauren Laing, Senior Associate, at Oxford Science Enterprises (OSE), an independent investment company that finds, funds, and builds transformational science and technology companies emerging from Oxford’s world-leading research.

At OSE, Liliane and Lauren specialize in Health Tech, investing in and building companies across medical devices, diagnostics, life sciences tools, and broader healthcare technology. We discussed the importance of university IP, venture capital, and venture building in the UK and EU, the drivers and barriers to commercializing research in these markets, and the future life sciences landscape in these regions and beyond.  

‍

Key Takeaways:  

1. OSE takes a long-term approach to investment, engaging with academics early in the commercialization process, and working with them closely to further improve technologies, identify product-market fit, and develop go-to-market strategies.  

2. Most companies go to market in the US before expanding to Europe due to the region’s complex regulatory environment (further complicated by IVDR), while the US offers a more streamlined approval process and access to a larger, denser, and more diverse population.  

3. The UK life sciences landscape benefits from its world-class academic institutions, the NHS’s centralized data infrastructure, recent changes in public policy and investment, and increasing interest from global investors.  

4. Looking ahead, Lauren and Liliane expect more activity in multiomics cell and gene therapy, bioelectric therapy delivery systems, precision cardiovascular and metabolic research, and direct-to-consumer screening tools.  

‍

‍

Thank you so much for joining us, Liliane and Lauren. Before we jump in, can you give us a brief overview of your backgrounds?

Lauren:  

I'm a scientist by training. I did my PhD and postdoctoral work in epigenetics and then worked in product development. What I enjoyed most in my career was interacting with small founding groups and developing commercial strategies, determining product roadmaps, understanding capital requirements, and building pitch decks. That's how I came to join OSE.

Liliane:  

I completed my PhD at Oxford, and then joined the WHO, where I advised governments on building business plans and assessing the evidence around various technologies. Eventually, I wanted to work directly within the UK system and merge my understanding of technology with big-picture strategy, and this led to an opportunity at OSE.

‍

How would you describe OSE and its approach to venture capital and venture building in the life sciences space?

Liliane:

First, I will point out that OSE is structured as a firm rather than a fund, and since we're not confined by fund structures, we can take time to mature technologies that others might consider too risky. We make significant, long-term bets on projects that we know will take 10 to 15 years to prove out, partly because our financial structure allows it, but also because we believe that it takes time to achieve big moonshot projects. This is why we are able to tackle challenging projects like diagnostics or Class 3 medical devices.  

We also focus on venture building, and by this, we mean two things. The first is that often, academics approach us with a compelling technology and potentially compelling intellectual property. We then assess product-market fit, and if we are convinced by the technology and see a commercial market, we help the company rethink some elements of the technology. A significant amount of work goes into repositioning the company to ensure a solid investment case.  

The second part of the venture building involves our convictions about technology areas we believe are promising, based on market needs or identified gaps. When we have an exciting commercial idea, we identify professors at Oxford who are at the forefront of these specific fields, and we see an opportunity to bring all these elements together and build a company ourselves.

Oxford has a lot of intellectual property and houses over 20,000 senior researchers and academics. We gather these brilliant minds to discuss new ideas, and we fund experiments based on these ideas. If the results of the experiments are positive, we develop these ideas into companies.

‍

How do you distinguish between a technology with growth potential and one that may not be commercially viable? What criteria do you use to evaluate a very early-stage research idea or startup?

Lauren:

Firstly, we ensure that the market is large enough to build a proposition that can generate revenue that is likely to provide a return. Then, we typically engage with academics early on, even before they've filed their intellectual property and help them develop an IP strategy. For example, it's not always a good idea to file a patent quickly; instead, it might be important to thoroughly examine the commercial proposition and ensure that something in there is not preventing future IP generation.  

Additionally, we might conduct small experiments that are highly focused on demonstrating that the technology is not overly risky. Because we usually launch in US markets while our founders are more familiar with the NHS system, we help companies understand the nuances of deploying their technology to the US.  This includes helping companies navigate complex regulatory environments and reimbursement systems.

Overall, we support our companies in determining the product roadmap and the capital requirements needed to reach realistic milestones. We engage with our founders to help shape these aspects of the business; we don't expect them to have all the answers from the start.

‍

Why do you typically launch in the US as opposed to the UK and Europe?

Liliane:

Our go-to market strategy prioritizes the US for several reasons: a larger market, a single language, and greater density of people. There have been some recent structural changes that have further solidified our focus on entering the US market first.  

Previously, the path for medtech companies involved generating evidence in local markets, applying for CE marking, and then seeking European traction before applying for FDA approval. However, with the introduction of IVDR, the process has become so complicated that companies are now opting to pursue FDA approval first.  

Lauren:

The interesting thing about the regulatory environment is that across Europe, it's much more fragmented, the approvals required are complex, and IVDR has only made things more challenging. Unfortunately, for Europeans, it's a no-brainer to go to the US first. It’s a proven path. Companies often go to the US, get FDA clearance, sort out their CPT code, and secure payer agreements before moving over to Europe. That process can be quite fast, and then they come to Europe shortly afterwards.  

‍

Recent changes in the US have also complicated the path to launch, especially in the diagnostic research tools space. Traditionally, the Laboratory Developed Test (LDT) route* was an attractive way to go to market, but now, this route is uncertain. How are you incorporating these changes into your strategy?

Lauren:

It’s definitely a challenge, especially for smaller companies because of the associated costs and capital requirements, and it’s going to affect existing startups more severely. It makes building a company in this space less straightforward, but if you're aware of the regulations from the outset, you can integrate them into your strategy.  

Liliane:

I'm adopting a glass-half-full perspective. I think if you incorporate these regulations into your strategy, you can outcompete companies that may have an LDT which cannot be grandfathered and now need to start from scratch. Those companies have proven that there is a market for that LDT, and now, you can come along and build it from the ground up.

‍

Let's talk about the ‘glass-half-full’ perspective. What are the main benefits to investing in life sciences companies in the UK?  

Liliane:

Well, to start, many of the top academic institutions in the world are predominantly located here. Also, the UK has a single-payer healthcare system, which, despite its challenges, offers incredible opportunities. The NHS has comprehensive patient data for everyone in its system, which, if accessed and queried properly, provides a wealth of information. Many of our companies have been built on the work of academic clinicians who have dedicated years of their lives to following thousands of people to develop incredible diagnostics and therapies.  

Recently, there has been a political commitment aimed at making the UK a global scientific superpower. This is particularly helpful at a time when it's unclear how public funding pressures and potential restructuring at the NIH might impact the next generation of academics. After Brexit, the government doubled down on ensuring financing and support, particularly for early-stage ventures addressing the so-called 'death valley' gap.  

I am hopeful that the public innovation landscape will continue to support a high density of intellectual property through to the translational stage. From beginning to end, there's a positive environment for funding, with an increasing number of US investors coming here because assets are more exciting and cost-effective.  

‍

Your team invests in some of the most exciting life science research coming out of Oxford, and I’d love to hear about the technologies you are most excited about. Given that you are long-term investors focused on building and growing companies, what do you think the long-term landscape will look like in the next 5 to 10 years?

Lauren:

I think areas that are particularly interesting right now include advancements in the central dogma, and the most exciting development is our approach to proteins with real conviction.  

Proteins are now being studied in fascinating ways, including how we read, write, and predict their structures. We can now produce proteins on a mass scale, which was not possible before, and this capability is nearing the point where it can be done on a benchtop. We are also capable of understanding various aspects of protein structure, including reading single proteins in single cells. From a life science tools perspective, these developments are incredibly interesting.

With all due respect to the incredible innovations in genomics and transcriptomics, we are now tackling the tougher issues. We need to integrate AI with biophysics and biochemistry, which is challenging but fascinating.

‍

Perhaps it's not just about one of those elements in isolation, but also about the combined value, or the multiomics perspective, where you have proteins, DNA, RNA, metabolites, and clinical data all in one. What do you think about the future of multiomics?

Lauren:

Well, in the UK, having such a rich annotation of human samples presents a huge opportunity and a challenge for all of us, as any scientist or data enthusiast would likely agree. Multiomics is great for research, but often, the richer the information we extract, the more unfocused we become. The challenge lies in proof of concept and validation.  

Liliane:

I think the true multiomic clinical diagnostic is very far away, if ever achievable. However, there is a role within research to uncover what matters and then scale it down or simplify it to the minimum viable product.

Lauren:

Back to your earlier question, the other development that's really interesting right now is the number of approvals we've seen in cell and gene therapy in recent years. Although it's not a new field, the way these therapies are reaching patients is evolving. It's been fascinating to see the ecosystem start to evolve in response to more developments, particularly for a higher incidence of patients.  

We need to consider how to manufacture these products and what their quality control should look like. The uncertainty largely stems from the decision between autologous versus allogeneic approaches, which significantly alters the manufacturing process and location.

Additionally, the concept of outcome-based payment raises questions about the need to prove efficacy. Currently, we rarely predict efficacy, and arguably, that’s appropriate for where we are today. However, as we start to look at some of the therapies coming through for diseases such as type 2 diabetes, we're not talking about final line treatment of someone who is unfortunately very close to the last resort, we're discussing routine conditions that people have learned to live with, despite the discomfort. If we're going to treat these individuals, we need to think more carefully about how we evaluate efficacy and safety.  

Liliane:

I’m going to share my predictions from a clinical and device standpoint. I believe that blood is passé. We've spent the last 20 years, or more, relying on blood as the universal medium to deliver therapy. This is not new, but there is a resurgence of interest in focusing on the nervous system as a synergistic or alternative medium.  

We're seeing incredibly exciting results in the field of bioelectronic medicine, which utilizes the nervous system as a therapeutic conduit. We have seen the emergence of new, minimally invasive methods for neuromodulation and neurostimulation that are showing promising results in treating conditions ranging from inflammatory diseases to pain management. This shift could significantly impact how we manage pain, potentially reducing reliance on opioids. Additionally, cardiac pacemakers and other medical devices that sense and respond to bodily conditions can use this technology to deliver a more titrated, modulated stimulus.

Turning to cardiovascular and metabolic health, these areas are undergoing a transformation from broad, one-size-fits-all approaches like statins to more precise, targeted treatments. The concept of precision cardiology is emerging, recognizing the complexity of cardiovascular diseases and treating them with the nuanced understanding they require.

‍

Out of curiosity, since we're considering the long-term, do you see any developments in the direct-to-consumer space?

Liliane:

I believe the consumer is becoming incredibly powerful, especially in the UK where the concept of a health consumer is emerging. This shift is due to the inability of the single healthcare system to meet demands. The COVID-19 pandemic has educated everyone on health matters, increasing the pressure to take charge of one's own health, well-being, and aging.  

I believe consumers will start demanding more direct-to-consumer preventive care. Consumers and stakeholders understand that our current reactive, expensive healthcare system is not sustainable for anyone, despite the profits it generates. Therefore, I feel there will be a shift towards more screening and early diagnostics, with many examples currently being funded. The next step is to scale these diagnostics so they are affordable, regardless of whoever pays for them.  

‍

Great, I think that covers everything. Thanks so much for the thoughtful discussion – it’s been great to learn more about OSE’s work and your perspectives on the European life sciences landscape.

*Note: This interview was conducted in Q4 2024. Given the dynamic regulatory landscape, perspectives on LDTs may have shifted since the time of this interview.

‍

‍