A Conversation with Kymera’s Chief Business Officer, Noah Goodman

For biotech companies, advancing innovation doesn’t happen in isolation. It depends on an interconnected ecosystem to move transformative science forward. That’s true for Kymera too.

Following our recent milestone announcement regarding our collaboration with Gilead on our novel oral CDK2 molecular glue degrader, learn more from our Chief Business Officer, Noah Goodman, about the rapidly evolving partnership landscape, what makes collaborations work, and where he sees the industry heading over the next decade.

Q: It’s been a year since you joined Kymera as Chief Business Officer. How’s it going so far? What has stood out most in your first year?

NG: Somehow, it feels simultaneously like I just got here yesterday and that I have been here for years. The speed of execution over the past year has been awe inspiring. On the clinical development front, we delivered on the KT-621 Phase 1 data seamlessly and initiated our global Phase 2b studies in atopic dermatitis and asthma, all while advancing our next program, KT-579, into the clinic. It’s been energizing to see not only the relentless pace of execution but also the focus on quality. It’s the same in research, to go from signing the CDK2 collaboration with Gilead to nominating a development candidate and opt-in in nine months is a testament to our team.  I’m continually energized by the dedication of my colleagues and their deep commitment to creating meaningful medicines for patients.

Q: Let’s start at the foundation – tell us about the philosophy that has helped drive business development decision-making since you’ve joined?

NG: Our philosophy on business development flows directly from our vision – to become a fully-integrated biopharmaceutical company that is researching, developing, and commercializing life changing oral immunology medicines. All of our business development decisions are made through this lens. Because of this, we are very  intentional in considering the long-term implications of our business development activities – both from a financial and company capability-building perspective. My team is closely integrated across all functions of our business so that we have a deep understanding of how to capitalize on our strengths and how business development can support the broader business strategy.

This is evident in our current collaborations with Gilead and Sanofi. The more recent partnership with Gilead is a textbook example of how two science-driven companies can complement each other’s strengths. Pairing our targeted protein degradation expertise with Gilead’s leadership in oncology development and commercialization gives us, together, the opportunity to accelerate the development of a potentially practice changing treatment. We recently reached an important milestone, announcing that Gilead has exercised its option to exclusively license KT-200, which is an exciting step forward.

Q: What are the criteria for an ideal strategic collaboration?

NG: There are several characteristics that really are baseline requirements for a collaboration – an ideal collaborator must have relevant therapeutic area expertise both from a clinical and commercial standpoint. Similarly, an ideal collaborator should be well aligned on the development plan (for example, the breadth of indications to pursue in parallel) and commercial potential for a program.

Cultural fit is also incredibly important. I have found that when research, clinical, or business development teams from each party “click” during the diligence process, you are more likely to get the deal done and to navigate the tough decisions and ups and downs you inevitably encounter. Relationships that are built on a foundation of mutual scientific respect, trust, transparency, and shared accountability are critical.

I see my role as helping to facilitate and maintain those relationships over time (including helping to build those relationships for years before any deal is ever signed), so teams can work productively through challenges and stay focused on what ultimately matters, which is creating medicines for patients.

Q: What are some models that align with Kymera’s business development strategy?

NG: As I mentioned before, we think about every collaboration carefully through the lens of our broader strategy to become a fully integrated biopharma company. There are a number of examples of really great science-driven companies who have done this – Regeneron, Alnylam, Seagen, Incyte and more recently companies like Argenx, Madrigal, and Insmed – and across these companies you see a range of collaboration structures. Ultimately, what we take away from this is that there are many partnering strategies and models that can help us realize our ambitions.

Q: On the other hand, where do some companies get it wrong?

NG: Every situation is unique so there’s no single recipe for success. The right business development strategy or the right individual deal can be highly variable across modality, therapeutic area, asset and company stage and is inseparably linked to company balance sheet and financial condition.

In my opinion, common mistakes are 1) partnering programs too early and 2) building a program strategy entirely dependent on partnering from the outset. Partnering too early could quickly lead to “sellers remorse,” particularly if a partner drives research or development in a direction a company disagrees with.  Being dependent on partnering also puts companies in a difficult position. First, their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) is weak, and they can lose leverage in negotiations as a result. But perhaps even more damaging, companies that depend on partnering don’t always invest in the capabilities and expertise they need to advance programs, which can have a negative effect on the value of the program. For example, this could include – after a failed partnering process – a company being “forced” to run a later stage trial or commercialize solo without the right internal team or adequate capabilities. Those same capabilities — in terms of people and expertise – are the ones that you need to be an effective counterparty in a negotiation and a good partner in a collaboration.

Another pitfall is giving up too much control. For biotechs, that can be existential. The typical biotech relies on a small number of programs, with the lead program often critical to value creation. For a large pharma partner, one program is ultimately part of a broader pipeline and subject to competing priorities across a clinical and commercial portfolio. We’re very focused on governance structures to avoid this and ensure that we enter collaborations with the ability to maintain control and make important decisions on critical issues. Collaboration necessitates compromise, but not on core priorities and principles.

Q: Looking ahead, what trends will shape innovation and business development over the next decade?

NG: We’re entering a period of accelerated innovation, and a few forces are clearly shaping where the industry is headed, and that’s fundamentally changing how companies think about partnerships.

There are so many all colliding at once – the emergence of Chinese companies, the impact of AI and computational drug discovery, the wave of LOEs across large pharma, and the prospect of most favored nations pricing policies and its impact on territory specific deals – and these are informing strategies. The constantly changing landscape is a challenge and what makes this fun. I firmly believe that if we ultimately focus on creating and developing drugs that truly benefit patients, we will find new models of partnering to maximize patient impact.

Q: What excites you most about what’s ahead?

NG: Progress and data. The last year was transformative for Kymera. As we continue to generate data across our pipeline and advance new programs into the clinic, I am incredibly excited about the opportunity to deliver for patients.