Mind the Gap: Funding Emerging Neurotech | LSI Europe '25

John Propst  0:05  
All right, welcome everyone to our panel. Mind the gap funding emerging neurotech. I promise that we named this before we knew about the tube strike, so it was coincidental, but there is some synergies, although we're not talking about the Piccadilly line. We're talking about neuro tech founders. I would like to start the panel by really talking about why we do what we do in neuro tech. I think we all know someone who's been affected by Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cognitive decline, the inability to speak, see or move, and that really drives our work. We believe also that the opportunity to solve these issues is the moon shot of our generation, but it's not going to come without not only the funding gap, but the challenges, really a minefield of challenges across technical, clinical and regulatory risk. But for the next 35 minutes or so, we're not just here to talk about the challenges. Also aim to provide some insights. My name is John Propst. I'm the principal Nexus neuro tech ventures. I've spent my career really building products all the way from prototype through engineering design and production validation. And I would I'm excited to announce my panel as well. Start with you. Aim, yeah,

Amy Kruse  1:44  
thanks for coming out this afternoon during lunch. My name is Amy Kruse. I'm a neuroscientist by training, PhD in neuroscience, but I'm currently a venture investor. I'm a general partner at a venture fund called Satori neuro where we focus on mental health, brain health and the application of Neurotechnology, I put it under the larger umbrella of human flourishing. I also started out my career as a program manager at DARPA, so I've been working sort of at the intersection of high risk high reward technology, particularly in neuroscience, for two decades now.

William Marks  2:21  
Thanks Great to be with you all. Bill marks, I'm a neurologist by background, spent most of my career in academic neurology focused on interventions for neurological disorders like neuromodulation, deep brain stimulation, gene therapy. More recently, I'm an investor at Nexus neurotech. We focus on helping those with brain disorders, pretty much anything that's not a molecule is within scope for us.

Nicholas Ibery  2:45  
Good afternoon. My name is Nicholas. Ibery. I'm an investor in med tech, specializing in neurotech in particular. I'm actually a humble neurosurgeon by background, having spent a humble neurosurgeon and starting out in NHS is certainly is humble bill. And then I've gone to the dark side harest in Whitehall, where I was a policy advisor with Sir Bruce Gio, who's head of NHS at the time, as a medical director, including on reimbursements, specialist input, so on and so forth. But I've been an investor for the past decade or so.

Jacques Carolan  3:19  
Hey folks. I'm Jacques Carolan. I am a Program Director at Aria, originally an applied physicist, used to build like computer chips for a long time and then moved across into Systems Neuroscience. I'm probably a bit of an outlier on this panel. For folks who aren't familiar with us, Aria is a UK based R and D funding agency with the mission of really pursuing research into areas that seem speculative, but if true, would really be transformation on a global scale. So I'm leading the precision Neurotechnology program there. So yeah, excited to be with you

John Propst  3:52  
all awesome. Thank you so much. Our panel is going to be in three parts or so today, starting with some challenges, then we'll we'll move into how to get things done despite those challenges, and then, and then we'll have a forward looking section. So I'll try to keep keep this rowdy crowd on track. So to frame the discussion, I wanted to start with kind of a lightning round question. So in a few sentences, what? How do you describe the biggest barrier facing these early stage neuro tech companies, and sometimes the the barriers that they don't overcome? And we'll just go in order,

Amy Kruse  4:33  
yeah, you know, I was, I've been thinking about this question, and I actually think, you know, using the investor lens, but flipping it back from the early stage company perspective, it's actually been really challenging, because we don't have a ton of big exits in this space. And so I think companies are always trying to come up with creative math to, you know, kind of show how big opportunities are. And so I think that's actually one of the challenges that we've been facing. Hopefully we'll. Solve soon with some great outcomes, but I do think that's a challenge.

William Marks  5:05  
Yeah, I would say a lack of sufficient focus early on exciting scientific ideas that are still a little diffuse, and therefore you're not really capitalizing on the efficiency that's needed for program and project and product development to to actually develop a

Nicholas Ibery  5:24  
successful business. Yeah, I completely agree. I think cost to develop some of these technologies as well in time to market is also quite significant as a barrier, and so is the regulatory complexity, especially when it comes to emerging markets, where we see some of the biggest growth in terms of consumer uptake, but perhaps more on that later.

Jacques Carolan  5:43  
I can kind of speak from the government funding side. I think the big thing for me is don't be a tool looking for a solution, like we see this all the time. You spend your career, your academic lab, working on this widget, and you're just trying to find anywhere it can be useful. Really think about what that solution is. Work back from there, span the space of possible technologies. I think that's really key.

John Propst  6:03  
I think that's a good point. Jacques, and you're designed to fund things almost that are too risky for the private sector. So do you find, based on what you see, that the problem is a lack a lack of attractive, ambitious ideas, or do you think the venture or private sector model is not set up to deal with the timelines and inherent risk associated with in a neuro innovation?

Jacques Carolan  6:31  
So I definitely don't think it's a lack of ambitious ideas that's something that I've seen time and time again. There are these ideas here. I would just say they're probably a bit too early stage for either venture or for other even, you know, funding mechanism, public funding mechanism, and that's kind of my job, right? My job, the unsexy part of my job, is to de risk it for further follow on funding. And to give you a sense of that within the program that we're running. So the program that we establish, this precision Neurotechnology program, is based on the idea that many brain disorders with neurological neuropsychiatric are really disorders of circuits of wiring. So if we can go in and fix that wiring, potentially even have much more efficacious therapies. And we're funding a whole spectrum of different approaches towards doing this, right from very early stage, bio hybrid approaches. Can you grow stem cell derived neurons and implant them in brains as a neural interface? Right? That's definitely not ready for venture yet. That's super early stage. And then we have a little bit further down the line. So often, when I speak with companies, you maybe have got series a funding. They've got the thing they need to work on because they've got venture funding, and then they got the thing they really want to work. And actually, just a few million pounds can often unlock that. So forgive an example. We're working with a company called motif, which Amy knows very well. And you know, their initial product is a kind of skull implantable Transcranial Magnetic simulation device. We've funded them to say, can you miniaturize that and have multiple of these nodes to both record brain states, figure out when it goes to a pathological state, and then drive the brain to a new state, and they're actually partnering with a ASIC designer in the UK to really drive down and miniaturize that system. So hopefully that gives you a sense of the spectrum of areas that we work in.

John Propst  8:20  
Definitely does, and Bill and Nik, you're both clinicians and investors. So you live at this speaking of medical possibilities, you live at this intersection of what's possible medically and the financial realities. You know, we see founders that come to us with really interesting novel even peer reviewed science sometimes. So how do each of you decide what makes an investable business?

William Marks  8:52  
Well, you mentioned starting with great and novel science. That's a good place to start, but I think the problem is in the translation. How do you translate that science into something that is both useful and used, and in terms of being useful? I mean, I always look at, what is the problem that's trying to be solved? What's the unmet need? Is the need big enough? Because a lot of times we see these kind of niche, kind of approaches, that when you step back, you're just not solving a big enough problem. And then if you are trying to solve a big problem, what will be the magnitude of the impact of that intervention? Because at least at our firm, we're less interested in incremental kinds of progress, but things that are truly going to make a difference. So that's the is it going to be useful? And then is it going to be used? Because there are a lot of useful things, and people just don't want to use because too challenging. It doesn't embed readily into a clinical workflow. It's tricky, though, because if we're focusing only on the status quo, then how do we disrupt things? And yeah. At as I think somebody mentioned medicine and the clinical world and the scientific world is very slow to change. So there is that, that balance? Are people going to use it?

Nicholas Ibery  10:11  
Yeah, I completely agree with those comments. And just to build on that, I think it also depends on kind of lens you look through in terms of making those decisions. Now, I mean, we could easily argue that there is no real tension in terms of making a difference, making an impact to patients, lives, moving that needle on that as well as making right returns if you are an investor. But I think tension comes in and complexity comes in when it comes to time frames and also your investment discipline. And there we lucky to have likes of yourself, likes of Nexus, who can take different kinds of risk, as opposed to a standard, say, 10 year plus two LP GP structure already did some variation on that. Now there's nothing wrong with that at all, but we know some of these technologies to come to life and to really deliver on what they need to deliver full potential could take longer, let's put it mildly. But at the same time, fundamentals are very interesting. We've seen huge amounts of growth in Euro tech. I never mind on a market side, in terms of the demand side, and there are specific drivers for that. Fundamentals are heading in the right direction. There's lots of lesser interest in this area, whether it's a risk capital or government type of capital, and there's a role for whole spectrum.

John Propst  11:28  
Yeah, that's exactly right. And Amy and Jacques, I think, especially at the seed stage, very early, sometimes the team can almost be more important than the tech? Dare I say, Yeah, so what? What's the most common team related mistake that you see these very early stages make? Because really the, you know, it requires a founder, that's, that's, that's really pretty special a scientist and an operator. And would you prefer, almost, to invest in a brilliant scientist who needs to learn business or a scientist who needs to hire a business?

Amy Kruse  12:11  
Oh, I think, I mean, I do think it's, it can be tough for folks that are true academics to learn business in a fast enough sort of manner. When it comes to team, I'm definitely looking at a CEO or a founder that knows what their strengths are and knows what they need to add to the team, and at the same time, doesn't over hire, right? So I think their real, you know, sense of awareness of what their skill set is, it is a rare, I would say it's been my experience in neuro tech. It's a rare founder that makes the transition, like straight out of academia into entrepreneurship. It tends to be a little bit of a longer journey, unless they're really ready to go. And I've met a couple founders that are really, you know, sort of like that. You can see it right away. But I do think it's really important for folks to know what strengths they have, what they need on the team, not over hiring. And, yeah, just really, I mean, you know, I we say this, like investors say this all the time, and I don't want to make it be a cliche, but like, something that you can partner with, someone that that's coachable, like, I love to work with my founders and CEOs in a, like, very creative, open, strategic sort of way. I think founders should look for investors that are true partners, because that will be, you know, we're all just making we're all just working on this as we go right, these are hard, hard problems and hard things to bring to market. So I think that partnership is something from both sides that I look for.

John Propst  13:48  
Yeah, I completely agree. And then one of those unique founders, we're both invested in dawn at AMPA, yeah, it's all it's special to see.

Amy Kruse  13:57  
Yeah, it is really special to see.

Jacques Carolan  13:59  
And Jon on the team side, it's an interesting one, because we like, as a government funding agency, we're trying to get people to do really hard things in really short periods of time, and we're kind of on their ass, you know? We meet with them every quarter. We get technical updates. That's not for everyone, right? But that's essentially how we de risk it. So we've got a hard problem, which is trying to understand beforehand. Understand beforehand if people's incentives aligned right, like, is it the case you've just been building this material your entire career, and if it's not the right one, well, this project isn't for you, or is it this the problem that keeps you up at night that you're completely obsessed with? It's probably similar for the types of things that you folks look into. And something that's pretty unique is we can actually meet with our teams before we decide to fund them. We can look at that. We can see what those team dynamics are. You know, giving example, we we actually set up a teaming platform in advance of our funding call, where folks could meet who maybe had complementary skill sets. And a bunch of folks met and we interviewed. Interviewed them, and we basically given a bunch of strangers a month to put together a 7 million pound proposal. And they were like, it was across different continents, time zones. They were meeting late. It was like, hard, but it brought them together, and we really got a sense of that from from this first call, and it's going incredible. So I think the things we look for are very similar to things that the other folks in this room also look for.

John Propst  15:24  
That's awesome. I love that model with almost cross functional, because it does take a village, right? And people see things from a different lens, whereas, if you're ingrained or trained in a certain area, you know you might be, you might not see things that that that a cross functional.

Amy Kruse  15:40  
And I do think that's one of the interesting things about neuro tech in general. I do think it's quite cross functional, you know, just the things we're talking about, the clinicians, the neural engineers, the, you know, you know, everything from software to hardware to supply chain to, you know, like it's, there's a lot of complexity in neuro tech and interfacing with the brain. And so I think that's, you know, one of these things that we're looking for as we look for teams and and things as they come together. That that Jacques you've seen, but that Aria, is very special in the fact that they can incentivize and bring those multi disciplinary teams together, which is sort of one of the best things about

William Marks  16:16  
those structures. You know, along those lines, one of the things I love to do is to visit companies. And I think people don't do enough of that to really see the teams in action, their working environment, their style. It's really quite eye opening in both directions. Sometimes I really was skeptical, and man, the team is firing on all cylinder, right? Yeah, and vice versa, right?

Amy Kruse  16:43  
Yeah. Sometimes they don't have an office, necessarily.

Nicholas Ibery  16:49  
I always find that it is a team, right? It needs to be the complementary skill sets. And then again, everything's already said in terms of the passion and there's a dedication. We quite lucky in your tech in particular, but neurosciences in general, there's plenty of that, whether it's clinicians or investors or founders, but it's the test of challenges that I find the teens really show their colors, and quite often when you see them struggle, whether it's the office ECU or some macro issue or funding issue, and you squeeze them little bit, not deliberately, not deliberately, but just struggle. And that's when you see them either come together or disintegrate. And to me, that's one of the signals that I would actually look for. Now again, not to I think your program is fantastic, by the way, a very important role that you play, especially in the European ecosystem.

William Marks  17:35  
Sorry, Jon, but you know, no, no, you're there is something special about the brain. And yeah, who we are not Saturday that, you know, people aren't dedicated to their stent or something. But, you know, because it is so complicated these neuropsychiatric conditions, people, almost uniformly, I think, are really passionate about this and really mission driven, absolutely, yeah,

John Propst  18:01  
I completely agree. And that's kind of what we were talking about, is really believing this, with advancements in technology, solutions to these neurodegenerative, neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric problems really are more in reach than than they have been, and really promise to be the moon shots of our generation. So, yeah, it's it's exciting to have the so many bright, cross functional minds working in the space. Okay, so we've talked about a handful of challenges, and now maybe we'll move on to the funding landscape and offer some pointers for the founders and investors in the room, we have the US represented, but we also have the UK and Europe represented here. So Jacques, you're here in London, and so how do you see geography coming into play when building a neuro tech company in the UK and Europe, versus the US?

Jacques Carolan  19:05  
Well, you know, one thing that we, I think, have in buckets, really, is the talent part, right? Everyone always says this. Almost tried to say it, we have three of the top 10 universities in the world, a lot of talent. But even think about like neurosurgery. Neurosurgery was basically invented a few miles away, over Queen Square. So we have this real core element. So I think talent is absolutely there. The regulation side that's kind of complex. I think it's beginning to catch up to neuro tech, and I think it'll take some time, but actually confident we'll get there. The bit that's missing in my eyes, or the bit that needs growth is the capital element. We kind of very early on at Aria, realized that, you know, we're going to need to figure out this capital element. How do we, if we have these promising early signals, where's that off ramp? How can we get venture interested in these projects? So I'll just give you a couple of examples. We actually put a call a very. Broad core open for what we called activation partners. So these are teams to really run alongside us and to build capital inflows, new communities, new talent pipelines. And actually, we have a number of deep tech VCs based in the US pillar VC 50 years who are moving to the UK to actually run programs, fellowship programs, in the spaces that we're working with, you know, we're working with companies like or organizations like Renaissance philanthropy, really thinking about how we get philanthropic investment into this space as well. And then the final thing I'll mention, which is, like, less super exciting, but actually really important, is, on the contractual side, we've actually limited the amount of equity the university can take in SPIN outs that come out of things we fund that's interesting, really. So folks like this can actually get excited about it, so that we're trying to pull all these various levers, we still have some way to go, and it's an experiment. We'll see if it actually

John Propst  20:54  
pans out. Yeah, completely. And then Nik you recently published a report in the European I believe it was the European tech investment report, actually, and you, you,

Nicholas Ibery  21:06  
you have batteries, yeah, shame this plug.

John Propst  21:08  
What's the cost of the subscripts? Is not, this is not a plug, but you do talk about the the resilience, but then also some of the constraints that you see in the European startup ecosystem, but also the strength in health tech and and then you mentioned some headwinds about slower exits, less growth capital, which you touched on Jacques as well, and maybe more cautious on the early investment side. So how do you see investors valuing early commercial traction versus that longer regulated path, sure.

Nicholas Ibery  21:48  
So we have some macro trends, which aspect many of you would be familiar with, but there are differentiating trends across the Atlantic, obviously, apart from obvious bundles of capital and depth of capital markets in the US. We do have specific issues when it comes to macro and geopolitics that affects sort of European side of things. We did do a tech report, not biased, of course, I just contributed to some of the stat center and helped with him to pull everything together. But these are general trends in tech, not specifically neurotech, or indeed, Medtech in general, but they are very telling. So this the first half of 2025 and we could go back and compare trends, or macro trends, if you like, in terms of funds raised at what stage, as well as different parts of Europe, so on and so forth. But in a nutshell, there was quite a bit of optimism early this year in terms of what tech in general could could do in Europe. And of course, you argue absolutely right. We do have the excellence of science that still prevails across European nations. I'm bit biased. Of course, I'm also based in the UK, and UK does and has been punching way about its weight. In fact, if you look at all monies raised across tech, almost quarter of all risk capital raised help in the UK. It's 24.9 across different segments. Now we are down from year before, not significantly. Nonetheless, it's quite a quite a signal. But we particularly down on exits, and that's where we are seeing most of the challenges. And to go back to your point, Jon, we are seeing early stage risk capital, some diluted, some non dilutive. But the pinch comes when it comes to one true exits, AI strategic buying. And we can expand on that the reasons for that, or indeed, more mature capital when it comes to growth stage so beyond, say, Series A, seven, CS B, where we really like behind in Europe. Now, many of you be very familiar with that problem, but to unpick that, why that's the reason, or why are we seeing those trends, especially impacting great science in Europe? Again, it's probably a separate conversation. And just to finish off, we had a huge amount of capital coming into neurotech. Of course, the sector has been beneficiary of not just different kinds of capital, but also increasing awareness. Of course, fundamentals in terms of tech Bill knows this better than I do. Things that are coming down the pipeline, fundamentally are very, very important modalities and that I think will prevail. And despite all these challenges, whether it's capital markets in Europe or risk capital, abundance of or lack of, I should say we still seeing that positive trend. So we're hoping that later this year, notwithstanding, some of those elements that I alluded to will have a pick up again in those trends.

John Propst  24:36  
That's great. And then we, you know, we talked about, it's not a lack of ambitious ideas. And Amy, this question is for you. So talking about the platform, and this came up at the beginning, talking about platform versus product, right, right? The founders come to us with this, you know, very innovative tech that could be applied across indications. Yes, but as seed investors, you know, we really want focus. And so how do you advise founders to resolve that tension? You know, do you prefer a focused seed pitch, not talking about a platform or multiple indications or a bigger platform?

Amy Kruse  25:16  
I have to admit, I'm a platform gal. No. I mean, I think that's one of the most, like, exciting and beautiful things about neuro tech, is that it has that potential, right? And so, you know, it's not just, like you said, it's not just a stent for one, you know, heart valve or whatever, right? It's, it really covers all that there's anything wrong with that. No, not that there's, we may all mean, I totally, I'm in, but, like, I think, you know, capturing the potential of neurotech as a platform. And then, you know, again, working with the team, working with the founders, spending the time, I think, to think about what that first indication is, working with the KOLs, working with the clinicians, you know, kind of doing the math. I do think that's an important part. And then maybe you have maybe three that are in a little bit of a horse race together, you know, and maybe some early clinical evidence helps one pull ahead, or you have an incredible result in one. I think this is actually one of the most important roles of non dilutive funding in startups, you know, referring back to what Jacques said, is, like, this is the R and D. Like, I do think non dilutive funding is the R and D engine of startups. And so if you can focus use that platform potential, but also give yourself a little room if you're able to access non dilutive capital, which then could maybe let you do some early clinical partnerships with, you know, universities, academic labs, other things. So I think there's, I think there's a lot to work with in this space, but I do agree that, you know, I think platforms are where it's at. I mean, ask just me, Well, I agree

William Marks  26:56  
with that. Because, to your point, you know, a lot of these neuropsychiatric disorders are circuit disorders, whether it's epilepsy, pain, depression, whatever, correct. So you can take a circuit approach. So it go, you know would make sense. It's certain tools that can probe those circuits and certain interventions that can intervene in those circuits. However, I will say it drives me a little crazy when I get the pitch deck where this is going to cure everything, generalized anxiety, insomnia, Alzheimer's disease. And, yeah, exactly. So it is that balance and into to pick something and go deep and do it well, right? Yeah.

Jacques Carolan  27:37  
And just to build on Amy's point as well, you know, I would say about 40% of the money we gave give out goes to industry, and often industry, you know, the right aligned company is better solved to, you know, better set to solve many of these problems. So actually, like, I totally agree with that. Yeah, absolutely.

John Propst  27:57  
Nik you, you agree as well. I

Nicholas Ibery  28:00  
probably should disagree, but I don't, I have to say, I mean, like Bill said, your heart sings when you sort of see those are we can sort of real platform so we can basically, there's a difference between being a platform technology and being a sort of a spray and pray type of that's what really we're referring to when it comes to some of those pitch texts. But what we are seeing, we are seeing little bit more differentiation, certainly amongst again, I'm bit biased, of course, when amongst investors, there is a little bit more depth and sophistication, I think there was quite a bit of excitement in the wake of pandemic years that followed, when it comes to all things in tech in general, certainly all things in health tech. And of course, the sectors that we are discussing there has been beneficiary of that, but I'm seeing that as the tide's gone out, seeing a little bit more scrutiny, a little bit more and I think that's a good thing for the market. I think it's good thing for investors, for sure, say, before LPs, but it's a very good thing for founders and for technologies as well.

Amy Kruse  28:56  
Yeah, I actually think, and just to play on that, I think there's an interesting thing that's happening in the overall conversation around neuro tech, and particularly around brain computer interfaces.

William Marks  29:07  
If I wondered when that phrase is heard, very hot topic,

Amy Kruse  29:11  
if it's going to jump over, you know, the transom and and we're starting to have these conversations around implantable or semi implantable consumer brain. I mean, it's just an inch. We're in a very interesting

Jacques Carolan  29:26  
moment, yeah, and maybe just like, a meta point to that, you know, one of the big areas we haven't spoken about yet, there's a huge amount of kind of crypto philanthropy that's going into this space, huge amounts of kind of very, you know, high risk capital, large amount. And again, regardless of what it was funding, that's not the point, but it's changing what people think of as possible. Yes, and I'm really fascinated in this. Yes. I'm really fascinated how maybe organizations like ARIA or focused research organizations or different types of entities are just allowing people to dream bigger than they have done before. Now, whether that actually translates into getting things in the clinic. Like, time will tell, but I think it's a really interesting time.

Amy Kruse  30:02  
Well, it's, it's a very interesting time because it's, I mean, if you think about where we were five years ago, like we've been, all of us have been doing this for a while, right? If you think about where we were five years ago, we were having conversations with people around implanted brain computer interfaces, and they think it's science fiction. You're like, no, like that. The research part of this is actually worked out. We're actually working on the engineering part of it. Now, I feel like we're in a different part of that conversation where people are like, Oh, you're making the engineer like, oh, we have humanoid robots. Oh, we have brain computer interface. So we have, like, No, you know, I think that whole conversation has shifted, and I think that's benefited neurotech. I think it's benefited some companies in neuro tech more than others. But hopefully, you know, kind of moves this whole front forward, which gets back to Nick's point about growth capital and coming in at these later stages,

William Marks  30:55  
and what really will be the first useful, scalable application, I'm not sure yet,

John Propst  31:02  
to be honest, yeah. Now, yeah. And I think there has been an uptick to your point, in, you know, deep tech, or big tech billionaires, in this spring computer interface space. And, you know, there there's some healthy skepticism about, you know, how fast can they accelerate beyond because those of us in the space understand the clinical and right like you kind of have peace, yeah, so in terms of providing maybe some actionable advice, we're at an emerging med tech conference. So there's undoubtedly founder in the room with prototype stage, maybe some promising pre clinical data, prepping for a seed raise or actively raising now. So what are one or two key things that they must share with you early to really get your attention, because it's also tough you review all of these promising technologies to really not go further, right? So what's one thing that they one or two things that they need to share, share with you early in the dialog, to have you dive in deeper, for for deep diligence,

Amy Kruse  32:15  
I would say it's for everyone. From my perspective, I'll start really understanding the landscape of what's already. Like doing your homework, really understanding the landscape of what's out there, what's you know, even if other things are early, you really need to do that, because you have to remember that. As investors, we sort of see everything. And so if you show up and you have the, you know, 15th version of something, and don't acknowledge that there are any other things you know in development or in the market or whatever, that generally moves me back a step and says this is something you know, someone who may not be realizing the context of what they're proposing this in. So I really do like to see a very cogent conversation around the landscape and why it's different, why it stands out. That's that's something like top of mind for me. There'll probably be others, but

William Marks  33:11  
yeah, I agree. And that landscape isn't only other tech solutions, right? It may be drugs under development that are with shuttles that are get into the brain, where you may not need to open the blood brain barrier with the tech solution, right? So what is the landscape? And honestly, you know, in the previous AI session, they talked about now the, you know, startups can use AI to do snazzy PowerPoints. And I don't actually want a snazzy presentation. I want clarity in outlining what's the solution? What's the problem that we're trying to solve? To your point, what else is out there? Why is there an unneed, and what is going to be the chain of evidence that needs to be created and the path to get this thing into the world?

Nicholas Ibery  33:55  
Yeah, yeah. I couldn't agree with you more. And beyond competition, I think the substitutes, especially in space where it's really important to understand what you are competing against. And of course, the team and technology are winning, sort of obvious ones to cover off, but to me, that product, product market fit really understanding your market and the patient pathways, that proximity and real knowledge that you can get there. Who knows, right? This is we are in a risk business, but you need to really do your homework. You need to understand that you thought about it, you've done your due diligence, and you can speak intelligently about it, and have a plan, actionable plan.

Jacques Carolan  34:32  
I'll just briefly mention, you know, from the kind of ARIA perspective you're applying there, just, I actually don't need to see preliminary data. Just like, can you just give me a really strong, compelling argument why your technology is differentially able to solve this problem in a way that nothing else can. That's what I want to see.

Amy Kruse  34:49  
Yeah, I was going to add one more thing, and this has been something that's evolved over the last few years, and I think it's evolved in the biotech molecule space as well as in the neuro tech space. There. Just a higher and higher premium associated with early clinical data. And so you know whether, whether you're able, with your solution to to do that, that it may not be possible, but, but what is your path to that? Are there other demonstrations or other things that can sort of get you close, or a proxy of that, I think just from an investor perspective, we've really seen a premium on that, and

William Marks  35:29  
completely agree. And step two may even be more critical, okay, now you've got a little bit of preliminary data, right? What is the next logical

John Propst  35:36  
right in first, in human you mean,

Amy Kruse  35:37  
yeah, yeah, yeah. It's just been, it's just, it's just really changed, you know, over the last few years and so,

Nicholas Ibery  35:44  
but that's a macro trend we're seeing across. Yeah, that's what I was saying. It's also in biotech, and it's an interesting point, which we probably won't expand on. Now, why that's the case? Of course, there's a cyclicity there involved. There are strategics who are on the other side of that. And of course, that opens up that gaping hole that we refer to earlier in terms of growth stage and what's happening to the latest stages of some of these excellent companies that are growing in Europe. All right,

John Propst  36:09  
to bring us to, kind of our last part of the panel, and maybe back to to our title here, minding the gap. And again, I gave a disclaimer at the beginning. We didn't know about the tube strike, so I'd like to look ahead and perhaps get a bold prediction from each of you. What do you see? You know, we talked about the moon shots of our generation. We talked about the advancements in technology being, at this time, very interesting for Neuro space. What do you see as the largest unmet need in neuro and the corresponding opportunity to produce a breakout company in the next five years? This question is for everyone. So Jacques,

Jacques Carolan  36:54  
you look maybe I'll ask, go quickly first. I'm thinking now a lot about this kind of access. I think there's a huge gap between the people who can currently access state of the art neurotechnologies and the potential that can help. So I'm really interested in where there are technological solutions towards that problem. How far can we push non invasive approaches? How can we get to the brain in new, novel ways, through the vascular through the CSF? I think there's a huge amount of white space there, and I'm super excited. So we recently put a blog out on this on the ARIA substack, so check it out and leave some

John Propst  37:28  
comments. Anybody can jump, please?

William Marks  37:30  
Well, I can second, go next. You know, I think previously, a lot of what we were building our faith on was empirical evidence without really a fundamental understanding of what was going on. And I think we're finally have the tools, be it, you know, functional imaging, or me Nathaniel encephalography, or stereo EEG, or new ways to decode the brain, understand those circuits, to then start to create interventions that are more likely to work with new modalities. I mean, I spent my career doing a lot of deep brain stimulation, but boy, it would sure be nice to do less deep stimulation and through new modalities, ultrasound, low intensity, ultrasound, photobiomodulation, as well as good old electricity delivered in different ways, new approaches to match up with the underlying fundamental understanding of brain circuits. I think I'm excited

Amy Kruse  38:26  
about, yeah, and I just to build on that. I think, you know, I invest in both, you know, med tech, or tech and molecules. And what I love about neuro tech is, I really think it's going to give drugs a run for their money, right? And so, as I think about mental health, or I think about even neurodegenerative conditions, and I just, I really think getting to this scale piece, getting to this circuit based piece, is what for me, you know, really excites me and motivates me around what's happening in neuro tech now.

Nicholas Ibery  38:55  
So I think most of it has been covered, but including in that space focus ultrasound, in terms of drug delivery, brain plus brain barrier. I mean, those are the kind of things that we tend you know, five six years ago, science fiction. And I think neurotech is where cardiovascular was 10 years ago, or maybe 15 years ago. It's a really exciting time for us. But, of course, we are all biased, yeah, yeah.

John Propst  39:15  
I think that's a perfect place for us to end. So I think a clear message was, neurotech is a team sport, so let's all roll up our sleeves and then really a new level of collaboration between public and private capital. Absolutely so thank you all for your having a career. Thank you, John. Thank you.