Martin Borch Jensen proposes investing $20 million in each of 10–15 cellular reprogramming approaches

Martin Borch Jensen proposes investing $20 million in each of 10–15 cellular reprogramming approaches

On July 28, investor Martin Borch Jensen proposed funding 10–15 cellular reprogramming approaches, with a target investment of $20 million in each. The teams would have to pass predefined technical tests. Those that succeed would retain funding for another two rounds.

In a July 28 post, Jensen argues against giving the entire budget to a single laboratory. He wants to fund several different attempts, agree in advance on what will count as a result, and only then decide which teams should receive the next tranche.

Partial reprogramming aims to restore more youthful properties to an adult cell without causing it to lose its role in the tissue. Researchers are testing brief activation of Yamanaka factors, proteins that regulate gene activity, as well as chemical compounds. A review in Nature Communications explains why several teams are needed: the delivery method, target tissue, and duration of exposure all affect the outcome.

Jensen's framework requires an interim assessment before the next tranche. A team must demonstrate a specific step: whether the intervention reached the intended cells, whether those cells retained their role in the tissue, and whether a measurable effect appeared. However, a single measure of a cell's biological age is not sufficient. An analysis of epigenetic clocks in reprogramming explains that such a model may be applied outside the data on which it was trained. Predefined tests make it possible to compare different approaches using the same standard.

“Finding several strong teams is usually the hardest part,” Jensen writes.

Under this framework, the funding is intended to identify not only a successful experiment but also teams capable of pursuing different biological hypotheses. Jensen states directly that finding several strong teams is usually the hardest part.

The portfolio does not select a biological hypothesis in advance. It establishes a sequence: first, investments in different approaches; next, comparison using shared criteria; and then another funding round for the teams that demonstrated a result. Funding reserved for two rounds is intended to prevent a promising direction from being abandoned immediately after its first successful assessment.