Based on that paper, I’m inclined to disagree. The increase in CD8 killing of EL4 cells was minimal. It’s also not clear that there aren’t more mitochondria vs more effective ones, nor that it will have any effect in a tumor model or real tumor. If there were any changes to memory subsets or IFNg production, I missed those data.
There are a number of unknowns that could kill this, and I’d prefer to see those worked out prior to commercialization.
I don’t think that paper would have survived review at JI or JLB.
We discussed this at the dealflow call. Apparently only ARTAN vote was reset after reviews and none of the other proposals. So it wouldn’t be consistent with past votes, but we need to decide on this for all future proposals and state it clearly in the process (or only have comment section open and then vote when the VDP is complete).
We could post proposals for the community’s perusal, and make the voting active when the reviews are in and there are no more pending edits. As far as I remember, that’s how it used to be done.
The Artan vote was reset because Tim wanted it reset after the reviews came in and the shepherd agreed. It had already passed the first time and still passed the second time. Just wanted to add context for those who don’t remember.
Hi @mykalt45 , what you write is not correct. @Max_Unfried proposed to reset, and I, as a shepherd raised the question to the governance squad (including @Taliskermalt@alexdobrin, I believe), who confirmed (see the screenshot below)
In other words, it did not start from @timrpeterson, and it was not unilaterally decided by the shepherd.
I am guessing that you confused with another topic that was raised by Tim, a poll concerning the ownership of the PI and the PM, which resulted in a reduction of your ownership with respect to what was originally proposed (see second screenshot below):
Hi @bowtiedshrike, thank you for your question. The use case would be having a first conviction sounding before launching a full blown review, which is costly and time-consuming, for us and for the applicant. If the community is overwhelmingly against a proposal, it may make sense to stop the process.
This impacts planning, which is why in some cases, for projects where we expect high conviction and who are in a hurry to be funded, we launch the senior review right after the review.
So, it’s a tradeoff, and of course the process can always be improved.
I would suggest if this is not adhered to in the future that some penalty for the proposal should be enforced e.g proposal cannot be reposted or voted on for 2 weeks.
also let’s not forget that we do not know yet the deal terms for this proposal. Also the score is not broken down by category e.g commercial potential, IP potential etc.
Wondering who is the biotech senior reviewer
I would also like to propose that for this project, given the high risk involved and potentially the limited reward in case the technology is not superior to optogenetics treatments, payments to be made in 4 installments, based on whether at any stage the project shows inferiority to optogenetics.
