Clara Campàs (1976, La Roca del Vallès, Barcelona) began as a researcher in hospital centers (in biochemistry applied to cancer). The discovery of a drug and its subsequent patent led her to the corporate world, at the hands of Advancell, a biotechnology company that she came to direct. She then made the leap to the multinational Kern Pharma, where she was Director of Strategy and Development until 2018. That year, after receiving several job offers from investment funds, she decided to create her own: Asabys Partners.
“During my time in the world of pharmaceuticals, I learned a lot. But I needed to be close to the most disruptive innovation, the most innovative and riskiest science,” admits Campàs in a video call. During those years he had kept in touch with the ecosystem entrepreneur, as a mentor and as vice president of CataloniaBIO and member of the board of directors of Biocat, she was also a member of the Investment Committee of HealthEquity, and that led her to launch her own firm together with her partner Josep Lluís Sanfeliu.
- P. What does Asabys invest in?
- R. Our focus is on therapies, whether in the form of medicine, a device or a digital platform. New therapies are not just medicines, they are also mechanical, electronic and digital solutions. Digital health is a very broad concept where there are still questions, but digital therapy is giving very good results.
- P. How much do they invest in these three types of therapies?
- R. They each take a third of the fund. We already have 70 million euros, with room to increase capital up to 85. The idea is to finance between 12 and 15 companies. At the moment we have done so in four and we hope to invest in at least another four by the end of the summer. We invest between three and six million per startup.
- P. What criteria govern your investments?
- R. Essentially three. The first thing is that there is good science or technology, that the working hypothesis is disruptive and powerful. The second thing is that there is a market and an unmet medical need is addressed. The third thing is that there is an investment case, options to recover the disbursement, either through an IPO or by selling the company or its assets. Another criterion is the team, although funds are increasingly capable of providing teams when those who lead the project have not had the opportunity or simply do not want to become entrepreneurs.
- P. How is Spain doing in science and technology transfer?
- R. There has been an evolution, no doubt. A few years ago, technology transfer agencies did not exist. We are moving from coffee for everyone to being able to select the projects and centers that do it best. After the transfer comes valorization, and there are more and more initiatives aimed at turning these ideas into startups. There are also more investors at earlier stages, through tools like the crowdfundingmore specialized angel investors, valuation platforms that also have small funds, and the centers themselves, which try to promote these projects.
Not all science should be transferred, but basic science should also be funded. It is almost a responsibility of the researchers and centers themselves to ensure that when research approaches something transferable, that transfer occurs successfully. If it is not brought to market, no one will ever benefit from it. Transferring is not just patenting: it is knowledge, it is ensuring that researchers continue to be linked even if they do not direct the new company, and that the research center remains committed to that startup. This dialogue with science is very important and must be continuous, it does not end the day you create the company. Nobody likes it when a large multinational comes along and takes that patent or technology to the US Researchers and centers feel attacked when this happens.
- P. What about Europe in terms of transfer?
- R. We have a great unfinished business due to the lack of private capital for this type of investment. When Europe is compared to the US, it is often superior in quality of scientific production. The problem is in making this take the form of products and economic activity, of patents and jobs created. The differential factor with the US is private investment. Europe has been risk averse in this regard for many years, though less and less so.
- P. Does it cost more to invest in health?
- R. The health sector is high risk. Startups in this field are much more capital-intensive and, in addition, in many cases they are companies that do not invoice, so you base yourself on expectations of the value of this market, which is potentially very large. In addition, the risk in the pharmaceutical and biotechnological sector is very binary: a molecule works or it does not. This is not the case with medical devices and digital therapies, which is why we diversify the risk.
- P. What is the role of the pharmaceutical industry?
- R. Fifteen years ago, the multinationals in the sector had an army of researchers but, seeing that this did not work for them, they began to buy biotech companies when they were already very close to the market and the risk had been minimized. That is why they had to buy very expensive. Now they invest in increasingly earlier phases, even before clinical studies have begun. Some have their own investment vehicles. It is significant that they are increasingly looking at startups. In turn, the funds are focused on science in order to move it to the development phase as soon as possible. Somehow the chain is meshing.
- P. Has Covid-19 changed this?
- R. With the pandemic, society has realized that investing in innovation and science is essential for everyone. It has become obvious. However, it is necessary to invest constantly, not just in a moment of awakening. I am not referring to public investment in science and technology, which is fundamental, but to private investment. You have to be able to respond to the challenges that come. On the other hand, private investment in health is acyclical, it does not depend on the Stock Market, so it begins to give a vision of security. It is being seen that investing in private and in the health sector is a safer bet than in other sectors. In the last 20 years there has been a very clear trend to go from investing in the stock market to investing in private markets. Venture capital has achieved returns equal to or greater than investment in listed companies. It is not only that there is a need for private investment to turn science into products, but it is also giving such good results that it is becoming more and more attractive.
- P. Is the ecosystem attractive? biotech and health technologies in Spain?
- R. Asabys invests 70% of the fund in Spain, and it is not by chance. Here is a great opportunity to invest in science. We have the advantage of having very good science and very cutting-edge hospitals. Barcelona is one of the five main hubs in Europe in the healthcare ecosystem, and access to talent is very easy. The problem is the lack of specific talent when it comes to management. There is a lack of people capable of taking this science and transforming it into startups, but when we are able to fill that gap, the result is very good, with internationally competitive companies.