October 27, 2025 • 30 mins
Erik van den Berg, CEO of Memo Therapeutics, shares his insights about leadership in biopharma and how Memo is working to develop antibodies to transform the lives of patients with viral infections and cancer.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
John Simboli (00:00):
Erik, what led to your role as CEO at Memo
Therapeutics?
Erik van den Berg (00:03):
I joined about two years ago, and what
attracted me about MemoTherapeutics were, I guess, a
couple of things. So first ofall, it's a clinical asset in a
field that has a great medicalneed, and it was already an
ongoing trial, just starting upphase two. And that's
attractive, for me, because Ilike to be able to be involved
there to see how you can shapehow you prepare for your next
(00:26):
regulatory interactions, toreally make this a phase
three-ready asset, and withthat, of course, a viable option
to get to the market. So thatwas attractive. The unmet
medical needs, and also thestage of development, I had
connectivity with the investorbase that provides, then, of
course, some transparency andtrust already, I think both
ways. So that's helpful. Andthen when I met the team, I
really had a good connectionwith them. So they seemed to be
(00:50):
super, you know, and they werehonest and involved and, you
know, passionate about what theywere doing. And they had come
through a pretty difficult timeas a company, like many
biotechs, right? It's difficultto refinance, and sometimes you
get to the end of your cashbefore you do it. But they
pulled through that and weresuccessful at that and I think
is a good test of a team pullingtogether and delivering. So
(01:14):
there's a plus for me as well.
And then what I also startedwith the thought that I could
add value as well, based on myexperience translating companies
from earlier states to latestage clinical development. So
that was sort of the key reasonsfor me to decide the job Memo,
John Simboli (01:30):
Your background as a co-founder and as an executive
chairman, and having been doingthis for a while, would make me
think that process could havetaken some time because you had
so many options, so much, sobroad a view of what you might
want to take on next. Was thatthe case? Or did it happen
quickly?
Erik van den Berg (01:50):
I think it happened quickly in the end. So
I decided to, in my previouscompany, AM-Pharma, been there
15 years. I decided it was timeto do succession planning and to
work towards a handover to theChief Operating Officer. And
this was a process that wealigned on with the board and
more or less prepared for a yearwhere we had restructured the
organization, refocused theclinical trials, refinanced the
(02:13):
organization, and then I joinedthe board so I can still help
and add value there. But also itwas a decision to finish that,
and then I start looking around.
So I did not have thisopportunity, or any other lined
up, to have a concrete, seamlesstransition. So it took about
three months for me to evaluatemultiple options, and it was
(02:33):
hard work in between two jobs,there's lots that you can
evaluate. You want to make theright choice. And then this one
seems, at least, for mepersonally, the best fit based
on the previous criteria that Ijust provided. And I have not
been disappointed on any ofthese criteria. So it has been a
blessing to work with the teamand to be able to build on the
(02:55):
bases and expand itsignificantly and also augment
the investor base and worktogether closely with the board
and the investors to deliver onthe clinical trial results and
becoming more and more closelyinvolved with the patient
community, as well, along theway. So this is a field in which
I have, of course, a prettyactive vested interest from the
patient perspective. It's intransplantation. It's a well
(03:15):
connected field. Patientorganizations organize, for
example, you know, on an annualbasis, get together in the US,
as an example, where they dosports together, as like Olympic
Games for transplants to theirpatients. So it has been very
much a joy to be working in thisfield and contributing, indeed,
to providing a solution forpatients that have a BK virus
(03:37):
infection after transplantation.
John Simboli (03:41):
In that sifting, those three months that you
described, is it more likeeventually finding the right
fit, or is it anything likefalling in love, like as one
falls in love with an idea as astudent and in life? I mean,
what's that like?
Erik van den Berg (03:57):
Your mind starts to work in a certain way,
right? You're only looking for,I guess, affirmatory stuff,
confirmatory stuff, at a certainmoment in time that you think,
okay, yeah, no, no, this is,this is the best opportunity
because of these reasons. Andyou spend more and more time on
that, you dig into the subjectmore and more, you read more
articles, you speak with morepeople, and then it becomes a
little bit of a self-fulfillingprophecy, I think, in the end.
(04:19):
So maybe that's called fallingin love, but, yeah, it's, it's
how it works, right? Soapparently, that's where the
heart goes, that's where yourtime goes. Then you feel
comfortable with the choice thatyou're making. But there's so
much fun things to do, I think,in biotech, right? So it's also
a little bit being a kid in acandy shop, and would love to do
multiple things in parallel, butthat's not how it works, right?
(04:40):
If you are Chief ExecutiveOfficer, you have to focus,
indeed, on one thing that youcan lead at the same time,
especially when it's in laterstage clinical development.
There's so many choices to bemade. There's so many nuances to
be understood, and that's whereyou have to add your value by
putting on your, you know, yourboots and being in the mud
together with the team and thenmaking it happen.
John Simboli (05:01):
When you're building your team around you,
I'm guessing that, the questioncomes up, well, how secure is
this? So how does someone whounderstands that and has been
doing it for a while, how do youaddress that? How do you explain
that to people?
Erik van den Berg (05:16):
I don't think I've ever hired a senior from
pharma without having some levelof experience in a smaller
outfit or an entrepreneurialrole, and it doesn't need to be
a biotech company. But I think,I like people to then have shown
next to, of course, all theknowledge and capabilities that
(05:36):
will come with the exposure thatyou had in a large company. I
would like to see that peopleknow what they're getting into.
And if you haven't been exposedto being in the dirt, as we are
in a biotech company, but it canbe also in an entrepreneurial
role, then it's hardly a recipefor success. So typically, you
deselect all people that had20-25 years of experience solely
(06:00):
in one or two single largepharmas. It's difficult to be
happy, that such a person willbe happy in the environment that
we're operating. I've worked atlarger pharma, as well, but
before I worked in biotech,before I joined larger pharma,
and I've worked in consulting,so I know that I like to work in
the smaller company settings. Sothat's for me, something that
(06:21):
works. I want to be involved,which typically means, if you
are in the CEO role, thenyou're, of course, super
involved, right? You're not onthe sideline, and you can
oversee all aspects and helpdirect where we're going on all
these avenues. So for me, thatis very satisfactorily to be
involved with that. But ithasn't been a super, say,
conscious process (06:42):
I want to become a CEO of a biotech
company. That's not where, whenI finished my secondary school,
thought that's where I got toend up. I didn't even know what
biotech was. In the end, ofcourse, saw the complexity, it
came on my path relatively earlyin my career, when I was a
consultant at Arthur D. Little,we consulted lots of pharma and
chemical companies, andeventually also biotech
(07:04):
companies, to develop theirstrategy and where to focus your
R&D efforts. And that'sbasically the moment that I
started to fall in love with thebiotech sector, because it's so
much about innovation, and youwork on a global scale, it's
super complex, and of course,there's that doing good element
of it, as well. You're, at leastin most of the biotech
(07:28):
companies, we're focusing onunmet medical needs or really
trying to solve real problemswith, you know, cool science.
Well, what can be better thanthat?
John Simboli (07:38):
As you can remember, when you were younger,
and you were in those formativeyears, and you had this idea of
what, someday, your life wouldbe like. Did it have anything to
do with what this life turnedout to be?
Erik van den Berg (07:49):
On a higher level, I guess, yes. So when I
was young, what I can remember,at least, is that I wanted to
become a vet. That was theoriginal thought. I think that
vaporized somewhere later on, sonever returned to that original
idea. But I was fascinated bybiology, by nature. And I guess
(08:10):
I've watched the entire sequelsof David Attenborough when I was
very young. At the same time,maybe a little bit older, I
spelled out the economic sectionof a newspaper because I wanted
to understand how the worldworks, right? And I guess the
world of money dictates a lotwhat happens in the world. How
are decisions made? You know,how do power balances work out?
(08:30):
So on that higher level youthink about, where I'm now from,
everywhere that was interestedin as a kid. You know, it's
still a combination offascination with biology and
making sure that the financingworks as well, right? It is an
enterprise. In the end, we needto make sure it has a business
model. Somebody wants to putmoney in it. So we have to
(08:52):
believe in the vision that isthere for a company, and that
there is a product at the end ofthe pipeline where you go
through the development steps.
So it's kind of that connectionof the two basic interests that
I already experienced relativelyearly in life.
John Simboli (09:08):
From my vantage point, being on the branding
side, I observe that scientistswork in an area of life where
facts matter, and I also seethat when dealing with, that
those facts change quickly, andso there's an inherent kind of
chaotic aspect to working inbiopharma. And I also see that
(09:29):
people who have a backgroundeconomics can see things in a
broader, longer timeline, andthey can try and make sense out
of them. So how does one have anorderly mind as a scientist and
also deal with the disorder ofthings changing all the time?
Erik van den Berg (09:44):
Yes, but there are signs in disorder or
complexity as well. It's about,then seeing, more or less the
general rules that apply, thatyou can create at least some
order in that chaos. It's notvery easy to done, of course,
all sorts of details. At least,what works for me is keeping in
(10:05):
mind what the bigger picture is,so that you have a very clear
vision of where we're going to.
In my mind, that's not a singlepoint, right? There's
optionalities of what might bebut what might need to happen in
between. Of course, our end goalis clear. I want to get this
drug approved and then beingable to help patients. And okay,
(10:25):
then you break it down on whatthe steps are in between. But
the road to these steps can bedifferent, right? So you work on
optionality, you work onpotential scenarios that might
happen, and then you're kind ofin this stream that is a river
of, we don't change the river,but we can change the course of
where we're, you know, in ourboat on that river. And that's,
I think, where you have to focuson. So what are the things that
(10:47):
you can change in anorganization? It's very helpful
if there's a right culture inplace, which makes, then, life
much easier for everybody. Ifwe're kind of speaking the same
language, which means that atthe moment, there is structure
so we know what we're going todiscuss at what points in times,
right? On a meeting structure orcompany meeting sharing
(11:07):
information, if everybody knows,hopefully they will get their
information, ability to inputand, you know, discuss things.
And at the same time, we havethese rules, which is our
culture, which provides alsocertainty, I think, on how we
interact with each other andwhat we are aiming to be. And
that can also provide order orcertainty or solid ground in a
(11:30):
world that is super changeable,especially in biotech, right
there's lots of events thathappen, either outside of the
company or in your programs.
It's early science that youcannot predict, and then, yes,
you have to step back, reflectand make decisions.
John Simboli (11:52):
What are the elements of culture at Memo that
help you to make that happen?
Erik van den Berg (11:57):
Well, one thing I think is important is
that we we embrace, say, thecollaborative mindset. I have
not experienced here that peoplewill say, Well, you know, that's
not in my wheelhouse. It'ssomebody else that needs to do
it. And I think that's becausethe overall objective is clear,
the goal. So that's really ahelpful part of our culture. We
(12:18):
really embrace quality ouroutput, because it's just
professionally, it is fairlysatisfactory, right, if you can
do it in the appropriate way.
And then, just as anotherexample, there are more cultural
traits that we that we have, butthe desire to make impact. And
so we want to focus on thethings that can really have a
(12:40):
big change, right? So, and theBK program that we're working on
in transplantation is, ofcourse, a clear example of that,
where we're the furthest along,at the farthest in development.
We've done a pretty large studyfor being mid clinical stage,
and there's nothing out there onthe market, right? And if you
(13:01):
have a BK virus infection, thenthe outlook is that you double
your risk of losing your graftearlier on, or even an increased
mortality rate. The currentstandard of care is not yet good
enough. We want to change that.
John Simboli (13:17):
There must be a great temptation to be the
smartest guy in the room whenyou're the CEO or a leader. How
does, in terms of culture, howdo you deal with that?
Erik van den Berg (13:29):
I do like to ask a lot of questions, and
sometimes that style can comeacross, of course, as criticism,
which it's not. It's eithergenuinely being interested or
not understanding it and wantingto understand it, or if I don't
understand it, maybe somebodyelse, externally doesn't then
understand it either, and then Istart to have a lot of
(13:51):
questions, which hopefully isthen helpful for people to
clarify their thoughts or directfuture analytical work to come
up to a better answer. Yes, it'smaybe it's also inviting others
to be critical so that, andthen, of course, you have to
show that you can acceptcriticism or feedback, which,
(14:14):
otherwise the loop doesn't work.
John Simboli (14:16):
When people ask, who is Memo Therapeutics? How do
where you like to answer?
Erik van den Berg (14:19):
Well, the short answer is that we're in
the business of identifyinghighly potent antibodies derived
from human immune responses andthen translate them in unique
medicines. And the other answerto that question is, our lead
program is in, just finishedphase two, in BK viral
infections. And then we have anantibody that was derived from a
(14:40):
patient that addressed his ownviral infections very
effectively. And then when weexamined the antibody of all of
resectionsat Memo where indeed we would
the patients, we were able toidentify the single antibody
that had a highly potentresponse or binding and
neutralization to the BK virus,the most potent antibody ever
seen here. What I like about ourconcept is that you really, you
(15:02):
know you're being inspired bynature, and you're building on
that. You have a mature antibodyin a human being. So it's a
pretty safe starting position.
So we're giving a fully humanantibody to patients, and one
patient, in the end, helps,hopefully a lot of other
patients then. So I think that'sthe beauty of that concept. The
platform's name that we have atMemo Therapeutics is Dropzylla,
(15:24):
as we call it. So it's amicrofluidic platform where,
based on these very smalldroplets, we're able to extract
the genetic information out ofeach B cell that we obtain from
a sample to see well, whatantibody is that B cell
producing? And then we can bankthose antibodies by transferring
DNA into RNA and then into aproducer cell bank to evaluate
(15:46):
indeed and Okay, let's screenthat antibody of a specific
patient or a combination oflibraries that we have obtained
for multiple patients, and thenscreen it against the target. Or
what we are now also doing isuse the antibody to discover
novel targets, because then atone go, you have a novel target
and a novel antibody. Weidentified, indeed, this
(16:08):
antibody was working with bloodfrom healthy individuals, but
also from kidney transplantationpatients that had a BK virus
infection, and hence arelatively recent immune
response to the BK virus, andthen sample their B cells, find
out what antibodies are there,and then identify very potently
binding and neutralizingantibodies to the virus. And
(16:30):
because this technology is kindof a copy machine, it can copy
the entire antibody on, itincreases the chance of finding
a unique antibody also, if likea factor over the existing
technologies, that's why we wereable to find this unique
antibody. And in our otherprograms, we're also finding,
indeed, unique antibodies.
(18:12):
like to see how we can get newtargets, and with that, new
antibodies identified at thesame time to be developed in
cancer, tumor cancerindications.
John Simboli (18:24):
When you explain to savvy investors, let's say
institutional investors,prospective investors, what
distinguishes Memo, and somewill understand it and value it.
Some will understand it and say,That's not for me. Some will
say, Oh, I think I have it. Andthen you may realize, I'm
guessing here, that they haveunderstood it in a way that you
(18:44):
did not intend them tounderstand it. So the question
is, when there is amisperception, a
miscategorization, what's thattend to be? And then how do you
Erik van den Berg (18:56):
I don't think we ever have misunderstandings
about the mode of action, in thesense, right? Because it's,
everybody knows antibodies.
Okay, you neutralize a virus. Weknow that your immune response
can be is that the way, how yourimmune response is to deal with
like foreign entities, so andthen to deal with the disease. I
think everybody also gets theunmet medical need, in the sense
(19:17):
that there's nothing on themarket currently, and that
projections for these patientsare not ideal. What might be
maybe not misunderstood is toostrong, but not fully
appreciated, is that, so thecurrent standard of care to
treat BK virus infections is tolower immunosuppression.
Patients, if they get an organtransplant, in our case, kidney
(19:38):
transplants, they are offeredpretty heavy immunosuppression
because you don't want to rejectthe graft. Clearly, of course,
that is easier than for virusesand other infectious agents to
be upregulated or infect thepatient. In our case, 90% of the
population has the BK virus.
(20:01):
It's dormant in the kidney, soit's transplanted with the
kidney. We have strongimmunosuppression. It's
upregulated in a severe form in20 to 30% of transplant
patients. And then, you know,immunosuppression is lowered to
be able to get the immunesystem, you know, elevated
again, to be able to address thevirus. But the background of
that is two-fold (20:21):
One is that's the standard of care, and we
know the outcomes. So after 10years, if you do not have a BK
virus infection, 60% of thepatients stay alive with a
functioning graft. If you have aserious BK virus infection, it's
36% and that's with this currentset of care. So sometimes people
(20:42):
will feel, well, the current setof care is good enough, right?
We can address this, you know,little flare of virus increase
by lowering immune suppression.
But then if you look at theconsequence of that on the long
term, it's not satisfactory atall. And then the other part is
the patient perspective there.
So patients are told, you know,pretty severely, that they have
(21:04):
to take their medicine, right?
It's important to take yourmedicine. As you can imagine, if
you would forget to take yourmedicines, or infrequently take
it, maybe within a couple ofweeks after your
transplantation, you will be atthe ICU, right, because your
organ is being rejected. So it'sreally, you know, important to
take your medicines. And thenall of a sudden you get a BK
(21:24):
virus infection, at least somepatients. And then the message
is, well, don't worry, we'lllower your immunosuppression,
right? So it's counterintuitiveto do it, because it feels
you're risking your graft. Andto some extent that's true, of
course, so it increases the riskfor acute rejections episodes,
which can be treated again byincreasing immune suppression.
(21:45):
But the guardrails wherephysicians and patients have to
operate in, where theimmunosuppression is, like the
Goldilocks scenario, it's justright, it's not too much because
then you get a lot ofopportunistic infections. It's
not too low, because then you'rerejecting your graft. The
guardrails are relativelynarrow, certainly in some
patients. So being able toprovide much more flexibility
(22:08):
and freedom if you can add anantibody to your standard of
care, that you don't need tolower immuno-suppression, or you
don't need to lower that much,makes a lot of sense. And I
think that concept sometimes, ofcourse, takes a while to realize
that immuno-suppression loweringis the only thing we have
currently. It comes, of course,with some risks, and it's
(22:30):
definitely not ideal.
John Simboli (22:33):
Finding that balance within the guardrail, is
that, in a way that you justdescribed, is that
differentiating for Memo? Areothers approaching it in the
same way, similar way?
Erik van den Berg (22:43):
Well, there are not that many others. I
think that's the first thing. Anantibody makes sense in this
setting, because a typical smallmolecule approach is not very
likely to work with DNA, smallenvelope virus, non envelope
virus and other things. So ofcourse, you can think about
antisense as an approach, whicha company is doing, but in the
end, we'll just work with whatnature already has provided us,
(23:05):
which is, you know, aneutralizing antibody, which we
all have, right? We all haveneutralizing antibodies because
we all have the virus, andthat's how we keep it in check.
So keep it simple and safe.
Hopefully soon after phase threesuccessful on efficacy.
John Simboli (23:21):
What makes a good partner for Memo Therapeutics?
What kinds of partners mightmake a good match to Memo? What
would you say?
Erik van den Berg (23:29):
We have, you know, I see our investors as
partners. We have, of course, aCRO we work with, a lot of
clinical sites. We've workedwith patient organizations. We
work with manufacturing outfits.
We think we probably sign, Idon't know, five contracts a
week or more. So we have a lotof external connectivity. We're
a small core, where you haveexpertise on all different
(23:50):
areas. We have our labs here, ofcourse, in Zurich as well. Then
you work with lots of externalsthat can provide the expertise
or hands or facilities that wedon't have, and then we work
with them.And in the end, we'lllikely work with pharma partners
to leverage our asset to becomeavailable around the globe.
John Simboli (24:14):
How about academis partners? Partnerships? What
sorts of connections do you havein place at this point? I know
you're always looking.
Erik van den Berg (24:21):
We do have connections with, well, first of
all, of course, in the clinicaltrials with the hospitals. But
if you look at the science partof the organization, and also
how, for example, we haddiscovered our antibody here, it
was in collaboration withuniversities that worked
together with us on thisprogram. And we do the same in
our oncology program. We workwith a network of universities
(24:42):
and other suppliers from thescience side. We regularly have,
you know, Swiss grants, so thelocal grant system granted to
us, where we then collaboratewith, you know, the University
of Basel, for example, of theUniversity of Zurich to bring
innovation further.
John Simboli (24:58):
How significant a change do you envision if this
works out in the way you hope itwill?
Erik van den Berg (25:03):
I think it will be a significant change,
yes. It's a real concern intransplantation that you have a
BK virus infection, because ifyou don't get it under control,
you know it will destroy yourkidney cells. And with that
kidney function, and with that,over time, you're graft, you
will need to be re-transplanted,if possible. As an example, here
(25:24):
in the US, you have, you know,500,000 patients that have end
stage renal disease and hencehave dialysis. 100,000 are on
the transplant list, and lessthan 30,000 are transplanted
each year. So the averagewaiting time for a transplant is
about five years in the US,pretty similar in Europe. It's
even higher in Japan. With thatshortage of donors, and, of
(25:47):
course, a shorter graft life, ifyou have a BK viral infection,
you know, on top of all theconcerns that it has for for
patients, whilst having this,you know, infection and having
to deal with all sorts ofchanges in your
immunosuppression, which is notideal. Yes, I think if we can
add then something to the mix,with an antibody that
neutralizes the virus, can help,you know, get rid of the virus
(26:10):
quicker, which is data that wesee from our phase two study,
where the BK virus infectionboth measured in blood as well
as in the kidney, where itreplicates, it has a profound
effect on lowering the BK viruspresence in the kidney and in
blood. So I think it will have atremendous impact and become
part of the standard of carewhere we say, well, let's use
(26:34):
the antibody and deal with thevirus in that way. If you're an
end stage renal disease patient,and you can, this how patients
experience it, get the gift ofgetting a transplant, and with
that, you're off dialysis,right? You'll get to a
relatively normal life thenquickly again, it has a profound
impact on lives of people.
John Simboli (26:55):
Is there anything about working in the Zurich area
that that is similar to ordifferent from other places
you've worked?
Erik van den Berg (27:02):
It's a pretty tightly knit, I think, ecosystem
that you have here. So Zurichitself has a pretty large
startup field, also outside ofbiotech, ETH is almost a
guarantee for a lot of spin outsthat is located here. So I think
it's a very good ecosystem inSwitzerland in general. And
there's always things toimprove, of course, but if I
look at it as an outsider in,there's a willingness to create
(27:26):
spin outs from universities. Ouruniversities are very capable of
doing that. And maybe in somecountries, that's a longer
process, and there are moreacademic resistance to it. So
people are more pragmatic here.
If you want to get innovation topatients or to people, in the
end, science needs to betranslated into a product.
That's called innovation. Andthe best setting for that is, of
(27:49):
course, in companies. Andthere's a pretty broad support
also from the angel investorside, from individuals or family
offices investing into alsobiotech which have, of course,
typically, a long horizon. Iexperienced that as more in
Switzerland than in othercountries. So lots of biotech
companies will have a widershareholder base because of
(28:13):
their early phases of life, theyrelied, indeed, on also angels
investors to help the companyget going.
John Simboli (28:22):
Eric, thanks for speaking with me today.
Erik van den Berg (28:24):
My pleasure.
Lovely, speaking with you aswell.
Erik, what led to your role as CEO at Memo
Therapeutics?
Erik van den Berg (00:03):
I joined about two years ago, and what
attracted me about MemoTherapeutics were, I guess, a
couple of things. So first ofall, it's a clinical asset in a
field that has a great medicalneed, and it was already an
ongoing trial, just starting upphase two. And that's
attractive, for me, because Ilike to be able to be involved
there to see how you can shapehow you prepare for your next
(00:26):
regulatory interactions, toreally make this a phase
three-ready asset, and withthat, of course, a viable option
to get to the market. So thatwas attractive. The unmet
medical needs, and also thestage of development, I had
connectivity with the investorbase that provides, then, of
course, some transparency andtrust already, I think both
ways. So that's helpful. Andthen when I met the team, I
really had a good connectionwith them. So they seemed to be
(00:50):
super, you know, and they werehonest and involved and, you
know, passionate about what theywere doing. And they had come
through a pretty difficult timeas a company, like many
biotechs, right? It's difficultto refinance, and sometimes you
get to the end of your cashbefore you do it. But they
pulled through that and weresuccessful at that and I think
is a good test of a team pullingtogether and delivering. So
(01:14):
there's a plus for me as well.
And then what I also startedwith the thought that I could
add value as well, based on myexperience translating companies
from earlier states to latestage clinical development. So
that was sort of the key reasonsfor me to decide the job Memo,
John Simboli (01:30):
Your background as a co-founder and as an executive
chairman, and having been doingthis for a while, would make me
think that process could havetaken some time because you had
so many options, so much, sobroad a view of what you might
want to take on next. Was thatthe case? Or did it happen
quickly?
Erik van den Berg (01:50):
I think it happened quickly in the end. So
I decided to, in my previouscompany, AM-Pharma, been there
15 years. I decided it was timeto do succession planning and to
work towards a handover to theChief Operating Officer. And
this was a process that wealigned on with the board and
more or less prepared for a yearwhere we had restructured the
organization, refocused theclinical trials, refinanced the
(02:13):
organization, and then I joinedthe board so I can still help
and add value there. But also itwas a decision to finish that,
and then I start looking around.
So I did not have thisopportunity, or any other lined
up, to have a concrete, seamlesstransition. So it took about
three months for me to evaluatemultiple options, and it was
(02:33):
hard work in between two jobs,there's lots that you can
evaluate. You want to make theright choice. And then this one
seems, at least, for mepersonally, the best fit based
on the previous criteria that Ijust provided. And I have not
been disappointed on any ofthese criteria. So it has been a
blessing to work with the teamand to be able to build on the
(02:55):
bases and expand itsignificantly and also augment
the investor base and worktogether closely with the board
and the investors to deliver onthe clinical trial results and
becoming more and more closelyinvolved with the patient
community, as well, along theway. So this is a field in which
I have, of course, a prettyactive vested interest from the
patient perspective. It's intransplantation. It's a well
(03:15):
connected field. Patientorganizations organize, for
example, you know, on an annualbasis, get together in the US,
as an example, where they dosports together, as like Olympic
Games for transplants to theirpatients. So it has been very
much a joy to be working in thisfield and contributing, indeed,
to providing a solution forpatients that have a BK virus
(03:37):
infection after transplantation.
John Simboli (03:41):
In that sifting, those three months that you
described, is it more likeeventually finding the right
fit, or is it anything likefalling in love, like as one
falls in love with an idea as astudent and in life? I mean,
what's that like?
Erik van den Berg (03:57):
Your mind starts to work in a certain way,
right? You're only looking for,I guess, affirmatory stuff,
confirmatory stuff, at a certainmoment in time that you think,
okay, yeah, no, no, this is,this is the best opportunity
because of these reasons. Andyou spend more and more time on
that, you dig into the subjectmore and more, you read more
articles, you speak with morepeople, and then it becomes a
little bit of a self-fulfillingprophecy, I think, in the end.
(04:19):
So maybe that's called fallingin love, but, yeah, it's, it's
how it works, right? Soapparently, that's where the
heart goes, that's where yourtime goes. Then you feel
comfortable with the choice thatyou're making. But there's so
much fun things to do, I think,in biotech, right? So it's also
a little bit being a kid in acandy shop, and would love to do
multiple things in parallel, butthat's not how it works, right?
(04:40):
If you are Chief ExecutiveOfficer, you have to focus,
indeed, on one thing that youcan lead at the same time,
especially when it's in laterstage clinical development.
There's so many choices to bemade. There's so many nuances to
be understood, and that's whereyou have to add your value by
putting on your, you know, yourboots and being in the mud
together with the team and thenmaking it happen.
John Simboli (05:01):
When you're building your team around you,
I'm guessing that, the questioncomes up, well, how secure is
this? So how does someone whounderstands that and has been
doing it for a while, how do youaddress that? How do you explain
that to people?
Erik van den Berg (05:16):
I don't think I've ever hired a senior from
pharma without having some levelof experience in a smaller
outfit or an entrepreneurialrole, and it doesn't need to be
a biotech company. But I think,I like people to then have shown
next to, of course, all theknowledge and capabilities that
(05:36):
will come with the exposure thatyou had in a large company. I
would like to see that peopleknow what they're getting into.
And if you haven't been exposedto being in the dirt, as we are
in a biotech company, but it canbe also in an entrepreneurial
role, then it's hardly a recipefor success. So typically, you
deselect all people that had20-25 years of experience solely
(06:00):
in one or two single largepharmas. It's difficult to be
happy, that such a person willbe happy in the environment that
we're operating. I've worked atlarger pharma, as well, but
before I worked in biotech,before I joined larger pharma,
and I've worked in consulting,so I know that I like to work in
the smaller company settings. Sothat's for me, something that
(06:21):
works. I want to be involved,which typically means, if you
are in the CEO role, thenyou're, of course, super
involved, right? You're not onthe sideline, and you can
oversee all aspects and helpdirect where we're going on all
these avenues. So for me, thatis very satisfactorily to be
involved with that. But ithasn't been a super, say,
conscious process (06:42):
I want to become a CEO of a biotech
company. That's not where, whenI finished my secondary school,
thought that's where I got toend up. I didn't even know what
biotech was. In the end, ofcourse, saw the complexity, it
came on my path relatively earlyin my career, when I was a
consultant at Arthur D. Little,we consulted lots of pharma and
chemical companies, andeventually also biotech
(07:04):
companies, to develop theirstrategy and where to focus your
R&D efforts. And that'sbasically the moment that I
started to fall in love with thebiotech sector, because it's so
much about innovation, and youwork on a global scale, it's
super complex, and of course,there's that doing good element
of it, as well. You're, at leastin most of the biotech
(07:28):
companies, we're focusing onunmet medical needs or really
trying to solve real problemswith, you know, cool science.
Well, what can be better thanthat?
John Simboli (07:38):
As you can remember, when you were younger,
and you were in those formativeyears, and you had this idea of
what, someday, your life wouldbe like. Did it have anything to
do with what this life turnedout to be?
Erik van den Berg (07:49):
On a higher level, I guess, yes. So when I
was young, what I can remember,at least, is that I wanted to
become a vet. That was theoriginal thought. I think that
vaporized somewhere later on, sonever returned to that original
idea. But I was fascinated bybiology, by nature. And I guess
(08:10):
I've watched the entire sequelsof David Attenborough when I was
very young. At the same time,maybe a little bit older, I
spelled out the economic sectionof a newspaper because I wanted
to understand how the worldworks, right? And I guess the
world of money dictates a lotwhat happens in the world. How
are decisions made? You know,how do power balances work out?
(08:30):
So on that higher level youthink about, where I'm now from,
everywhere that was interestedin as a kid. You know, it's
still a combination offascination with biology and
making sure that the financingworks as well, right? It is an
enterprise. In the end, we needto make sure it has a business
model. Somebody wants to putmoney in it. So we have to
(08:52):
believe in the vision that isthere for a company, and that
there is a product at the end ofthe pipeline where you go
through the development steps.
So it's kind of that connectionof the two basic interests that
I already experienced relativelyearly in life.
John Simboli (09:08):
From my vantage point, being on the branding
side, I observe that scientistswork in an area of life where
facts matter, and I also seethat when dealing with, that
those facts change quickly, andso there's an inherent kind of
chaotic aspect to working inbiopharma. And I also see that
(09:29):
people who have a backgroundeconomics can see things in a
broader, longer timeline, andthey can try and make sense out
of them. So how does one have anorderly mind as a scientist and
also deal with the disorder ofthings changing all the time?
Erik van den Berg (09:44):
Yes, but there are signs in disorder or
complexity as well. It's about,then seeing, more or less the
general rules that apply, thatyou can create at least some
order in that chaos. It's notvery easy to done, of course,
all sorts of details. At least,what works for me is keeping in
(10:05):
mind what the bigger picture is,so that you have a very clear
vision of where we're going to.
In my mind, that's not a singlepoint, right? There's
optionalities of what might bebut what might need to happen in
between. Of course, our end goalis clear. I want to get this
drug approved and then beingable to help patients. And okay,
(10:25):
then you break it down on whatthe steps are in between. But
the road to these steps can bedifferent, right? So you work on
optionality, you work onpotential scenarios that might
happen, and then you're kind ofin this stream that is a river
of, we don't change the river,but we can change the course of
where we're, you know, in ourboat on that river. And that's,
I think, where you have to focuson. So what are the things that
(10:47):
you can change in anorganization? It's very helpful
if there's a right culture inplace, which makes, then, life
much easier for everybody. Ifwe're kind of speaking the same
language, which means that atthe moment, there is structure
so we know what we're going todiscuss at what points in times,
right? On a meeting structure orcompany meeting sharing
(11:07):
information, if everybody knows,hopefully they will get their
information, ability to inputand, you know, discuss things.
And at the same time, we havethese rules, which is our
culture, which provides alsocertainty, I think, on how we
interact with each other andwhat we are aiming to be. And
that can also provide order orcertainty or solid ground in a
(11:30):
world that is super changeable,especially in biotech, right
there's lots of events thathappen, either outside of the
company or in your programs.
It's early science that youcannot predict, and then, yes,
you have to step back, reflectand make decisions.
John Simboli (11:52):
What are the elements of culture at Memo that
help you to make that happen?
Erik van den Berg (11:57):
Well, one thing I think is important is
that we we embrace, say, thecollaborative mindset. I have
not experienced here that peoplewill say, Well, you know, that's
not in my wheelhouse. It'ssomebody else that needs to do
it. And I think that's becausethe overall objective is clear,
the goal. So that's really ahelpful part of our culture. We
(12:18):
really embrace quality ouroutput, because it's just
professionally, it is fairlysatisfactory, right, if you can
do it in the appropriate way.
And then, just as anotherexample, there are more cultural
traits that we that we have, butthe desire to make impact. And
so we want to focus on thethings that can really have a
(12:40):
big change, right? So, and theBK program that we're working on
in transplantation is, ofcourse, a clear example of that,
where we're the furthest along,at the farthest in development.
We've done a pretty large studyfor being mid clinical stage,
and there's nothing out there onthe market, right? And if you
(13:01):
have a BK virus infection, thenthe outlook is that you double
your risk of losing your graftearlier on, or even an increased
mortality rate. The currentstandard of care is not yet good
enough. We want to change that.
John Simboli (13:17):
There must be a great temptation to be the
smartest guy in the room whenyou're the CEO or a leader. How
does, in terms of culture, howdo you deal with that?
Erik van den Berg (13:29):
I do like to ask a lot of questions, and
sometimes that style can comeacross, of course, as criticism,
which it's not. It's eithergenuinely being interested or
not understanding it and wantingto understand it, or if I don't
understand it, maybe somebodyelse, externally doesn't then
understand it either, and then Istart to have a lot of
(13:51):
questions, which hopefully isthen helpful for people to
clarify their thoughts or directfuture analytical work to come
up to a better answer. Yes, it'smaybe it's also inviting others
to be critical so that, andthen, of course, you have to
show that you can acceptcriticism or feedback, which,
(14:14):
otherwise the loop doesn't work.
John Simboli (14:16):
When people ask, who is Memo Therapeutics? How do
where you like to answer?
Erik van den Berg (14:19):
Well, the short answer is that we're in
the business of identifyinghighly potent antibodies derived
from human immune responses andthen translate them in unique
medicines. And the other answerto that question is, our lead
program is in, just finishedphase two, in BK viral
infections. And then we have anantibody that was derived from a
(14:40):
patient that addressed his ownviral infections very
effectively. And then when weexamined the antibody of all of
resectionsat Memo where indeed we would
the patients, we were able toidentify the single antibody
that had a highly potentresponse or binding and
neutralization to the BK virus,the most potent antibody ever
seen here. What I like about ourconcept is that you really, you
(15:02):
know you're being inspired bynature, and you're building on
that. You have a mature antibodyin a human being. So it's a
pretty safe starting position.
So we're giving a fully humanantibody to patients, and one
patient, in the end, helps,hopefully a lot of other
patients then. So I think that'sthe beauty of that concept. The
platform's name that we have atMemo Therapeutics is Dropzylla,
(15:24):
as we call it. So it's amicrofluidic platform where,
based on these very smalldroplets, we're able to extract
the genetic information out ofeach B cell that we obtain from
a sample to see well, whatantibody is that B cell
producing? And then we can bankthose antibodies by transferring
DNA into RNA and then into aproducer cell bank to evaluate
(15:46):
indeed and Okay, let's screenthat antibody of a specific
patient or a combination oflibraries that we have obtained
for multiple patients, and thenscreen it against the target. Or
what we are now also doing isuse the antibody to discover
novel targets, because then atone go, you have a novel target
and a novel antibody. Weidentified, indeed, this
(16:08):
antibody was working with bloodfrom healthy individuals, but
also from kidney transplantationpatients that had a BK virus
infection, and hence arelatively recent immune
response to the BK virus, andthen sample their B cells, find
out what antibodies are there,and then identify very potently
binding and neutralizingantibodies to the virus. And
(16:30):
because this technology is kindof a copy machine, it can copy
the entire antibody on, itincreases the chance of finding
a unique antibody also, if likea factor over the existing
technologies, that's why we wereable to find this unique
antibody. And in our otherprograms, we're also finding,
indeed, unique antibodies.
(18:12):
like to see how we can get newtargets, and with that, new
antibodies identified at thesame time to be developed in
cancer, tumor cancerindications.
John Simboli (18:24):
When you explain to savvy investors, let's say
institutional investors,prospective investors, what
distinguishes Memo, and somewill understand it and value it.
Some will understand it and say,That's not for me. Some will
say, Oh, I think I have it. Andthen you may realize, I'm
guessing here, that they haveunderstood it in a way that you
(18:44):
did not intend them tounderstand it. So the question
is, when there is amisperception, a
miscategorization, what's thattend to be? And then how do you
Erik van den Berg (18:56):
I don't think we ever have misunderstandings
about the mode of action, in thesense, right? Because it's,
everybody knows antibodies.
Okay, you neutralize a virus. Weknow that your immune response
can be is that the way, how yourimmune response is to deal with
like foreign entities, so andthen to deal with the disease. I
think everybody also gets theunmet medical need, in the sense
(19:17):
that there's nothing on themarket currently, and that
projections for these patientsare not ideal. What might be
maybe not misunderstood is toostrong, but not fully
appreciated, is that, so thecurrent standard of care to
treat BK virus infections is tolower immunosuppression.
Patients, if they get an organtransplant, in our case, kidney
(19:38):
transplants, they are offeredpretty heavy immunosuppression
because you don't want to rejectthe graft. Clearly, of course,
that is easier than for virusesand other infectious agents to
be upregulated or infect thepatient. In our case, 90% of the
population has the BK virus.
(20:01):
It's dormant in the kidney, soit's transplanted with the
kidney. We have strongimmunosuppression. It's
upregulated in a severe form in20 to 30% of transplant
patients. And then, you know,immunosuppression is lowered to
be able to get the immunesystem, you know, elevated
again, to be able to address thevirus. But the background of
that is two-fold (20:21):
One is that's the standard of care, and we
know the outcomes. So after 10years, if you do not have a BK
virus infection, 60% of thepatients stay alive with a
functioning graft. If you have aserious BK virus infection, it's
36% and that's with this currentset of care. So sometimes people
(20:42):
will feel, well, the current setof care is good enough, right?
We can address this, you know,little flare of virus increase
by lowering immune suppression.
But then if you look at theconsequence of that on the long
term, it's not satisfactory atall. And then the other part is
the patient perspective there.
So patients are told, you know,pretty severely, that they have
(21:04):
to take their medicine, right?
It's important to take yourmedicine. As you can imagine, if
you would forget to take yourmedicines, or infrequently take
it, maybe within a couple ofweeks after your
transplantation, you will be atthe ICU, right, because your
organ is being rejected. So it'sreally, you know, important to
take your medicines. And thenall of a sudden you get a BK
(21:24):
virus infection, at least somepatients. And then the message
is, well, don't worry, we'lllower your immunosuppression,
right? So it's counterintuitiveto do it, because it feels
you're risking your graft. Andto some extent that's true, of
course, so it increases the riskfor acute rejections episodes,
which can be treated again byincreasing immune suppression.
(21:45):
But the guardrails wherephysicians and patients have to
operate in, where theimmunosuppression is, like the
Goldilocks scenario, it's justright, it's not too much because
then you get a lot ofopportunistic infections. It's
not too low, because then you'rerejecting your graft. The
guardrails are relativelynarrow, certainly in some
patients. So being able toprovide much more flexibility
(22:08):
and freedom if you can add anantibody to your standard of
care, that you don't need tolower immuno-suppression, or you
don't need to lower that much,makes a lot of sense. And I
think that concept sometimes, ofcourse, takes a while to realize
that immuno-suppression loweringis the only thing we have
currently. It comes, of course,with some risks, and it's
(22:30):
definitely not ideal.
John Simboli (22:33):
Finding that balance within the guardrail, is
that, in a way that you justdescribed, is that
differentiating for Memo? Areothers approaching it in the
same way, similar way?
Erik van den Berg (22:43):
Well, there are not that many others. I
think that's the first thing. Anantibody makes sense in this
setting, because a typical smallmolecule approach is not very
likely to work with DNA, smallenvelope virus, non envelope
virus and other things. So ofcourse, you can think about
antisense as an approach, whicha company is doing, but in the
end, we'll just work with whatnature already has provided us,
(23:05):
which is, you know, aneutralizing antibody, which we
all have, right? We all haveneutralizing antibodies because
we all have the virus, andthat's how we keep it in check.
So keep it simple and safe.
Hopefully soon after phase threesuccessful on efficacy.
John Simboli (23:21):
What makes a good partner for Memo Therapeutics?
What kinds of partners mightmake a good match to Memo? What
would you say?
Erik van den Berg (23:29):
We have, you know, I see our investors as
partners. We have, of course, aCRO we work with, a lot of
clinical sites. We've workedwith patient organizations. We
work with manufacturing outfits.
We think we probably sign, Idon't know, five contracts a
week or more. So we have a lotof external connectivity. We're
a small core, where you haveexpertise on all different
(23:50):
areas. We have our labs here, ofcourse, in Zurich as well. Then
you work with lots of externalsthat can provide the expertise
or hands or facilities that wedon't have, and then we work
with them.And in the end, we'lllikely work with pharma partners
to leverage our asset to becomeavailable around the globe.
John Simboli (24:14):
How about academis partners? Partnerships? What
sorts of connections do you havein place at this point? I know
you're always looking.
Erik van den Berg (24:21):
We do have connections with, well, first of
all, of course, in the clinicaltrials with the hospitals. But
if you look at the science partof the organization, and also
how, for example, we haddiscovered our antibody here, it
was in collaboration withuniversities that worked
together with us on thisprogram. And we do the same in
our oncology program. We workwith a network of universities
(24:42):
and other suppliers from thescience side. We regularly have,
you know, Swiss grants, so thelocal grant system granted to
us, where we then collaboratewith, you know, the University
of Basel, for example, of theUniversity of Zurich to bring
innovation further.
John Simboli (24:58):
How significant a change do you envision if this
works out in the way you hope itwill?
Erik van den Berg (25:03):
I think it will be a significant change,
yes. It's a real concern intransplantation that you have a
BK virus infection, because ifyou don't get it under control,
you know it will destroy yourkidney cells. And with that
kidney function, and with that,over time, you're graft, you
will need to be re-transplanted,if possible. As an example, here
(25:24):
in the US, you have, you know,500,000 patients that have end
stage renal disease and hencehave dialysis. 100,000 are on
the transplant list, and lessthan 30,000 are transplanted
each year. So the averagewaiting time for a transplant is
about five years in the US,pretty similar in Europe. It's
even higher in Japan. With thatshortage of donors, and, of
(25:47):
course, a shorter graft life, ifyou have a BK viral infection,
you know, on top of all theconcerns that it has for for
patients, whilst having this,you know, infection and having
to deal with all sorts ofchanges in your
immunosuppression, which is notideal. Yes, I think if we can
add then something to the mix,with an antibody that
neutralizes the virus, can help,you know, get rid of the virus
(26:10):
quicker, which is data that wesee from our phase two study,
where the BK virus infectionboth measured in blood as well
as in the kidney, where itreplicates, it has a profound
effect on lowering the BK viruspresence in the kidney and in
blood. So I think it will have atremendous impact and become
part of the standard of carewhere we say, well, let's use
(26:34):
the antibody and deal with thevirus in that way. If you're an
end stage renal disease patient,and you can, this how patients
experience it, get the gift ofgetting a transplant, and with
that, you're off dialysis,right? You'll get to a
relatively normal life thenquickly again, it has a profound
impact on lives of people.
John Simboli (26:55):
Is there anything about working in the Zurich area
that that is similar to ordifferent from other places
you've worked?
Erik van den Berg (27:02):
It's a pretty tightly knit, I think, ecosystem
that you have here. So Zurichitself has a pretty large
startup field, also outside ofbiotech, ETH is almost a
guarantee for a lot of spin outsthat is located here. So I think
it's a very good ecosystem inSwitzerland in general. And
there's always things toimprove, of course, but if I
look at it as an outsider in,there's a willingness to create
(27:26):
spin outs from universities. Ouruniversities are very capable of
doing that. And maybe in somecountries, that's a longer
process, and there are moreacademic resistance to it. So
people are more pragmatic here.
If you want to get innovation topatients or to people, in the
end, science needs to betranslated into a product.
That's called innovation. Andthe best setting for that is, of
(27:49):
course, in companies. Andthere's a pretty broad support
also from the angel investorside, from individuals or family
offices investing into alsobiotech which have, of course,
typically, a long horizon. Iexperienced that as more in
Switzerland than in othercountries. So lots of biotech
companies will have a widershareholder base because of
(28:13):
their early phases of life, theyrelied, indeed, on also angels
investors to help the companyget going.
John Simboli (28:22):
Eric, thanks for speaking with me today.
Erik van den Berg (28:24):
My pleasure.
Lovely, speaking with you aswell.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Burden
The Burden is a documentary series that takes listeners into the hidden places where justice is done (and undone). It dives deep into the lives of heroes and villains. And it focuses a spotlight on those who triumph even when the odds are against them. Season 5 - The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance On April Fools Day 1999, 26-year-old Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her Alliance, Ohio home. David Thorne, her ex-boyfriend and father of one of her children, was instantly a suspect. Another young man admitted to the murder, and David breathed a sigh of relief, until the confessed murderer fingered David; “He paid me to do it.” David was sentenced to life without parole. Two decades later, Pulitzer winner and podcast host, Maggie Freleng (Bone Valley Season 3: Graves County, Wrongful Conviction, Suave) launched a “live” investigation into David's conviction alongside Jason Baldwin (himself wrongfully convicted as a member of the West Memphis Three). Maggie had come to believe that the entire investigation of David was botched by the tiny local police department, or worse, covered up the real killer. Was Maggie correct? Was David’s claim of innocence credible? In Death and Deceit in Alliance, Maggie recounts the case that launched her career, and ultimately, “broke” her.” The results will shock the listener and reduce Maggie to tears and self-doubt. This is not your typical wrongful conviction story. In fact, it turns the genre on its head. It asks the question: What if our champions are foolish? Season 4 - The Burden: Get the Money and Run “Trying to murder my father, this was the thing that put me on the path.” That’s Joe Loya and that path was bank robbery. Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank. In season 4 of The Burden: Get the Money and Run, we hear from Joe who was once the most prolific bank robber in Southern California, and beyond. He used disguises, body doubles, proxies. He leaped over counters, grabbed the money and ran. Even as the FBI was closing in. It was a showdown between a daring bank robber, and a patient FBI agent. Joe was no ordinary bank robber. He was bright, articulate, charismatic, and driven by a dark rage that he summoned up at will. In seven episodes, Joe tells all: the what, the how… and the why. Including why he tried to murder his father. Season 3 - The Burden: Avenger Miriam Lewin is one of Argentina’s leading journalists today. At 19 years old, she was kidnapped off the streets of Buenos Aires for her political activism and thrown into a concentration camp. Thousands of her fellow inmates were executed, tossed alive from a cargo plane into the ocean. Miriam, along with a handful of others, will survive the camp. Then as a journalist, she will wage a decades long campaign to bring her tormentors to justice. Avenger is about one woman’s triumphant battle against unbelievable odds to survive torture, claim justice for the crimes done against her and others like her, and change the future of her country. Season 2 - The Burden: Empire on Blood Empire on Blood is set in the Bronx, NY, in the early 90s, when two young drug dealers ruled an intersection known as “The Corner on Blood.” The boss, Calvin Buari, lived large. He and a protege swore they would build an empire on blood. Then the relationship frayed and the protege accused Calvin of a double homicide which he claimed he didn’t do. But did he? Award-winning journalist Steve Fishman spent seven years to answer that question. This is the story of one man’s last chance to overturn his life sentence. He may prevail, but someone’s gotta pay. The Burden: Empire on Blood is the director’s cut of the true crime classic which reached #1 on the charts when it was first released half a dozen years ago. Season 1 - The Burden In the 1990s, Detective Louis N. Scarcella was legendary. In a city overrun by violent crime, he cracked the toughest cases and put away the worst criminals. “The Hulk” was his nickname. Then the story changed. Scarcella ran into a group of convicted murderers who all say they are innocent. They turned themselves into jailhouse-lawyers and in prison founded a lway firm. When they realized Scarcella helped put many of them away, they set their sights on taking him down. And with the help of a NY Times reporter they have a chance. For years, Scarcella insisted he did nothing wrong. But that’s all he’d say. Until we tracked Scarcella to a sauna in a Russian bathhouse, where he started to talk..and talk and talk. “The guilty have gone free,” he whispered. And then agreed to take us into the belly of the beast. Welcome to The Burden.