Does Vaccination Increase Inequity?

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

Does Vaccination Increase Inequity? 15 Minute Read How ironic it was that, as we sat in the gilded Coffee Room of the Cavalry & Guards’ Club, discussing arguably one of mankind’s greatest achievements, the Kremlin was poised, in the teeth of global opprobrium, to vent its demented fury on the innocent civilians of Ukraine, with all the death, destruction and human misery that would inevitably follow. We were surrounded by fine paintings reminding us of the glorious military victories of Wellington. Of course, Wellington fought for the right side, but however gloriously depicted after the event, war is always a stain on humanity. As I was driving recently to collect my daughter from school, I had tuned in to Planet Rock on the radio (don’t worry, I am equally appreciative of the work of Tallis, Byrd and Gibbons - it just depends what sort of mood I’m in). Up came a song by Iron Maiden, one of the UK’s heavy metal titans. The song, I recognised instantly, was called, “The evil that men do (goes on and on)” - a modification of the famous line in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar - the full version being “The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones.” As we watch with horror the TV footage of Putin’s advancing tanks, we pinch ourselves to check we are actually in the 21st Century. While Shakespeare’s quote is particularly trenchant today, the opposite is also true. Jenner, Koch, Pasteur and so many others built on each other’s research, knowledge and dogged hard work over the last two centuries to bequeath to humanity a gift that brings health and life. This is still work in progress. Our modern-day heroes and heroines of science have saved us from the worst ravages of COVID-19(COVID) and given us our lives back. Scientists are the new rock stars, thrust into the limelight over the last two years. We were lucky enough tonight to be addressed by the “lead singer” and some of the other virtuosos in the band (scientists, not Iron Maiden, although that would have been highly enlightening too). A vast amount of ground was covered this evening, from science to morality to money and many other aspects of a topic, which for the first time in modern times, is at the forefront of the minds of the general population. While we grazed the issue from multiple directions, the question that pops out at the end is whether it is both possible and right to make money out of vaccinations. The answer must surely be yes and yes. While there are certainly those seen to have profiteered during the pandemic (mostly well-connected “suppliers” of PPE), profit has not, overall, come out of this a dirty word. You could argue that vaccines are something the state should provide - and indeed it does in terms of the patient. But while it can help, the state has neither the resources nor the infrastructure to deliver vaccines on its own. We received a reminder that, while we may think we have COVID on the run, there could be long-lasting effects and continued protection through vaccination is essential. COVID may have shaken the world, but the flip side of the coin is that, necessity being the mother of invention, it turbocharged the whole science of vaccination. The billions of COVID vaccines yet to be produced and sold around the world are merely the tip of the iceberg. Could we have dared to dream that what traditionally took ten years can now be done in 12 months? In the dark days of 2020 this dream was indeed distant, but reality miraculously overtook the dream. In fact, as we heard this evening, the industry aspiration is to bring that down to 100 days or even less. Yes, this will protect us so much better against inevitable future pandemics, but that is just the beginning. With the technological advances made in the last two years, particularly in RNA, vaccinations for myriad serious diseases are now within our grasp. As national health services groan under the weight of ageing populations, the maxim of prevention being better than cure will come to the fore. Prevention of chronic diseases will save literally trillions of dollars over the next 10 years. Governments and investors alike will want to be involved in this paradigm shift in healthcare, craving exposure to the vaccination phenomenon. This is surely where the smart money is heading. Are you sitting comfortably? Then we’ll begin... Ed Harris - ThoughtLeader Editor Summary of ThoughtLeader Dinner, Tuesday 22nd February Introduction from the Sponsor - Douglas Hansen-Luke - Chairman of Future Planet Capital   Future Planet Capital (FPC) was set up 6 years ago with the purpose of investing in the brightest minds on the planet from top universities and centres of innovation and research to invest in companies that could profitably address the key challenges currently facing the world. Two years ago, FPC invested in Vaccitech which was set up by Professors Hill and Gilbert of the Oxford vaccine. This vaccine has changed the world, being the most commonly used during the COVID pandemic. This has been done at some 10% of the cost of its competitors and has arguably saved more lives than any other. They are essentially investing in peace and healing. In the last year, they have also started collaborating with Professor Dan Peer of Tel Aviv University, who developed the first lipids that went into the BioNTech vaccine. Tel Aviv University has now set up a lab in Harwell, Oxfordshire. The objective is, with the help of the UK government, to create a vaccine which is effective, trusted, equitable and, of course, profitable. Therefore, tonight’s debate focuses on whether such things can be done both equitably and profitably.   Introducing tonight’s speaker   Professor Sir Adrian Hill was originally a medic but then moved on to biogenetics and founded the Jenner Institute in 2005. He has been at Oxford University for over 40 years and is of course best-known for heading the Oxford vaccine team. However, his start point is actually malaria and next year we hope to see the launch of a malaria vaccine, which will be a major global event. He is the Lakshmi Mittal Professor of Vaccinology and outside the lab has a passion for rugby and ballet.   Before Sir Adrian gave his exposition, nine pre-prepared scripts were read by members of the audience to set the scene for the forthcoming talk.   Script 1   2020 will be remembered for many things: deserted streets; skies without planes; and a glorious Mediterranean summer. It was also a year of restrictions, unprecedented in our lifetime. According to Dictionary.Com, the word ‘unprecedented’ was voted ‘Word of the Year”. One morning in October 2020, the word appeared in the frontpage headlines of eight national newspapers. In the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘unprecedented’ is described as follows:   “Without instance, never before known, unparalleled”.   The pandemic of 2020 was many things.  However, one thing it was not, was unprecedented.     Script 2   Eighteen hundred years ago, a city in the heart of Europe was in the midst of a plague many times more deadly than the one we suffer today. That city was Rome, and the disease became known as the Antonine Plague. Victims would endure a viral attack for several weeks with progressively awful symptoms, too revolting to describe at dinner. It would prompt a contemporary writer at the time to say:  “Like some beast, the sickness destroyed not just a few people but rampaged across whole cities and destroyed them”.    Script 3   There were seventy-five million people living in the Roman Empire at that time.  It is estimated that ten million died in the Antonine Plague. It swept across the land indiscriminately. The elite, the rich and the poor, all succumbed to its ravages in equal measure. In AD 167, there was no defence against a viral attack, there were no epidemiologists, and no understanding of what was happening, and how to stop it. So, they prayed to their gods and hoped. Some even sent delegations to Apollo, asking for his advice. There was no Chris Whitty in Ancient Rome. Marcus Aurelius, who was popularised in the film Gladiator, described the Antonine Plague in his book, Meditations, as follows:    “To bear in mind constantly that all this has happened before and will do again – the same plot from beginning to end, the identical staging.  All just the same. Only the people are different.”   How right he was.   Script 4   For eighteen hundred years, plagues, pandemics and disease left their cruel stamp on mankind time and time again. The Black Death raged across different continents three times between the 5th and 19th Centuries. Fatality was counted in millions, in some regions populations halved, villages disappeared and the course of history changed forever. Then, in 1918, the Spanish Flu infected 500 million people worldwide, killing 100 million in 18 months. Cholera, Yellow Fever and Polio all left their mark. But perhaps the deadliest of all was the Smallpox virus. Believed to have been in existence for three thousand years, it is impossible to calculate exactly how many perished over time.  However, it is estimated to have killed at least 300 million in the 19th and 20th centuries alone.    Script 5   Today, we owe a huge debt of gratitude to a doctor practising in a rural English village towards the end of the 18th Century. Growing up, he heard that milk maids, who were renowned for their beautiful complexions, frequently contracted cowpox from the animals they tended, but typically did not get smallpox. Taking the liquid matter from a cowpox sore, he scratched it into the skin of an eight-year-old boy, who had smallpox. After a few days, the boy recovered. He named the matter taken from the cowpox sore ‘Vaccine’ after the Latin word ‘vacca’, meaning ‘cow’.   Script 6   That doctor’s name was Edward Jenner, and his discovery began the long journey towards the eradication of smallpox and the prevention of many deaths. In 1806, US President Thomas Jefferson wrote to Edward Jenner saying, “You have erased from human afflictions one of its greatest. Yours is the comfortable reflection that mankind can never forget that you have lived. Future nations will know by history only that the loathsome small-pox has existed and by you has been extirpated”. In 1967, a massive search and vaccination programme began with the aim of eradicating smallpox. It was a truly global effort. Ten years later, smallpox was finally declared eradicated.   Script 7   It took one hundred and fifty years to truly extirpate smallpox. Notwithstanding the research and development already in place, it has been an extraordinary achievement to create, manufacture and distribute an effective vaccine program against a novel virus in just two years. Perhaps one might even say it is ‘unprecedented’. Yesterday, Bloomberg’s COVID-19 Tracker System showed that a remarkable 10.4 billion doses of vaccine have been administered worldwide so far. However, it is concerning that vaccine dose rates in the most developed countries average 200 per 100 people, while in less wealthy countries that figure falls to around 30, and, in some of the poorest countries, 6. It is no surprise that health officials at the World Health Organisation now refer to COVID-19 as “a pandemic of the unvaccinated”.   Script 8   To help conceptualise the sheer number of viruses in existence, consider this: their current biomass has been estimated to be the equivalent of 75 million blue whales and, if placed end to end, the collective length of their virions would span 65 galaxies. Tom Freidman, the American political commentator and Pulitzer Prize winner, urged us not to get too complacent when he wrote - “Vaccines and antibiotics have made many infectious diseases a thing of the past. We have come to expect that public health and modern science can conquer all microbes. But nature is a formidable adversary”   Script 9   Dr Eric Yager, microbiologist at Albany University, said in November last year: “This pandemic has ushered in a new era of vaccine research. The combination of global collaboration and the development of mRNA vaccines is akin to a ‘landing-on-the moon moment’.“ We have come a long way since milkmaids and cows. But, as an unattributed source once said: ‘There is nothing so patient, in this world or any other, as a virus searching for a host’…   … Let’s find out more.   The Chairman had polled the guests as to their view on the motion. The result was 40% for, 60% against.     Professor Sir Adrian Hill - Director of the Jenner Institute and Lakshmi Mittal Professor of Vaccinology at the University of Oxford, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Leader in the field of malaria vaccine development and co-leader of the research team which produced the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine   Poets have been strangely silent on the subject of vaccines. Wordsworth would probably have been aware of the work of and quite possibly personally known Edward Jenner, but never a word about vaccines - just daffodils!    It has been an extraordinary two years for the whole world. Even pre-pandemic, the effects of vaccines should inspire awe, surprise and appreciation. They are doing an extraordinary job. 25 years ago, twice as many children died of infectious diseases as do today. This is largely due to the deployment of highly-effective, safe vaccines. 11 vaccines are now administered to children across the world from the wealthiest countries to the poorest regions of the developing world. There is around 90% global coverage of infant vaccines - something that would have been a game-changer during COVID. It is cost-effective because by the time these vaccines are delivered to the poorest parts of Burkina Faso, they have been licensed in rich countries where prices are much higher and manufacturers, mostly in Asia, have found a way to produce them at vast scale on thin profit margins, but still profitably. This makes them affordable for even the poorest countries.    This is a clear view on whether vaccines increase inequity. They generally do not as they are daily saving the lives of some of the poorest children in the world. This is achieved through a differential pricing model which is somewhat bizarre. 80% of the value of vaccines comes from high-income countries vaccinating roughly 10% of the number of people being vaccinated in low-income countries. This system was never planned but has evolved into one that works very well.    So therefore, in normal times, vaccinations cannot really be said to increase inequity. However, when COVID arrived, a coalition of international entities that arranged vaccinations - the WHO, UNICEF, GAVI (The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization), and the newly-formed CEPI (The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation) came together with a very sensible, attractive scheme called COVAX (COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access). All manufacturers would provide as many doses of vaccine as quickly as possible and these would be equitably distributed around the world. Last year, 9.5bn doses were distributed globally - an unprecedented achievement in this field. One might think we had now achieved a solution for all future pandemics. Of course, that would sadly be a Panglossian assumption. The key problem is inequity of vaccine distribution.   What went wrong? The distribution was both chaotic and extremely unfair. There was no globally-agreed distribution system. Such a task had never been undertaken in such a hurry before. There was a bidding war and naturally some countries could afford more than others. Some were better organised and, therefore, able to secure supplies before later bidders. As of now, only 16% of people in Africa have even had a single dose, compared to 80% in the UK and 99% in some countries. Costs have varied significantly; the Indian government was paying $1.50 per dose from the Serum Institute of India, up to $30 for the new mRNA vaccines. This was not what COVAX was trying to achieve. Nationalism also tainted the process. As it happened, the three countries with the largest militaries in the world - China, Russia, and the US, were also the three countries that did not license any vaccines other than their own. Theirs were each clearly the best so no need to license any others. They can’t all have been right.    When it comes to such a global emergency, you think of the big pharma companies and how much profit they are going to make. Four of them predominate in vaccine supply to high income countries - two in the US and two in Europe. In the end, only one of those became a major player in COVID-19 vaccines, which teaches us that we cannot always rely on big pharma to produce all the vaccines needed. Even the ethical question of “What is the right thing to do?” was not clear. The Chinese were criticised for prioritising their military for early vaccinations. Some vaccine manufacturers in Asia were vaccinating their own staff before distributing it externally. Most of those early vaccines had very little safety or efficacy data and these players were condemned for their actions. In the movie Contagion, that is precisely what the lead scientist does - injects herself before anyone else. Is that ethical? If the next pandemic were to be as deadly as Ebola - killing 60% of those affected, would you not expect those producing the vaccines to vaccinate themselves first? This is something the world needs to consider rather than just throw stones at each other.   In terms of distribution, several countries have individually consumed more COVID vaccine than the entire continent of Africa (consisting of 54 countries). That is hardly equitable. But how can that be corrected? The Africans are understandably furious and are trying to set up their own vaccine production facilities, but it is too late. So, while in normal times, vaccines generally are equitable, during the COVID-19 pandemic there simply wasn’t time to set up a system that prevented selfishness.   Vaccine technology is amazing and the COVID vaccines were a triumph of that technology - in particular, mRNA, which, to most people, appeared out of nowhere (in reality, decades of research went into it). This was also good for viral vectors - before COVID only one viral vector had been licensed in the West - J&J’s Ebola vaccine. Even the old-fashioned inactivated vaccines with which Louis Pasteur would have been familiar have done very well for what they were designed for. The standard way of producing vaccines - expressing a protein, finding an adjuvant, mixing it in - has turned out to be far too slow for a pandemic. That has been a complete surprise.    Ironically, the triumph of mRNA vaccines has further increased inequity due to the temperature requirement of the early mRNA vaccine. Poorer countries simply do not have the infrastructure to store and distribute vaccines at -80C - it worked fine in Europe and the US. Therefore, RNA vaccines must quickly address the issue of thermostability, which is why it is so exciting that the NeoVac initiative may well have solved this problem. That would be a huge step forward in terms of the fairness of distribution of RNA vaccines. In conclusion, in a pandemic situation, global public health policy collides with market economics, creating unfairness. Technology will play a key role in the solution - we need more facilities and more, newer vaccines. It is this that we must work on ahead of the next pandemic which sadly will inevitably come at some point.    The exposition was then followed by contributions from other experts.   Professor John Oxford - Professor at Queen Mary, University of London - leading expert on influenza, including bird flu, the 1918 Spanish Influenza, and HIV/AIDS.   The Past   A cataclysmic 100m people died from Spanish flu (so far 5m have died from COVID). A Viennese neurologist and fighter pilot - Constantin von Economo - in 1918 had mostly young men coming through his practice with head injuries from the war. Suddenly, his clientele started to change. He was increasingly seeing young men and women (the Spanish flu, unlike COVID, was predominantly fatal for the young aged 18-35) apparently suffering from Parkinson’s disease or cerebral palsy - shakiness, lack of balance and general weakness. They also suffered from intense lethargy and sleepiness - encephalitis lethargica. Within a few months, some French neurologists saw patients with similar conditions and soon these were occurring all over the world. By 1925, there were 5m cases of Von Economo’s disease across the world. Curiously, it was not contagious and nobody knew how one got it.    In the early 60s, another neurologist Oliver Sacks arrived at a hospital in New York. He was asked to look after a group of survivors of Von Economo’s disease, some of whom had been on the ward for 25 years. They were barely conscious. L-DOPA had recently been successfully used to treat Parkinson’s sufferers, so Sacks thought there would be little to lose by trying it on these patients. As described in his 1973 book “Awakenings”, these patients literally came back to life. Ladies who could play the piano 40 years ago could still play and they all spoke with their accents of 40 years prior. However, this miraculous effect was short-lived and the patients were, within weeks, back in their semi-catatonic state. Sacks thought that increasing the dose might help, but that was not possible.   A pair of epidemiologists from Atlanta, Georgia published a paper in the Lancet suggesting these patients were suffering the after-effects of infection with Spanish flu in 1918. The virus had got into their mid-brain area, either damaging it and leaving or possibly remaining there. Scientists probed brain and lung samples for definitive influenza RNA without success, but this was nonetheless a plausible explanation. Oliver Sacks turned out to be the key player in demonstrating that you can have a rare, long-lasting neurological impact after a large flu outbreak. A similar phenomenon also occurred with measles before MMR. A child would get measles and apparently recover. Then some time later, they would start to exhibit these same symptoms and ultimately die. Autopsies would show traces of measles virus in the brain. Of course, thanks to vaccines, children don’t get measles anymore. Likewise with polio, effects could be seen up to 30 years later The key question now is whether COVID has a similar sting in its tail. It is a very strange virus. Unlike with other flu viruses, patients are not dying of pneumonia - it is from an as-yet poorly understood reaction of the immune system. The key point about this, therefore, is that we cannot be complacent about COVID-19. Just because fewer people are dying, we may yet find in the future that some who have caught it and recovered are still harbouring latent conditions that will present at a later date. In particular, we need to be wary of children catching it. While they do not appear to suffer at the time, the seeds of serious future illness may have been planted. Some scientists today feel like Cassandra - the Trojan priestess cursed to be able to tell the future but never to be believed. In truth, we will not know for four or five years yet whether COVID-19 is really over or not.   Professor Dan Peer - Director of the Laboratory of Precision NanoMedicine at Tel Aviv University   The future   His lab was the first to show systemic delivery of mRNA in animals. This was some years ago and felt like science fiction. However, its transition to reality was rapid. He wrote a grant in 2008 to the National Institute of Health entitled “mRNA which is modified with lipid nanoparticles as a new platform for vaccines.” There was almost no interest whatsoever. The comments from the panel were effectively that it was imaginary, could not be done and an altogether stupid idea. In December 2020 when the Pfizer vaccine was approved, he was able to remind the NIH panel of their earlier comments.    They were approached by BioNTech to collaborate on some of their lipids, which resulted in a few licensing deals and the rest is history. The key is the future. We have learned over the last two years the challenges in making really good mRNA vaccines, key among which is thermostability. They must be stable in a regular fridge or even at room temperature. Also, the ability to entrap large payloads in lipid nanoparticles opens up new avenues for so many diseases - not only regular infectious diseases but also cancer, and metabolic diseases. But even in the sphere of regular infectious diseases there is so much scope to create new and better vaccines.    They have developed a proprietary new lipid library which they have started testing. Around a year ago they came to the UK and set up, with Adrian Hill and others, Neovac. It has huge potential. The ability to entrap large payloads into a single particle is already at the ‘proof of concept’ stage. Thermostability for at least one year in a regular fridge or one month at room temperature is an ongoing study. This could change the world.   Marianne Talbot - Director Of Studies in Philosophy at the University of Oxford's Department for Continuing Education   The human aspect   Most of us were brought up both to tell the truth and be kind. However, life throws up plenty of moral dilemmas when these can be mutually exclusive (when your mother asks your opinion on her terrible haircut, for example). The COVID-19 vaccine has created various moral dilemmas; we ought to protect people in our own country. However, we also ought to protect those in poor countries who can’t afford to protect themselves. Given a finite number of vaccine doses, you cannot do both. Many different interests impact on these decisions.    The second moral dilemma; we ought to protect our most vulnerable citizens, but we also ought not to force citizens to do something against their will. If we are to look after people in care homes, then surely both carers and patients must be vaccinated. What if the carers don’t want to be vaccinated? Do we force them? Also, given that none of us are safe until all of us are safe, do we introduce vaccine passports and, if so, are we prepared for those who don’t want a vaccine to be denied access to clubs, restaurants and foreign travel? Is that not unfair coercion?    There are different approaches to moral dilemmas; we can insist that one “ought” is more important than the other - for example, that truth-telling is always more important than kindness. Alternatively, we can decide that kindness trumps the truth. We all know people who exhibit both philosophies. The answer is that each situation must be judged on its own merits. Do we prioritise vaccination for children in the UK who appear to be unaffected by COVID, or the elderly in poor countries who are?   The other approach to the moral dilemma is to reinterpret the key concepts. In the case of Mum’s bad haircut, telling her the truth about it can be rationalised as being cruel to be kind, so we have ticked both boxes. We could conversely say that, if we lie in this case it is not a real lie - just a white lie. In the case of vaccines for carers, we can approach the question by saying that we are not forcing them to be vaccinated insofar as we are not forcing them to be carers. Equally, with vaccination passports, we present the restrictions imposed on the unvaccinated as being their free choice.    Moral rules will often clash, but that forces us to think about our values - what is a lie? What is it to be kind? What is it to protect people? What is it to force people to do things etc.? Aristotle took the view that there are no moral rules, but that we need to engage in moral reasoning. This is an ability exclusively enjoyed by humans. COVID-19 vaccines have faced us with a number of moral dilemmas. We have no choice but to deal with them while trying in some way to keep all the virtuous qualities in play.    Jules Haggerty - Head of Centre of Excellence - Lipid NanoParticle at CPI (Centre for Process Innovation)   Public / private collaboration   How can we use government-funded infrastructure created over the last 5-10 years to support and accelerate medicine and vaccine development? In early 2020, the UK biomanufacturing community was already mobilising - this was before the vaccine taskforce was even thought about. This close-knit community set about finding out who had which relevant capabilities in terms of RNA vaccine manufacture and distribution. It turned out there was not much. By chance, CPI had just been doing some work around lipid nanoparticle technologies that would lead to RNA. CPI thus turned out to be the best qualified entity to take care of UK manufacture and supply of the RNA once the taskforce was convened. Their first project was a collaboration with Imperial College which worked well. The fact that for their clinical trial material they had to source RNA and other materials and technology from the USA and Austria did demonstrate that there wasn’t much to work with in the UK. It has been a rollercoaster few years working with the Vaccine Taskforce with changing strategies and partners. However, running through all their work was a strong desire to be able to manufacture and supply RNA vaccines from the UK and not be reliant on sources abroad. In that they succeeded. They have engaged in R&D and set up a manufacturing facility in Darlington for a fraction of the cost of most other manufacturing facilities.    What will they use it for? CPI only exists to partner and collaborate. They will be translating academic research and help companies grow to the benefit of society and help economic growth in the UK. The Darlington facility will be offered out to the new generation of companies to progress their vaccine candidates into the clinic as quickly as possible. In this pandemic, quick decisions had to be taken and regulators had to be nimble. The government found a new way of making decisions without going through 20 layers of bureaucracy. If they could do it then, then why not now? You have to take more risks and do things in parallel. You need finance up front, but it’s not impossible.    CPI’s collaboration model tackles the really big challenges that trouble industry and society. It is competitive, but academia, government and industry can work together using a shared risk and reward model. It demonstrates the art of the possible. When finance is needed, there is already a proof of concept in place. An example is CPI’s collaboration with NeoVac. The vaccines taskforce asked them to survey the UK landscape regarding RNA and lipid nanoparticles to assess what was extant and what was missing from our capabilities. Equity was a big issue - the vaccine cannot be $30 a dose around the world. Equally, the UK government did not want to be dependent on one overseas company demanding licence fees for a proprietary lipid. NeoVac has some IP (Intellectual Property) that really addresses some of those key issues. Combining the manufacturing capability and RNA supply of CPI with NeoVac’s IP portfolio will demonstrate proof of concept. This goes way beyond COVID. The LNP (Lipid NanoParticle) technology is useful not just for delivering RNA but also lots of next-generation therapy - the list is endless.    Christopher Egerton-Warburton - Partner at Lion's Head Global Partners   Costs   When the UK government wanted to fund GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization), IFFIm (the International Finance Facility for Immunisation) was at hand. It was founded in 2006 on the idea that private investors and government donors can work together to have a greater, more immediate impact on global health. This entity devised a way to issue bonds to fund vaccines. Following the Ebola crisis, he was contacted by a major WHO figure, who had also co-founded GAVI, reminding him of Bill Gates’s famous remark to Angela Merkel that “This should never happen again.” Out of this, CEPI was formed which crystallised his thoughts on what needed to be done to bring new vaccines to the world.   The focus of GAVI is cost - how can vaccines be made cheaper, to the point where most Western manufacturers have largely exited the space and bulk manufacturing has moved to developing countries such as India, where it can be done at incredibly low cost. Lives are saved literally for pennies. It has been incredibly successful and the UK has been a huge supporter of GAVI. Early in the COVID-19 outbreak, he was invited to join a meeting at the World Bank in Washington. There were a surprisingly small number of people there trying to figure out what on earth to do about COVID. This was the nightmare they had been fearing and they realised they were not remotely ready for it in terms of products and science. The UK had not joined CEPI, but thankfully Chris Whitty had helped set up a similar body which had channelled funds into the Jenner Institute and others.    He was asked to write a paper for the Bill Gates Foundation on which vaccines he believed would make it. His initial thought was that COVID-19 had come too soon for mRNA technology - that governments and regulators would not be prepared to allow these vaccines to be administered to millions of people without years of trials to test for secondary impacts etc. Normally, regulators are particularly cautious about vaccines, lest they make otherwise healthy people ill. Vaccines do not change. The BCG (Bacillus Calmette–Guérin) vaccine against TB hasn’t been changed since 1918.    There was a concept at GAVI that vaccines should be free. This came from enlightened self-interest. It is not just about saving people in poor countries - it is also about preventing infectious diseases from migrating from poor countries to rich. COVID-19 presented a complex horror story. All vaccines had to be free. Everybody had to be vaccinated. Imagine the difference in cost between vaccinating a cohort of people and jabbing the entire population of the globe. HPV (Human papillomavirus vaccine) almost completely prevents cervical cancer in women and throat cancer in men. However, because this was only rolled out year by year, millions in the future will die from vaccine-preventable cancer. So, the task of rolling out for free a vaccine that did not yet exist to everyone on the planet was a daunting task.    His sense in writing this paper was that the Oxford vaccine would probably be the best candidate but spoke to Adrian Hill to tighten up a few facts. The rest is history. There is more to do, however. The vision must be to be able to create a vaccine in 100 days. Much of that is about regulation and the realisation that we already have some good tools and models. CEPI set up many models on the basis that of 20 vaccines, 15 would likely fail. What is actually more likely is that either all would succeed, or all fail on the basis of whether or not they produced an effective protective antigen. COVID-19 has arguably fast-forwarded biochemistry by 10-15 years. We must now take what we have learned, in order to ensure that vaccines are equitable.    He suspects that when the history books are written, the Oxford Ebola vaccine would have been one of the best, even though it never got licensed. Novavax is probably the best COVID-19 vaccine we have created, but represents only a fraction of doses administered. Science is not fair. mRNA vaccines have been shown to be a very powerful tool in shutting down an epidemic. If such vaccines can be made cheaper and more thermostable, then the inequity question disappears.    Q & A session   Q         How can we avoid forgetting what we have learned so that when this happens again we avoid the same mistakes?   A         History does repeat itself. Ebola did not only occur in West Africa. People brought it back to the UK, were quarantined, ended up in ICU and some sadly died. At that time, some money was made available - it conjures a rueful smile to think how generous David Cameron’s government felt its £50m contribution was, albeit that it was later doubled. We need to develop all technologies that we have and we know so much more in the wake of COVID. The main thing, and this is not hugely expensive, is that we need to build proper manufacturing facilities. What made a huge difference to the Oxford team was that they had already been working with the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer (AstraZeneca) on a more obscure disease, so when COVID-19 arrived in March 2020 and the Oxford vaccine was licensed nine months later, this collaboration was already well-established. Even in mid-2020, the Gates foundation was talking of funding manufacturing facilities in each continent to help in the struggle against COVID. This went a bit quiet when someone was brave enough to point out that these would take two years to build and a third to get them approved. Then they would have to be staffed with people with considerable experience of manufacturing vaccines - all in, a rather complex process. These facilities do indeed need building across the world in preparation for the next pandemic. It will cost money but is more cost-effective than certain other defences. We are more likely to have another pandemic than a nuclear war (Adrian might revise his thoughts on that given events since then). The circumstances that gave rise to this pandemic are still there. We should perhaps focus more on health and less on war.   Q         How do we devise incentives for the vaccine industry to produce one-shot vaccines which would necessarily have hugely front-loaded sales?   A         There are several ways to go. Thermostability is crucial - if you can store vaccines in a fridge for a year, that would be ground-breaking. Take the example of Israel. Early in the pandemic, there was a strategic decision to strike a deal with all the companies developing vaccines. They all got paid, despite there not yet being a vaccine to deliver. They were effectively buying the rights to priority distribution of the future vaccines, and it worked for Israel strategically. The price, of course, was very high.    There are ways to reduce risks. People had not appreciated the scale of the thermostability issue. Specialised containers are being produced that help with this.    Q         This is a question about Biosecurity. The scientists in the room obviously are driven by good intentions. As we are seeing in Ukraine, not all people share those good intentions. Looking back in history, gas - the first weapon of mass destruction - was used in WW1. Between the wars, there was a preoccupation with sarin gas. Thankfully, it was never used. Then 1945 saw the creation of the nuclear bomb. We went through the Cold War during which the destruction of the whole of society was a very real possibility. We have now reached an age where biological weapons can be deliberately delivered and deployed by actors with aggressive intent - something that can spread swiftly through a society and have a high mortality rate. While we are in the fortunate position now with COVID-19 being a relatively mild disease, despite its high transmissibility, it is highly questionable as to whether this was a disease that evolved naturally. Is it now not the job of the nation state to create a biosecurity construct whereby potential biochemical threats, particularly from the likes of China, are analysed and antidotes developed and manufactured, in tandem with the development of vaccines against naturally-occurring diseases?   A         There are already thoughts along these lines. There are strategies for producing expensive antibodies or vaccines along “pancoronavirus” lines. Luckily, there are only seven classes of pathogen, and it will soon be possible to create generic vaccines against many of them. Until COVID, the only people who cared about coronaviruses were veterinary vaccinologists. They were a huge problem for chickens and other livestock and many vaccines were developed for them, but humans had only mostly encountered SARS and MERS. Sitting around the table, we were all no doubt infected by a variety of coronaviruses which thankfully don’t cause much disease. We should be reassured to know that it is actually very difficult to create bioterrorist agents. You have to be able to test them to see if they are more transmissible and virulent. COVID-19 has been through billions of people over the last two years, mutating all the while, and it has taken quite a while for it to mutate into something highly transmissible. We are lucky that its virulence has been reduced.   Q         Was Brexit a pro or a con when it came to Europe’s “Vaccine Wars”?   A         The scientists involved in the Oxford vaccine were adamant that it should not be labelled a “British” vaccine draped in the Union Jack, despite the fact that the UK government largely funded it. It was unfortunate that a German tabloid in particular decided to run a story that the Oxford vaccine was ineffective. This may indeed have been symptomatic of Brexit tensions. Although this resolved itself in the end, it certainly dented vaccine confidence in the short term. One key revelation, though, in terms of policy is you should not listen to the groups of academic experts in any one country. Instead, you should listen to the regulators in each country as they communicate amongst themselves constantly on questions of safety. The groups of academic advisors changed from week to week. The newspapers didn’t want to publish the findings of the regulators - only the most extreme views on both sides.   Q         Tonight’s debate is about equity - what works and is fair for everybody. Is it right for a country to pursue the safety of its own people ahead of others? Is there a way in which government can speed up the process and what is it about nationalism that makes it so hard for countries to cooperate?    A         The Israeli experience proved to be highly efficient. Only 9,000 people died from COVID. This number was very similar to two bad years of ‘flu. Starting vaccination very early in December 2020 brought Israel very quickly to a high level of protection. They paid more than treble the retail price for what at the time was a risky technology. There was criticism and dissent within the government, but the result was that Israel’s five waves of infection did not do too much harm. Angela Merkel negotiated a great price with Pfizer BioNTech, but that meant Germany was the last to get the vaccines. The founder of BioNTech didn’t himself get vaccinated until it was “his turn”. The outcomes of these different strategies tell their own story. Israel arguably suffered almost no excess deaths from COVID.   The UK also started vaccination early, but our death rates did not stay low. Why? The perceived compliance of the British public? The decision to lock down a week later than advised may have had a profound effect. There is no point in giving people three doses of vaccine against a particular variant when the virus is rampaging and mutating around the world. It would be better to be a little more generous in our distribution overseas. We should increase our help to developing countries in setting up their own manufacturing facilities - this can be done without losing control of our IP.    Adrian has dreamt of countries producing vaccines A, B, C and D with nobody knowing which one was from where. When we go to the GP to get any other vaccines, we don’t ask or know who made them and in which country. Our only concern is whether they are effective and so it should also be with COVID-19 vaccines.   Q         What lessons around equity and access learned from vaccines can be applied to other life sciences and pharma? In these other areas, because there is less reliance on public / private partnerships and more on private financing through pharma companies and recovering the cost of research through the patent process, there are questions about where the research effort is directed. Imperfect though equity in vaccines may be, it is better than that in the rest of pharma, even from the perspective of being a champion of the role of private pharma in innovation. It has nonetheless been highlighted that there is a lack of research effort in combating antimicrobial resistance and producing new antibiotics. How do we achieve an effective direction of research dollars across the life science sector?   A         We live in a capitalist society - we have to work with the system. We heard about the massive bet that Israel made on the COVID-19 vaccines. These are not the sort of decisions that governments usually make. In normal circumstances, such a gamble would likely prompt too many recriminations. Over the years, big pharma like GSK, Pfizer, Merck and others have received bloody noses by pouring money and capacity into various vaccines. We need these big companies and they have shareholders. Ultimately, we cannot expect them to act against their own interests.   We can learn things from RNA in that it is a platform technology that can be applicable to the 100-day challenge. That is applicable to a range of other therapeutic uses. There could be technological transfers that may have an impact in reducing costs. The issue of funding is more difficult. Big pharma’s programmes are pre-arranged. If they are working on a malaria programme you can’t suddenly ask them to produce a cancer therapy available at a particular cost. This could be an area where more charitable and philanthropic organisations can step in.    Q         Money has poured into the development of COVID-19 vaccines in the last two years. Are there any other areas that might benefit from a spillover effect?   A         Closely related areas like flu may well benefit but it is also possible that the likes of shingles and HIV could also benefit. The next step could well be cancer. Many of these RNA companies were based in cancer research and they might go back to that - for example specialist tumour vaccines. The other areas might be protein-replacement therapies such as cystic fibrosis and other genetic disorders. The technologies are applicable, but manufacturing would need to be scaled up.    Q         What is the prognosis for the malaria vaccine?   A         The vaccine for Plasmodium falciparumis - the most widespread and deadly (640,000 deaths in 2020) strain is in phase III trials. Efficacy is currently at 70% - we would like it to be at 95%. There is a vaccine from the Serum Institute of India - made in Oxford. Their approach to malaria is not to push one but four and, subject to funding, the main principles have been cracked. The other good news is that they can manufacture it at about $1 a dose.   Summations for and against the motion:   For (proposed by your editor)   This title does raise the notion that vaccination could somehow, potentially, be regarded as a bad thing. It’s obviously not. But the word inequity, in contrast with inequality, implies a degree of injustice or unfairness, whereas inequality is simply a quantitative imbalance. Of course, inequality is also often unfair, but then life isn’t fair and that has been starkly demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic.   There can be little argument about whether pandemics increase inequity. The worst off in society have suffered disproportionately financially and medically - while the wealth of the already stratospherically rich has gone into orbit - sometimes literally. On the basis that vaccines mitigate the effects of pandemics, you could argue that they therefore mitigate that inequity. In one sense, that is true, but of course that beneficial effect is felt unequally, so with the best will in the world, vaccines do increase inequity to the extent that those with wealth, health and education benefit disproportionately.    For the purposes of vaccines, you can roughly divide the global population into 4 groups; those who do or do not have access to vaccines and those who do or do not (or would or would not) choose to take them. Since the days of Jenner himself there have been anti-vaxxers, suspicious of new science and the powers that back it, but I suspect relatively few base their beliefs on a fear of inequity. Vaccines are only effective if people can be persuaded to have them. While some anti-vaxxers have done their homework and come to different conclusions to the majority, many, but not all, are among the less educated, making them susceptible to those deliberately spreading misinformation, or who have a natural tendency to be mistrustful of any government initiative. Others adopted a rather more paradoxical position. Believing themselves to be fit and healthy, they saw no reason to take the infinitesimal risk of vaccination themselves, while relishing the freedoms they enjoyed as a result of millions of others doing so.   Nobody, I would assume, would suggest that vaccination is a root cause of inequity, but does exacerbate existing inequity within and between societies. We, in the UK, are hugely lucky to have the wealth of talent and scientific knowledge exemplified by Professor Hill and his colleagues, coupled with the wherewithal to administer the fruits of their labours to protect the population from a novel and vicious disease. However, this at times has led to a rather unattractive “I’m alright Jack” mentality as we watched with relish as politicians in France and other European nations tied themselves up in knots and stumbled with their messaging while we sailed ahead with our impressive vaccination programme. You might even say that, shamefully, some jingoistically enjoyed pipping our neighbours to the post, ignoring what that meant in terms of needless suffering.    Vaccines during this pandemic, setting aside the small matter of saving millions of lives, have been used as political and economic assets. If Boris Johnson survives in office, it will only be because of the UK’s highly-successful vaccination programme - an undeniable achievement for which even his detractors would grudgingly have to give him a shred of credit. Being an incorrigible cynic, I would say that even the calls from the WHO for the rich countries to share their spoils with the developing world are not purely altruistic. While nobody wants to see people dying, the developing world is a key part of the global supply chain which makes us self-interested.    Then there are those demanding shareholders. While it is clearly unrealistic to have suggested that the key players behind the vaccines would make them available to developing countries either before or concurrently with their host nations, there is certainly inequity in how different companies have behaved in terms of pricing. Not mentioning any names of course, some appear to be capitalising more than others. While all vaccine producers are cutting prices for sales to countries which can’t afford them, it is interesting that in 2022, one key producer in particular is forecast to focus its sales almost entirely on high-income countries (presumably on full margin) while, for example, Oxford / Astra Zeneca’s sales are expected to be spread across the global socio-economic spectrum.   Therefore, I would argue that, while vaccines do not necessarily cause inequity, they do increase it. Having priority domestic access to any value-added and ubiquitously-needed resource will have that effect. Look at the current energy crisis. The UK being a world-beater in medical science gives us a natural advantage when it comes to creating new vaccines. Of course, it is not the vaccines themselves that increase inequity - it is the financial and political power they represent. We should all be proud, however, that Oxford are setting an example and leading the way among vaccine producers in keeping that inequity to a minimum.    Against - Jack Mitchell - Barrister at Old Square Chambers   Inequity is indeed a lack of fairness and justice. One of the concepts was that mRNA was too soon. Distribution is not equitable, but science is also not fair, so does that support or oppose the position as to whether vaccinations in themselves are a proponent of inequity? They are a collaboration between public and private. Why aren’t we putting vaccines into Coca Cola - the most widely distributed soft drink worldwide. The only two countries in the world where it is not number one are France (Orangina) and Scotland (Irn Bru). Darlington in five months were able to create what was necessary in a pandemic, not just for this country but beyond. The concept of thermoaccess is also key. If we want to think about inequity, vaccines are not inequitable - they have merely held up a mirror to our society which is full of inequity. The fact that we can now see that better might help us to reduce it. Context was another theme as to why the motion should be opposed. Thinking of Cassandra, what does the future hold? The issue of thermostability is being addressed, which could mean vaccines could be stored at room temperature for a month. Could the mirror of inequity be about to shatter? To quote Professor Sir Adrian himself, “Vaccines don’t increase inequity”. You are therefore invited to oppose the motion.   The room voted overwhelmingly to oppose the motion (to the chagrin of your editor).   The evening ended with a fulsome vote of thanks from Lord Wei - Social Entrepreneur and member of the Advisory Board of Future Planet Capital.   Conclusion:   It must surely be rare for so many scientific luminaries to address outsiders in private session. All those present were the beneficiaries of the real inside track on what is going on in the world of vaccines. We were in the presence of the people who actually did it - who changed the world. Without their skill and dedication, along with that of their colleagues, we could all well still be cowering in mandated isolation. Yet more extraordinarily, millions of people around the world who today are walking around alive and well could be, well, dead. Then there is the countless number of people who will benefit from vaccines yet to be developed. The internet and mobile phones were game-changers (I was going to say killer apps but that doesn’t really work here), but vaccines are the new “saviour app”. Of course, developing vaccines costs money - lots of it - but this is surely an investment in the future of our species.    Soon enough, investment managers will have to explain themselves for not having an exposure…     Copyright © 2022 FPC, All rights reserved. This information is being communicated by Future Planet Capital (UK) Limited which is an appointed representative of Midven Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are considered privileged and confidential. If you have received this email in error please (i) delete it and all copies of it from your system and (ii) destroy any hard copies of it. You should not divulge, copy, forward, or use the contents, attachments, or information in any way. Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be unlawful. Future Planet Capital gives no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of email messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after dispatch. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Future Thinking: Blue Ocean Economy

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

March 2022    |    View this email in your browser Blue Ocean Economy  This week marks the 4th Monaco Ocean Week, and the 12th meeting of the Monaco Blue Initiative which FPC is attending. The event brings together stakeholders in the marine sector in a week of debate on ocean conservation issues. There can be no doubt how important debate, analysis and awareness-raising is to better understand the challenges related to the ocean.  Our oceans make up around two-thirds of our planet, and provide half the oxygen we breathe. According to the World Economic Forum, they have the potential to absorb around a third of global CO2 emissions, making them critical in the fight against climate breakdown. Overfishing, climate change, pollution, habitat destruction, invasive species, and other forms of human exploitation have put our ocean at risk. No area has been left untouched and there is growing mainstream and investor awareness of the oceans and the role we can all play in ocean health.  To ensure a sustainable future, it is vital that we reverse this and protect and preserve healthy marine ecosystems. As Andy Muir, Blue Ocean Lead at FPC says, ''There is some truly inspiring innovation taking place in this space. We want to turn the spotlight on the most impactful solutions and technologies aiming at protecting the global ocean and highlight the essential role of entrepreneurship, innovation and investment to develop a sustainable blue economy.' We're pleased to use this newsletter to highlight a number of key trends in this area. As well as sources to learn more about the vital importance of a Blue Ocean. Attenborough's message for World Oceans Day A powerful video message from Sir David Attenborough was presented to 90 Heads of State at the opening of the United Nations Ocean Conference.   Blue Ocean Innovation 2022 The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 14 is to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources.” To achieve this, it is important to support the blue economy encouraging sustainable start-up companies, innovators and innovations that can scale to solve the ocean’s grand challenges.   1. Plant-based fish and seafood products: Plant-based innovation is one of the biggest and most exciting growth areas in the food industry today, and while meat substitutes are the fastest growing sub-category in this market (an increase of 152 percent in 2019), fish and shellfish alternatives are now poised for dynamic growth. Investment in alternative fish and seafood startups has been brisk, with new companies and products starting to expand the market. 2. Reversing the plastics crisis: Plastics are useful. They're used to help make lifesaving medical supplies, lightweight, fuel-efficient car parts, and insulation for our homes. But nearly half of all plastic produced goes towards single-use items such as bags, straws, utensils and takeout containers. There's a number of companies trying to develop cost-efficient and eco-friendly substitutes, from mushroom packaging to advanced fibers and plastic-free online shopping.  3. Ocean-based renewable energies: Rapid transformation of our energy systems is required if we are to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and limit the global average temperature rise. In addition to expanding land-based renewable energy, the ocean offers significant potential for supporting this transition. However, new technologies must be implemented in a sustainable way in order to avoid unintended consequences that could undermine other aspects of ocean health. Roslin Technologies - the future of meat for ourselves and our pets! We recently co-hosted a breakfast with Roslin Technologies, which brought together leading voices from investment, policy, business, academia, and civil society. Our aim was to share perspectives and learn about the opportunities and challenges in taking cultivated meat from the laboratory to the supermarket shelf, whilst explaining how cultivated meat can help solve global food security by providing affordable, nutritious food to billions with a significantly reduced carbon footprint. Cultivated meat uses significantly less land, water and energy than conventional meats. The Good Food Institute study has shown fully adopting lab-grown meats could lead to a 92% reduction in meat emissions, at a similar production cost. Technology, policy, investment, business models, and public acceptance will influence the pace of adoption. And building on its historic strengths in biotechnology, life sciences, and innovation, the UK could prove to be one of the leading countries in developing and capturing the value from this growing market. Roslin Technologies is an advanced biotechnology spin-out from the University of Edinburgh’s world-leading Roslin Institute, which has created self-renewing stem cells being used by many of the leading players in the cultivated meat production industry. The company was featured in The Times yesterday and we'd be delighted to share further news with you. Please get in touch to find out more.  Challenge Investing Within our universe, we have a significant number of companies that are helping to profitably address this significant and timely global challenge. If you’d like to invest in some of the most promising growth companies based on top research then please don't hesitate to get in touch.   Want to know more? Contact Ed Phillips or Abi Wye at Future Planet Capital.    This monthly digest is brought to you by Future Planet Capital.  This information is being communicated by Future Planet Capital (UK) Limited which is an appointed representative of Midven Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are considered privileged and confidential. If you have received this email in error please (i) delete it and all copies of it from your system and (ii) destroy any hard copies of it. You should not divulge, copy, forward, or use the contents, attachments, or information in any way. Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be unlawful. Future Planet Capital gives no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of email messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after dispatch. Copyright © 2022 Future Planet Capital, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Future Thinking: Vaccines, Infectious Diseases & Healthcare Innovation

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

February 2022    |    View this email in your browser Vaccines, Infectious Diseases & Healthcare Innovation: Saving Lives and Livelihoods It's now been over two years since the start of the coronavirus pandemic which has disrupted lives across all countries and communities. Over 400 million covid cases have been reported worldwide and well over 100 countries worldwide have instituted either full or partial lockdowns, affecting billions of people and businesses.  But in the midst of this unprecedented global crisis, there has been a saviour that has reduced fatalities and helped us to reopen our economies - vaccinations. From the start of the pandemic, the global innovation community mobilised quickly to initiate the develop a vaccine for COVID-19. Hundreds of individuals and institutions—in academia, biotechnology, government, and pharmaceuticals—embarked on one of the most consequential scientific endeavours in living memory. FPC was in the thick of the race from the very beginning investing in Vaccitech, the company behind the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.   Now, 10.4 billion doses of covid vaccinations have been administered worldwide with over 50% of the global population fully vaccinated against the disease. Funding has poured in from governments, multilateral agencies, not-for-profit institutions, and the private sector. Although it certainly hasn't been plain sailing, regulators have shown unprecedented speed in working with innovators. The vaccine race has shown the importance of healthcare innovation and how it can be vital to keeping our economies moving forward.  There are also significant lessons to be learnt. As we look towards a post-covid era - with our healthcare systems facing ever-growing demands and burgeoning waiting lists - it is important that we build on recent developments and innovations. And perhaps help protect ourselves from the pandemics of the future. This newsletter highlights a number of interesting sources in this area and sets out the trends to watch out for in healthcare innovation for 2022.   BBC Horizon Special: The Vaccine  The extraordinary inside story of the biggest scientific challenge of our age – following a small band of vaccine scientists around the world who took on Covid-19 and ultimately delivered the weapon to beat it.    Three Healthcare Trends for 2022 We have all seen and experienced the sweeping digital transformations made in healthcare over the past two years. It has been the perfect convergence of the capabilities of technology being available at the right time and the environmental constraints of Covid-19 forcing the innovation to happen. Over the next 12 months, important changes in healthcare will continue and, while the pace of innovation may slow slightly, technologies such as AI, wearables and new telehealth systems will continue to play a significant role in helping us get and stay healthy. Next generation vaccines will also play an increasingly important role as we prepare ourselves for the healthcare challenges of the future.    1. Equity In Care: Around the world the pandemic has shone a spotlight on the inequities. We see the rate of vaccination correlates with the GDP of nations, and there’s widespread recognition that more must be done. This fourth industrial revolution spurred by technology could be the most inclusive, if we structure our systems with inclusivity and equity in mind. Next gen vaccines could be an important tool in this fight for greater equity. 2. Personalised medicine and genomics: Traditionally, medicines and treatments have been created on a "one-size-fits-all" basis, with trials designed to optimise drugs for efficacy with the highest number of patients with the lowest number of adverse side effects. Modern technology, including genomics, AI, and digital twins, allows a far more personalised approach to be taken, resulting in treatments that can be tailored right down to the individual level. 3. Remote healthcare and telemedicine: During the first months of the pandemic, the percentage of healthcare consultations that were carried out remotely shot up from 0.1% to 43.5%. Analysts at Deloitte say that most of us are happy with this and will continue to use virtual visits. Telemedicine has the potential to improve access to healthcare in a world where half the population does not have access to essential services (according to the WHO).  FT Opinion: Three ways to ensure health tech innovation benefits all Read Susan Etlinger's recent article in the Financial Times about why we should focuss innovation on those who face the toughest barriers - developing healthcare technology with historically marginalised people rather than for them. Challenge Investing Within our universe, we have a significant number of companies that are helping to profitably address this significant and timely global challenge. If you’d like to invest in some of the most promising growth companies based on top research then please don't hesitate to get in touch.   Want to know more? Contact Ed Phillips or Abi Wye at Future Planet Capital.    This monthly digest is brought to you by Future Planet Capital.  This information is being communicated by Future Planet Capital (UK) Limited which is an appointed representative of Midven Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are considered privileged and confidential. If you have received this email in error please (i) delete it and all copies of it from your system and (ii) destroy any hard copies of it. You should not divulge, copy, forward, or use the contents, attachments, or information in any way. Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be unlawful. Future Planet Capital gives no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of email messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after dispatch. Copyright © 2022 Future Planet Capital, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Future Thinking: EdTech

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

January 2022    |    Did someone forward you this email? Subscribe Here EdTech: Trends for 2022 Educational technology, or ‘edtech’, is the use of hardware and software products to facilitate learning. The edtech sector has grown rapidly in recent years; global venture capital investments in edtech crossed US$20bn in 2021, now 40x larger than it was a little over a decade ago (HolonIQ). US$87bn is expected to be invested in the sector over the coming decade (Holon IQ), with China and India anticipated to have the fastest growth. Edtech promises reduced costs, higher quality pedagogy, and impactful outcomes beyond the traditional classroom setting. The sector now sees a diversity of segments, ranging from K-12, post-secondary, digital courseware, employment training, learning analytics, and even blockchain applications. Owl Ventures, the largest edtech VC in the world and a partner of Future Planet, highlight in their 2021 Education Outcomes Report the most exciting trends and portfolio companies addressing this important global challenge.  There can be little doubt that edtech has emerged as a growth powerhouse, supporting the economy through investments and new jobs. We see the future only going one way - with the current edtech landscape developing further with new products, focusing on providing a more customised and personalised learning experience for users.  Below we outline three key focus areas to keep an eye on for the year ahead.   1. Immersive Learning Extended reality (XR) is an umbrella term for a combination of technology with the real environment, and notably includes augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). The pedagogical benefits to consumers are obvious; an immersion in their learning that connects their personal perspective to their education. Interest and potential in XR products have risen dramatically. The market for AR in education will be over US$5bn by 2023, and VR head-mounted displays alone in education will grow to nearly US$700mn by 2025 (ABI Research). With costs for VR products lower than ever before and mobile AR/VR applications already inexpensive or completely free, the possibility for immersive learning is already here. The applications of AR and VR in education are wide-ranging and open a world of possibilities.    2. E-Learning Given COVID, this move to online learning should not come as a surprise. However, more than a temporary trend, e-learning is here to stay. Given its benefits of flexibility, affordability, and accessibility, e-learning represents a new, modern approach to how we conduct education. The global e-learning market was worth US$250bn in 2020, and is set to exceed US$7tn by 2027 (Global Market Insights), with segments as diverse as video conferencing applications, online simulator products, and online courses. The latter segment is particularly popular, with massively open online courses (MOOCs) being offered by companies like Coursera and Udemy (a 500startups company) in collaboration with world-leading universities.   3. Rise of AI The global market for AI in education was worth over US$1bn in 2020, and is expected to be worth US$22bn by 2028 (Verified Market Research). AI, in tandem with machine learning (ML), enables adaptive learning; meaning teaching modulated to fit students’ needs in real time. This allows for an efficient and personalisable learning experience, with applications to voice assistants, assessment tools, adaptive interfaces and automated teaching services. Established edtech companies have already recognise the power of AI in education and with the continual rise of e-learning in the future, expect to see AI and ML being increasingly integrated into edtech offerings. Challenge Investing Within our universe, we have a significant number of companies that are helping to profitably address vitally important global challenges. If you’d like to advise, invest in or support some of the most promising growth companies based on top research then please don't hesitate to get in touch. Want to know more? Contact Ed Phillips or Abi Wye at Future Planet Capital.    This monthly digest is brought to you by Future Planet Capital.  This information is being communicated by Future Planet Capital (UK) Limited which is an appointed representative of Midven Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are considered privileged and confidential. If you have received this email in error please (i) delete it and all copies of it from your system and (ii) destroy any hard copies of it. You should not divulge, copy, forward, or use the contents, attachments, or information in any way. Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be unlawful. Future Planet Capital gives no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of email messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after dispatch.   Copyright © 2022 Future Planet Capital, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

The Wei Forward: Impact Report

Why impactful investing is the way forward in 2022

by Lord Nat Wei of Shoreditch, Advisory Board Memeber Future Planet Capital

With the unprecedented levels of change inflicted by the COVID-19 pandemic, rapidly shifting geopolitics, and the race to get to net zero since COP26, it is clear the world needs to accelerate its innovation and development processes to protect our planet and the human race. Businesses, governments, and NGOs must work together urgently to find solutions.

But there is a vital tool at our disposal that is grossly underused: impactful investing. Innovation and new, disruptive technologies are critical in making progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the climate-specific pledges made at COP26, to decentralising our healthcare system to immunise it from future lockdowns, and to make our supply chains and energy systems more resilient to combat inflation and rising living costs. Yes, there has been admirable progress in many areas, but the fact remains that today the technologies simply do not exist to achieve Net Zero in the developed world cost-effectively, or to combat the next pandemic more effectively than we have done so far. World leaders have talked the talk; now researchers, engineers, business leaders and investors need to walk the walk for them. This is where impactful investing comes in.

Experience tells us the greatest technological progress is made by start-ups and scale up businesses, with solutions that government, corporates, and society can get behind when they are needed. Backing innovative solutions to solve pressing issues requires joint action. There must be a concerted effort made by all these stakeholders to unlock impactful investment. Imagine what would happen if we found and unleashed more Kate Binghams (herself a venture capitalist) and the innovative companies they could help us direct resources to not just to procure new vaccines but to revamp the NHS? Or find ways to heat our homes and power our grid more efficiently. Or ultimately help keep taxes low by helping us transition as a country to be more resilient and agile in the face of climate change and future supply and other shocks?

Government should look to play a larger role as a procurer of innovation and encourage impactful venture investing with green and impactful-oriented tax breaks. Pensions industry regulators should take a more balanced risk approach and favour impactful investing so there is a decent world for the pensioners of the future to live in while also boosting the long-term value of their pensions. To not do so, given the societal and planetary risks we face, is a risk itself; one that the regulatory system should be accountable for, alongside protecting the immediate financial returns and assets of members.

Finally, it is essential that society has a more active role in holding legislators, regulators and board members to account, using tools such as the Companies Act 2006, Section 172. All too often we have seen company directors knowingly ignore their duty to help society and the environment, in favour of ill-gotten benefits for a few, just as big tobacco did decades ago. This cannot continue, and customers know it.

The investment community itself has a major role to play. It must look at how best to scale the field of impact, transforming it from a niche, historically less focused on profit asset class, to a

mainstream practice centred around high impact, high profitability, and large global funds. This may require adapting and simplifying approaches; as Tom Beagent, a leading expert in impact at PwC, rightly says: “All investments make impact, good or bad – impact investing is about creating more positive impact.” This transition may also require a reconciliation in academic research between what works practically on the ground for investment professionals and entrepreneurs, and what drives them both financially and socially. This is needed to align incentives amongst the investors, and the investors and the market. It is not a zero-sum game.

But we must be positive and not despair about the challenges ahead. We have the talent, skills and resources, and there are already key players leading the charge such as Future Planet Capital (FPC), who have exemplified a pragmatic approach to creating solutions to huge global challenges, marrying profit and purpose. Whilst the marked growth of impactful and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) considerations among investors is encouraging and actors, like FPC, look to generate positive change, we, as an investing community, should remain mindful not to overpromise. It is essential that progress is meaningful and long-term rather than superficial or a ‘quick fix.’

Much of the responsibility for pushing impactful investing rests with VC investors and founders. However, everyone must act responsibly and be accountable. The potential for policymakers, regulators, LPs, pension funds and consumers to play an influential role in bringing impact to mainstream adoption must be recognised and harnessed. A culture change will be needed in Whitehall, in the City, and in the wider country, and there will be bumps along the way as we seek to procure differently, invest more purposefully, and demand those who govern us to be more solutions-focused. We are just at the beginning and the road ahead may seem long, but we must start having joined-up conversations about how we may all endeavour to deliver this change, with impactful investing providing a potential very practical way forward into 2022 and beyond after major shifts caused by Brexit, Covid, and COP26.

By Lord Wei, Author of the Wei Foreward report published by Future Planet Capital.

Fusion Energy- The Future of the World's Energy

The UK Innovation & Science Seed Fund (UKI2S) first invested in Tokamak Energy over a decade ago when fusion energy companies were few and far between. We knew it would be a long haul, but we always believed that momentum would build. So we are delighted to see that there are now multiple companies who between them have raised well over $4 billion, with the last few weeks seeing a flurry of announcements from Helion, Commonwealth Fusion Systems and General Fusion with some very large sums being bandied around. These financings are very welcome news and reinforce the growing perception that fusion energy has moved from the realm of science fiction to that of an engineering problem. In other words there is confidence that time and money and application will deliver a viable source of carbon free energy at some point in the not too distant future.

Of course this is not going to be tomorrow but sometime in the next decade. And the engineering needed to get there is non-trivial. From power electronics and AI systems capable of controlling unstable plasmas through to radiation resistant materials for the inner walls of the reactors, there remains a huge amount of work to be done. Much of it will need to be done in collaboration with government labs and academia, but there will also be massive opportunities for the private sector to be innovative suppliers to the fusion companies. This has the potential to create technology leaders in fields outside fusion, perhaps before fusion itself is realised.

TAE Technologies have already spun out a company TAE Life Sciences, using TAE’s particle accelerator technology to create a compact neutron source that can be used to target boron-doped tumours more accurately. Elsewhere, one of the most interesting enabling technologies is the magnets that confine the plasma and the materials that they use. High temperature superconducting (HTS) materials first emerged in the lab about 40 years ago but have been a wonder material struggling to find a sufficiently attractive application. But the compact tokamak devices being developed by Tokamak Energy and Commonwealth Fusion Systems use HTS magnets and the know how being applied to magnets for fusion is already sparking thoughts of other applications ranging from space propulsion systems to portable MRI scanners that could save lives at the roadside.

At UKI2S we have already invested in two start-ups that are a by product of the race to fusion, in the form of Luffy AI and Qdot Technology. Qdot’s expertise lies in thermal management and they are looking to bring the skills used to design the exhaust system for fusion reactors to bear on current problems such as the charging cycle for EV batteries. Whilst Luffy, whose founders emerged from UKAEA’s Culham site, are developing a neural network that could be transformative in improving robotic and industrial controls.

The word “moonshot” is over-used and is often taken to mean something that is binary in outcome. Win big or lose all your money, in other words. Fusion energy is definitely a big win, no doubt about that. But it is also a moonshot in the sense of the Apollo Space programme, which gave us core aspects of our daily lives in the form of the silicon chip, fly-by-wire and freeze-dried foods, all of which were either direct creations of the programme or massively accelerated by it. Fusion technologies could do the same and give us new capabilities few of us will even have on our horizons. Watch this space.

By Mark White, Investment Director at UK Innovation & Science Seed Fund (Future Planet Group)

The Democratisation of Venture - Is it Time for the Industry to Grow Up?

Future Planet Capital was founded with the vision of connecting the world’s biggest investors to the brightest minds to address global challenges profitably. In our early years this meant targeting sovereign investors and governments, pension plans, corporates and, in partnership with Barclays Private Bank, ultra-high net worth individuals. But there is one “biggest investor” group that until now we have not and covered and that is the “Crowd”. In this blog, I explore the importance of democratising access to venture and what that means in terms of economic efficiency and financial inclusion. 

How Big is the Crowd? 

According to Bloomberg and the Securities and Exchange Commission, throughout much of 2021 the share of total equity volume traded by individual investors in America has been well above 20%.   In a market worth well over $30trillion, that makes individual or retail investors very big indeed. In the US, the poster child for retail investors is Robin Hood who have over 22m clients or 8.5% of the adult population. In Britain, CrowdCube and Seedrs have financed some of the country’s biggest success stories most notably Revolut, the next-generation bank whose stock market value now exceeds that of all but one of Britain’s traditional banks. 

In short, the Crowd is big, very big. 

Why Democratise Venture? 

From a Future Planet Capital perspective, with our eyes on the world’s biggest investors then it makes absolute sense to find channels to market to this Crowd, to find ways to democratise venture. 

For the industry as a whole, it also makes sense. As The Economist’s lead article this week makes clear, 7 of the world’s top 10 companies were venture capital backed. This is great but the traditional investor base for venture capital is geographically centred on Silicon Valley and driven largely by ultra-high net worth individuals and endowments. In more recent years, Chinese-led corporations, such as Alibaba or Tencent, have overtaken Californian investors. This makes the industry highly dependent on a small number of names and their enthusiasm will be driven by fashion, feast and famine depending not only on their own financial well-being but political and tax considerations too. 

For individuals, the fact that so much of the world’s increase in wealth has come from private markets has further accelerated income and wealth equality.   

It’s not good for the industry to be dependent on a handful of billionaires and their companies and even less so for the ordinary individual who has no access to this deal-flow. For both diversified, more stable economic growth and for fairness, it would make sense for venture to be democratised.     

Democratisation in Practice 

From 2022, Future Planet Capital will be making 10% of its deal flow available to individuals via crowdfunding platforms. For sophisticated individuals this can be on a deal-by-deal basis. For purely retail investors with limited wealth it will be via long-term diversified investment products. For the first time, individuals will have the same privileged access to impact and innovation companies emerging from the world’s top universities and research centres. Our launching partner, Seedrs, with whom we’ve raised our own Series A, has just been acquired by Republic, the US based private investment platform. With these partners and others, we expect over time to provide fair access to top deals. 

Over the long-term, however, our ambition is to link venture capital products to long-term individual savings plans. For those saving for a pension with a multi-decade time-horizon and no need for liquidity, diversified-venture portfolio’s are surely an effective way to fund individuals’ long-term liabilities.   

Groups such as MakeMyMoney matter are also advocating for individuals to take control of the ethical implications of their investments and the impact of their financial commitments.  Indeed for many this is the biggest way that they can make a difference to the challenges of climate change, education, health, security and sustainable developments. 

So, perhaps paradoxically, for venture capitalists, for the industry as a whole, for individuals and for the planet, democratisation of venture is a key stage in the institutionalism and scaling-up of an important asset class.   

By Douglas Hansen-Luke, Executive Chairman 

Future Thinking: Terra Carta

Venture Capital Battles in the Fight Against Climate Change

Future Planet Capital were honoured to have been invited to #COP26 by His Royal Highness, Prince Charles, to support his work with #terracarta and the Sustainable Markets Initiative. There we showcased seven companies that were able to make a clear impact in facing down the challenge of climate change.

Where were the venture capitalists?

Sifted recently wrote that apart from ourselves and a small number of others the #venturecapital industry failed to make an appearance at COP26 and lamented that this key driver of innovation was noticeably absent. Aside from ourselves, General Atlantic were present and they announced a $4bn late-stage venture #climatechange fund. Few of Europe's top 40 sustainable venture groups made it to COP26. Does this reflect an industry failing?

What is the venture industry doing?

I say "No". In fact venture is already making considerable investments in climate change and is further aware of the wall of funding destined to follow from asset managers, corporates and governments. The industry is on the right track and as detailed in the forthcoming Lord Nat Wei's report "The Wei Forward" there are many practical paths for impactful investment to follow, be measured and be recognised.

In our own portfolio and pipeline we number nuclear fusion, sustainable fashion, circular supply chains, smart materials, smart cities and agritech companies as all capable of making an impact through improved energy usage, reduced emissions, circularity, fixing food and protecting the environment. There is a shortage of dealflow relative to demand but it cannot be said that venture is ignoring climate change or failing to make a difference. Instead it is performing a valuable purpose in ensuring that only the best, most practical, most impactful, companies get the majority of funding.

The Business and Sustainable Development Commission estimates that $45 trillion needs to be invested in addressing climate change by 2030. This money can be sourced from the $130 trillion that the Glasgow Finance Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) has pledged by 2050 but it needs to find routes for deployment.

The solution is in our hands...

And it is here that Venture can be helped by all those governments, corporates and indeed activists who attended COP. Through a series of nudges more funding can be released and rushed to innovative technologies targeted to beat climate change.

One of the most effective actions available to governments would be to free occupational pensions to invest more in venture. In the UK alone over $1 trillion is managed by local government pensions but their allocation to venture is minimal. This needs to change but in a highly conservative industry this needs encouragement from government. For corporates, similar nudges are required. At all annual general meetings shareholders who talk of engagement must insist on an #ESG policy and one which explicitly targets #netzero. A great example of leadership comes from Arcelik Global and its CEO, Hakan Bulgurlu. Awarded a Terra Carta award for their vision this top 3 manufacturer of air-conditioners and white goods has pledged to be fully carbon neutral within a decade.

And, in the final analysis, it is activists and individual consumers who will make the biggest difference. As voters, activists at shareholder meetings, as employees or through purchasing decisions, individuals in their millions can influence the largest governments and corporations.

So, "Yes", venture is making a difference to investing in impact and innovation but, individuals, all of us, are able to influence, lead and accelerate everything the industry does.

By Douglas Hansen-Luke, Executive Chairman

Future Thinking: Sustainable Growth

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

October 2021    |    Did someone forward you this email? Subscribe Here Sustainable Growth: for now and the future At Future Planet, we are an impact-led, global venture capital firm built to invest in growth companies from the world's top universities. We provide venture and growth funding to entrepreneurs and businesses, profitably solving the world's greatest challenges in Climate Change, Education, Health, Sustainable Growth & Security. From our focus areas, the challenge we get asked about most is Sustainable Growth. People are often confused by the term. We all know that it is a good thing - but what does it really mean? We wanted to re-explore this topic that we last picked up at the end of May. It is clear that everything is continually changing and growing. It is also increasingly evident that many of the challenges facing humankind, such as climate change, water scarcity, inequality, and hunger, can only be resolved at a global level by promoting growth sustainably. As a part of the sustainable development roadmap, in 2015, the United Nations approved the 2030 Agenda, which contains the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They are a call to action to protect the planet and guarantee the global well-being of people. These common goals require the active involvement of individuals, businesses, administrations and countries around the world - and they are what we at FPC have built our thesis around.  Sustainable Growth is central to SDGs - it is a commitment to social progress, environmental balance and economic growth. Last year's Sustainable Development Report noted that five years since the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, progress had been made in some areas, such as improving maternal and child health, expanding access to electricity and increasing women’s representation in government. Yet even these advances were offset elsewhere by growing food insecurity, deterioration of the natural environment, and persistent and pervasive inequalities. It is evident that we need to refocus and ensure that we are supporting sustainable growth that meets the present's needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Progress toward any worthy objective is enhanced when people work together to create solutions. We have this opportunity - it's ours to grasp together! The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), are a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. 1. Economic Growth Sustainable economic growth means a rate of growth which can be maintained without creating other significant economic problems, especially for future generations. There is clearly a trade-off between rapid economic growth today, and growth in the future. Rapid growth today may exhaust resources and create challenges for future generations. At the same time, sustained and inclusive economic growth is absolutely vital and can drive progress, create decent jobs for all and improve living standards.    2. Environmental Balance The global economy faces significant environmental challenges, from averting dangerous climate change to halting biodiversity loss and protecting our ecosystems. Natural resources are ultimately vital for securing economic growth and development, not just today but for future generations - and we are pleased to see a number of exciting companies leading the way and demonstrating that it is possible to achieve economic growth whilst also tackling these challenges.   3. Social Progress The human condition is not reflected simply by GDP statistics. Social progress can be overlooked but is incredibly important. Social sustainability is a process for creating sustainable successful places that promote wellbeing, by understanding what people need from the places they live and work. Social sustainability combines design of the physical realm with design of the social world – infrastructure to support social and cultural life, social amenities, systems for citizen engagement, and space for people and places to evolve. It is the ability to develop processes and structures which not only meet the needs of now, but also support the ability of future generations to maintain a healthy community. Architect, and FPC Advisory Board Chairman, Norman Foster discusses his own work to show how computers can help architects design buildings that are green, beautiful and "basically pollution-free." From the 2007 DLD Conference, Munich; www.dld-conference.com Challenge Investing Within our universe, we have a significant number of companies that are helping to profitably address this significant and vitally important global challenge. If you’d like to invest in some of the most promising growth companies based on top research then please don't hesitate to get in touch. Want to know more? Contact Ed Phillips or Abi Wye at Future Planet Capital.    This monthly digest is brought to you by Future Planet Capital.  This information is being communicated by Future Planet Capital (UK) Limited which is an appointed representative of Midven Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are considered privileged and confidential. If you have received this email in error please (i) delete it and all copies of it from your system and (ii) destroy any hard copies of it. You should not divulge, copy, forward, or use the contents, attachments, or information in any way. Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be unlawful. Future Planet Capital gives no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of email messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after dispatch.   Copyright © 2021 Future Planet Capital, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Future Thinking: The Heart of Healthcare

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

September 2021    |    Did someone forward you this email? Subscribe Here The Heart of Healthcare: Changes to the Healthcare Sector and Upcoming Trends Over the last 18 months, the world has faced the greatest healthcare challenge of a generation. As we approach the final months of 2021, COVID-19 refuses to fade. On top of this, many healthcare systems are experiencing added challenges of growing waiting lists, postponed appointments, canceled operations and a delay in patients coming forward for treatment. There is no doubt that this will likely result in significant hidden healthcare costs in the longer term. That said, the outlook going forward is more positive as the slight decline in healthcare spending in 2020 (Deloitte, 2020) has bounced back as governments and private providers are increasingly willing - and need - to invest heavily in healthcare provision, vaccine research and treatment in order to not only properly control the pandemic but boost their healthcare sectors.  Looking ahead, global healthcare spending is expected to steadily increase at a 3.9% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) (Deloitte, 2020), with relatively higher growth rates in Asia and Australasia, as well as in transitioning, rapidly developing economies in Central and Eastern Europe. Healthcare spending as a share of GDP is also expected to rise globally. Drivers for the health sector include the usual suspects of population aging, clinical and technological advances and increasing demand for medical care. As global economies gradually recover from the adverse impacts of COVID-19, spending on healthcare provision is also expected to increase accordingly. While COVID-19 has confirmed our vulnerability to communicable diseases, noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as heart disease and cancer have also continued to become more prevalent, especially given NCDs’ increasing morbidity rates. Hence, spending and investments on both pandemic-related research and these long-term conditions will continue to be crucial in furthering progress in medical technology and treatment. In this newsletter, we explore three important trends in further detail: Care Model Innovation, Digital Innovation and a Renewed Focus on Health and Medical Research. Please read on below to find out more.  Listen to Oxford University's Leadership in Extraordinary Times broadcast from 23 March 2021, focussing on Revolutionising healthcare innovation: Putting communities first 1. Care Model Innovation Consumers increasingly expect personalised care delivery, including home visits and customised interactions. Amidst COVID-19, transitioning to virtual platforms has also been essential for more convenient diagnosis, intervention and monitoring. For example, the whole of UK General Practise moved to an online or telephone based triage virtually overnight. Mergers and acquisitions of healthcare providers have also been more common as larger providers attempt to consolidate their market share by absorbing local boutique organizations and potentially adopting public-private partnerships to better serve their patients. Finally, giants in other industries are increasingly keen on entering the health and medical sector to expand their business operations - targeting pharmaceutical delivery and focusing on remote monitoring have aided these emerging disruptors in the market. 2. Digital Transformation Data interoperability is essential to widening access to medical information and facilitating the exchange of technologies. COVID-19 has actually accelerated the breaking down of regulatory mechanisms which govern the transference of information, allowing professionals to better use analytics to improve care delivery and generate more insightful research. Moreover, such digitalization of healthcare processes also helps provide a higher return on investment (ROI), through reducing administrative costs, increasing efficiency, reducing general costs and increasing revenue and growth. 3. Renewed Focus on Health and Medical Research Individuals and Governments are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of health objectives and the necessity of ensuring general population health. Health care organisations are also better able to capitalise on this and push for reskilling and upskilling programmes. Upgrading the skills and capabilities of the workforce, including providing innovative training and tools, is crucial to mitigating another such global health crisis. Rapid advances in automation of clinical and health processes, care virtualization and genomics have also led to significant developments across the sector. Understanding that human and machine intelligence can be complementary in nature will transform the industry in the long run. Challenge Investing Within our universe, we have a significant number of companies that are helping to profitably address the significant and vitally important global challenge of health. If you’d like to invest in some of the most promising growth companies based on top research then please don't hesitate to get in touch. Want to know more? Contact Ed Phillips or Abi Wye at Future Planet Capital.    This monthly digest is brought to you by Future Planet Capital.  This information is being communicated by Future Planet Capital (UK) Limited which is an appointed representative of Midven Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are considered privileged and confidential. If you have received this email in error please (i) delete it and all copies of it from your system and (ii) destroy any hard copies of it. You should not divulge, copy, forward, or use the contents, attachments, or information in any way. Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be unlawful. Future Planet Capital gives no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of email messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after dispatch.   Copyright © 2021 Future Planet Capital, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Mobile Money, African Start-ups and the SDGs

Financial inclusion is an intermediary target in 8 of the 17 SDGs. Consequently, igniting progress towards the SDGs requires a large-scale push to increase financial inclusion. This blog explores how both start-ups and corporates alike have leveraged the mobile money ecosystem to catalyse progress towards the SDGs. Notably, mobile money is a key enabler of innovations within Future Planet’s impact areas of food security, climate action, education and health.

Igniting faster progress towards the SDGs requires a large-scale push to increase financial inclusion. One channel through which this can be achieved is mobile money. This is technology which allows users to receive, store, spend and send money using just a mobile phone and its SMS signal. In Sub-Saharan Africa, mobile phone adoption is forecasted to grow by 4.3% year-on-year until 2025. With greater mobile penetration comes the potential for sustainable ventures to reach a previously ‘unbanked’ population and achieve an impact on a much larger scale.

Two features of mobile money are particularly salient. First, it provides a safe and low-cost method of saving money. For example, a study in Uganda found that the use of mobile money increased food expenditures per adult by nine percentage points and reduced perceived food insecurity providing valuable liquidity to vulnerable households. Second, mobiles provide a fast and low-cost method of sending and receiving money. In fact, remittances sent via mobile transfer are on average 50% cheaper than traditional methods. Consequently, the well-known mobile payment service M-PESA in Kenya was found to increase per-capita consumption and lift 194,000 households, or 2% of all households in Kenya, out of poverty.

While financial inclusion is an intermediary target in 8 of the 17 SDGs, how have start-ups leveraged the mobile money ecosystem to catalyse progress towards the SDGs? Let’s touch on a few of Future Planet’s impact areas; climate action, education and health.

SDG 13 - Climate Action

Climate change threatens to drive an estimated 100 million people into poverty by 2030. Mobile money innovations plays a key role in mitigating climate risks by helping farmers become more resilient and helping communities that have been displaced by climate shocks. Index insurance, which can act as a safety-net for farmers following climate shocks on their crops, use mobile money to distribute payouts to farmers. In a similar fashion, government-to-person (GTP) payments are often enabled by mobile money. For instance, in 2014, the Government of Fiji partnered with Vodafone MPaisa to disburse assistance to over 32,000 households affected by Tropical Cyclone Winston. In the Philippines, Mercy Corps and BanKO implemented a mobile money programme to distribute financial aid following Typhoon Haiyan in 2013.

Integrating payment technology with climate ventures is nothing new. Alipay, an online mobile and payment platform with over a billion users, launched Alipay Ant Forest in 2016, a mobile app which rewards users with ‘green points’ for undertaking low-carbon activities. For every virtual tree a user plants, Alipay plants a real tree. To date, 500m users have planted 100m trees in arid areas throughout China spanning a landmass of 933km2 (equivalent to the size of 130,000 football fields!)

SDG 4 - Quality Education

Increasingly, mobile technology is being used by EdTech start-ups across emerging markets to enhance and supplement traditional ‘brick and mortar’ schooling, providing better access to primary, secondary and tertiary education or professional development training.

In Africa, collaboration between mobile money and EdTech start-ups is mutually beneficial. Mobile operators have reached the scale that start-ups lack, such that EdTechs can address infrastructure challenges related to delivering and supporting education where conventional models fail or are non-existent, particularly in remote rural areas. On the other hand, start-ups have the local innovation mobile operators need. For instance, Kenyan start-up Eneza Education partnered with mobile operator Safaricom to launch a virtual classroom available on any mobile phone. To date, it has provided over 10 million learners with access to primary and secondary education resources. In a similar purely ‘offline’ offering, Ghanaian start-up Chalkboard Education leverages existing mobile networks to provide access to university courses for disadvantaged students via distance learning using just SMS. In Uganda, a flexible education loan using mobile money wallets and a pay- as-you-go (PAYG) business model is helping parents pay school fees. In households using this product, only 15% of students missed a day of school compared to 24% of students in households that did not use the product.

Deeper, more integrated partnerships between mobile operators and EdTech ventures are necessary to build on these gains to ensure access to quality education can continue to be offered at scale. In this context, the mobile industry has a significant role to play in improving the accessibility, affordability and quality of education in emerging markets.

SDG 3 – Good Health and Well-Being

When it comes to global health, mobile money lowers financial barriers to receiving healthcare by lowering the costs of registering with health insurance, paying premiums, and receiving disbursements. In Kenya, M- Tiba’s mobile health wallet enables health payments, savings and access to credit via mobile money. Since its launch in 2016, it has facilitated 155,000 patient visits to medical facilities and $2m in medical payouts. It also contributes towards disease detection. In Pakistan, providing incentives via mobile money resulted in a 300% increase in tuberculosis detection over one year and a 90% increase in patients adhering to treatment.

A View to the Future

A plethora of rigorous evidence exists on the enabling role of the mobile money ecosystem in progressing the SDGs. Deeper, more integrated approaches are needed between mobile providers, start-ups and investors to capitalise on potential synergies in collaboration. Here at Future Planet, we provide growth financing to scale these innovative solutions. In doing so, we ensure that innovative start-ups can realise their growth potential to ensure a healthier, safer and fairer future planet.

By Patrick McMullan

Future Thinking: The Global Security Challenge

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

July 2021    |    Did someone forward you this email? Subscribe Here The challenge of security: Cyber, Quantum, Food, Water & Biosecurity We live in an age of ever-greater threats - every day ourselves, our communities and our planet is grappling with how to maintain our security. COVID-19 has disrupted our everyday lives as well as our short-term digital and food-related security. The World Bank has confirmed that COVID-19 impacts have led to severe and widespread increases in global food insecurity, affecting vulnerable households in almost every country, with impacts expected to continue through 2021 and into 2022.  It has also highlighted significant challenges for global biosecurity - and that there is no meaningful international legal oversight in place to accompany global developments. The United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity puts the onus on individual countries to regulate their own biotech industries. While there are protocols for the safe handling and transfer of living modified organisms, there are still no agreed international standards governing laboratory safety, monitoring and information sharing.   Finally, it is clear that cyber criminals are particularly looking for opportunities to exploit this ‘new norm’. Indeed, the hack of the Colonial Pipeline in the US was just one of a series of cyber-attacks that have hit the United States and elsewhere recently. Hackers have taken down JBS, the world’s largest meat processor, disrupting the global meat market, closed schools in Iowa and hit hospitals in Ireland in what experts say is a dangerous escalation of a crime wave that has swelled from the small-scale blackmail operations of a few years ago to major assaults that threaten the livelihoods – and potentially lives – of millions. Tackling this explosion in hacking will take action from everyone, from governments to private citizens. Cybersecurity - like all forms of security we are discussing in this edition - is a shared responsibility and cybersecurity solutions are no doubt going to be digital first responders as we emerge from the pandemic. Across all of our focus areas, which we explore in further detail below, supply chain resilience and provenance are very important sub-themes to consider, work on and overcome. It is also something that we consider very carefully in our due diligence processes. The longer-term impact of the pandemic will be multi-faceted and influenced by the recovery paths taken by countries and corporations. But it is clear that in a number of significant - and important - areas security challenges not only remain but have been heightened over the last 18 months.  1. Cyber Cyber security is how individuals and organisations reduce the risk of cyber attack. Cyber security's core function is to protect the devices we all use (smartphones, laptops, tablets and computers), and the services we access - both online and at work - from theft or damage. It's also about preventing unauthorised access to the vast amounts of personal information we store on these devices, and online. Cyber security is important because smartphones, computers and the internet are now such a fundamental part of modern life, that it's difficult to imagine how we'd function without them. From online banking and shopping, to email and social media, it's more important than ever to stake steps that can prevent cyber criminals getting hold of our accounts, data, and devices.  2. Quantum The potential for quantum computing to revolutionise work in sectors such as meteorology metallurgy and medical research by accelerating the processing speed of difficult calculations is relatively well known. So is the threat that quantum computing may render some current methods of cryptography insecure, weakening the security that protects how we work, shop, bank and live online. Because current methods of public key cryptography are vulnerable to attack by quantum computers, it is incredibly important that researchers around the world develop new cryptographic algorithms for post-quantum security.   3. Food Food security, as defined by the United Nations’ Committee on World Food Security, means that all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their food preferences and dietary needs for an active and healthy life. Over the coming decades, a changing climate, growing global population, rising food prices, and environmental stressors will have significant yet uncertain impacts on food security. Agritech will be increasingly important, as will alternative and 'green' sources of protein.   4. Water Freshwater is the most important resource for mankind, cross-cutting all social, economic and environmental activities. It is a condition for all life on our planet, an enabling or limiting factor for any social and technological development, a possible source of welfare or misery, cooperation or conflict. According to UNESCO, to achieve water security, we must protect vulnerable water systems, mitigate the impacts of water-related hazards such as floods and droughts, safeguard access to water functions and services and manage water resources in an integrated and equitable manner.  5. Biological  Significant outbreaks of disease are among the highest impact risks faced by any society – threatening lives and causing disruption to public services and the economy. This is true whether such outbreaks occur naturally, such as pandemic influenza or emerging infectious diseases, or in the less likely event of a disease being caused by an accidental release from scientific or industrial facilities, or as the result of a deliberate biological attack. Large scale disease outbreaks in animals or plants can be equally significant in terms of economic, environmental and social impact. Biological security considerations also bring the issue of 'vaccine passports' or 'bio-health ID cards' to the fore.  Challenge Investing Within our universe, we have a significant number of companies that are helping to profitably address the significant and vitally important global challenge of security. If you’d like to invest in some of the most promising growth companies based on top research then please don't hesitate to get in touch. Want to know more? Contact Ed Phillips or Abi Wye at Future Planet Capital.    This monthly digest is brought to you by Future Planet Capital.  This information is being communicated by Future Planet Capital (UK) Limited which is an appointed representative of Midven Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are considered privileged and confidential. If you have received this email in error please (i) delete it and all copies of it from your system and (ii) destroy any hard copies of it. You should not divulge, copy, forward, or use the contents, attachments, or information in any way. Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be unlawful. Future Planet Capital gives no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of email messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after dispatch.   Copyright © 2021 Future Planet Capital, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

How consumer attitudes will be critical in determining which alternative sources of protein rise to the top

The Green Revolution of the 20th century radically transformed the way we grow our food, allowing farmers to keep pace with increasing food demand following rapid population growth. Global populations are projected to continue to increase to 9.7 billion by 2050 (FAO). Meanwhile, as countries across the world develop and the middle-class expands, there will be a shift in diets that leads to an increase in the demand for meat. Global agricultural practices are thus poised to once again be transformed by a host of new technologies that will allow the sector to adjust to these projected demographic changes. As ever, the preferences of consumers will be critical in shaping which of these new technologies and start-ups will find success in our rapidly evolving food landscape.

GM food – what lessons can be learnt

Humans have been altering the genetics of the food we eat for thousands of years through artificial selection. In the late 20th century, genetic engineering emerged as a technology that allowed the more direct and precise alteration of an organism’s genetics that did not require the use of breeding. The use of genetic engineering in agriculture to produce genetically modified (GM) food has the potential to dramatically improve both crop yield while offering additional health benefits and improving the sustainability of agriculture as a whole.

However, following its emergence, aggressive campaigning against the use of GM food has led to a widespread public mistrust over GM food and perceptions that it is unsafe. While there is little scientific evidence to support these ideas, the rapid nature with which they were spread has led to complete bans being imposed on GM food in many regions of the world. Regardless of whether these decisions are ill-informed, the case of GM food highlights how consumer perceptions and public opinions can rapidly condemn the use of a technology within agriculture to failure. Emerging technologies that aim to offer healthier, more sustainable alternatives to the food we currently eat must work hard to win over the acceptance of consumers in order to avoid being condemned to a similar fate.

 Recently, some start-ups have cleverly begun to harness novel genetic engineering  technologies to improve crop output without affecting the genetics of the final food product itself, ensuring it remains a non-GMO (genetically modified organism). Our portfolio company, Tropic Biosciences, is utilising the latest CRISPR genome editing tools to improve commercial varieties of tropical crops such as coffee and banana, reducing their susceptibility to disease. Not only will Tropic Biosciences’ technology improve crop output, support local communities and reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, but crucially, it will begin to sway consumer attitudes towards the safe use of genetic engineering technologies in our food systems. 

How plant-based alternatives are finding success

Plant-based alternatives are becoming an increasingly more popular option for meat-eaters and as a result, start-ups and companies in this space are thriving. Leaders in the market such as Beyond Meat and Oatly have navigated successful IPOs in recent years whilst Impossible Foods is set to join them later this year with a valuation that could reach $10 billion. The success of plant-based alternatives has been aided by an increased public awareness for the importance of reducing our meat consumption and subsequently reducing our impact on the planet. However, these companies have crucially won over the trust of consumers, ensuring them that their alternative foods are safe. This has included capitalising on the failings of GM food with plant-based products frequently advertising the fact that they’re ‘GMO free’. Having earnt the trust of consumers, plant-based alternatives must now seek to reduce their costs in order to continue to expand and sway more meat-eaters away from their traditional purchasing choices.

Will cultivated meat thrive in a similar fashion?

Start-ups and companies developing cultivated meat hope to mirror the success of plant-based protein alternatives over the coming years. Cultivated meat, frequently described as ‘lab-grown meat’ uses the biotechnological application of stem cells derived from animals to produce cultured meat in a bioreactor. The technology is rapidly evolving with Eat Just leading the way having sold the first lab-grown chicken nuggets in a restaurant in Singapore in the late stages of 2020. Cutting costs down from the hefty $17 that the Just chicken nuggets were sold at will be essential for cultivated meat start-ups to progress.  However, more importantly, hard work must be done by scientists, entrepreneurs and investors to inform the public about the safety of cultivated meat in order to ensure it is not disregarded as a spooky, futuristic technology. In doing so, cultivated meat may well become a popular protein alternative to rival plant-based alternatives over the coming decades.  The evolution of both plant-based and cultivated meat technologies may be critical for reducing the environmental impact that the meat industry currently has on our planet.

By Tom Barnes

EdTech: Facilitating the Future of Learning

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

June 2021    |    Did someone forward you this email? Subscribe Here EdTech: Facilitating the Future of Learning One of the largest and most important sectors of the global economy, the education industry, is undergoing a digital revolution. Artificial intelligence, automation and digitalisation are redefining norms in education as more efficient and engaging forms of educational delivery channels emerge.  Over the last 18 months edtech’s growth trajectory has been simply unparalleled. The sector has attracted investments worth more than US$2.2 billion and continues to dominate headlines. This period will no doubt be seen as a tipping point, as the ecosystem continues to expand leaps and bounds. Historically the education “service” has been delivered in almost the same way for centuries around the world. The penetration of digital technologies prior to COVID-19 was low, at only 2-3 per cent, well below most other sectors of the modern economy and MOOCs famously never reached their widely discussed potential. However, COVID-19 propelled edtech into the mainstream and instantaneously removed some of the historic bottlenecks, namely resistance to try new digital tools and perceptions that education and continued learning cannot be delivered as effectively online.  Compared to 2019, the edtech user base in 2020 in the US doubled from 45m to 90m across k12 and post-k12 sectors. The average time spent using such services or devices went up 50%, from 60 to 90 minutes. There was also an 83% increase in the number of paid users, an important and noticeable development. Our partner  Owl Ventures, with over $1.2 billion in assets under management, is the only scaled dedicated fund in the edtech market, a landscape that is expected to grow more than three times in size over the next five years.  This trend can be seen worldwide and in India edtech is certainly no longer a sunrise sector, but an industry whose moment has arrived with more than $5 bn in private equity investments over the last five years. Two unicorns have already been created in this space with Byju’s being the most valuable unicorn out of India at a $16.5 bn valuation and Unacademy also entering the elite billion-dollar club recently. There are more than 4,500 startups operating in the edtech space in India currently, an industry that is projected to grow to $30 bn. Edtech has emerged as a growth powerhouse, supporting the economy through investments and new jobs. It’s also enabling learning to continue at school, college, individual and corporate level. Companies in our network such as Learnerbly, Degreed and Biju's really have gone from strength-to-strength. There can be no doubt that edtech’s role has become invaluable.  We see the future only going one way - with the current edtech landscape keeping on developing with new products, focusing on providing a more customised and personalised learning experience for users, well after the age of lockdowns and curfews comes to an end. Read on below to see three of the top edtech trends we are discussing at the moment.   With these seismic changes bringing a new future for the education sector, there can be no doubt that this is a space investors can leverage if they want to integrate profit with purpose.  Norman Foster Foundation OPEN CALL: Sustainability Workshop 2021 The Norman Foster Foundation is selecting ten students to be awarded a scholarship for the first edition of the Sustainability Workshop, supported by the Rolex Institute. The Sustainability Workshop will take place from 18-22 October 2021, in Madrid, Spain. The workshop will bring together international experts and students to explore sustainable solutions for overarching topics such as climate change, the use of energy and resources, and their local and global implications. As usual, the Workshop will gather a team of ten scholars, drawn from diverse backgrounds of architecture, the arts and humanities, computational design and digital fabrication. Read our portfolio company Learnerbly's latest blog: Why is learning important? A deep dive into the benefits of being a lifelong learner 1. eLearning In 2021, there’s probably no bigger education trend than eLearning. According to the Research Institute of America, eLearning increases retention rates by 25 to 60 percent. It's also extremely scalable, allowing the best educators to reach many students at the same time (or at different times, in the case of on-demand pre-recorded courses.) And at a much lower cost than traditional in-person classes. Educational institutions are also becoming much more directly involved with innovation and entrepreneurship. No wonder this industry is expected to hit $375 billion by 2026.    2. Gamification  Gamification in learning has been around for sometime now. But in a post pandemic, hyper digital world gamification takes centre-stage. As students are exposed to an overload of information and learn in-silo outside of traditional classrooms, gamification will help keep them motivated and aligned to learning paths. Gamification has increasingly been used in professional learning too as shown by pioneers such as Salesforce. The gamification in education market is projected to grow from USD 450 million in 2018 to USD 1,800 million by 2023, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 32.0% from 2018 to 2023 (Source: marketsandmarkets.com).   3. Mobile & Continuous Learning Startups are jumping into the education segment to cater to the specific needs of students and educators — and of course, do what startups do. With the meteoric rise of the use of mobiles, naturally that means the appification of education has begun.  Apps can be a very valuable resource, acting as built-in lessons and aid in tracking progress. Furthermore, the right app can enhance lessons by offering another approach to a subject.   FPC Challenge Response Basket -  in partnership with Barclays   Earlier this month we launched our second Future Planet Capital Challenge Response Basket (CR2), in partnership with Barclays Private Bank. This launch follows the success of basket one, which focussed on Infectious Disease & Pandemics. Our vision is to connect the world’s largest investors with the brightest minds to address the world’s greatest challenges.  The initiative will offer preferred access to invest into a bespoke basket of growth stage life science and technology companies from the world’s top universities, designed to provide a rapid investment response to immediate global challenges. The second basket responds to the immediate global challenge of Food Security & Climate Change. It also runs alongside planned work that Lord Foster is doing with Barclays to support their climate change initiatives. Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity will face over the next century. Even within current UN treaties that limit temperature rises to 2°C, there will be harsh consequences including ocean acidification, sea level rises and mass extinctions. In 2018, the UN gave a stark warning, that unless this can be limited to 1.5°C, a quarter of the world’s current GDP could be lost by the end of the century, with developing countries such as India hardest hit, at up to 90% GDP loss (NFGS 2020, Bloomberg 2020). Future Planet are now looking beyond ESG to the $50 trillion of investment required to mitigate this problem (Morgan Stanley 2019), tapping into the associated market opportunity of backing the companies rising to the challenge. CR2 will co-invest alongside Future Planet Capital’s flagship Fund and/or University Partners, benefiting from access to exclusive follow-on allocations, co-investment and discounted bridge financing rounds in competitive rounds.  Please don't hesitate to get in touch with Lyle to learn more about CR2 and our work with Barclays. Challenge Investing Within our universe, we have a significant number of companies that are helping to profitably address this significant and vitally important global challenge. If you’d like to invest in some of the most promising growth companies based on top research then please don't hesitate to get in touch. Want to know more? Contact Ed Phillips or Abi Wye at Future Planet Capital.    This monthly digest is brought to you by Future Planet Capital.  This information is being communicated by Future Planet Capital (UK) Limited which is an appointed representative of Midven Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are considered privileged and confidential. If you have received this email in error please (i) delete it and all copies of it from your system and (ii) destroy any hard copies of it. You should not divulge, copy, forward, or use the contents, attachments, or information in any way. Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be unlawful. Future Planet Capital gives no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of email messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after dispatch.   Copyright © 2021 Future Planet Capital, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Zeroing in on Waste

Globally, 90 billion tonnes of raw materials (i.e. biomass, fossil fuels, metals and minerals) are extracted and used each year. By 2060, this figure is expected to double. Our approach to the use of these materials is linear. Just 19% of waste is recycled or composted. The remaining 81% is incinerated or dumped. 

To reduce the amount of raw materials being extracted and wasted, we must increase the effectiveness of waste management solutions and integrate waste back into supply chains. This can create value, which currently goes untapped. A recent report estimated that each metric ton of uncollected mixed waste represents an average loss of about $375. Thus, it is not surprising that adopting a global circular economy could create some $4.5 trillion value by 2030. 

Fashion, A Case Study:

Fashion is a case in point. Clothing production doubled from 2000 to 2014. Across the same period, the average length of time for which consumers kept each clothing item halved. This rise in demand has placed increasing strain on global raw material supply. Despite this increasing strain, in 2017, less than 1% of material used to make clothing was recycled. 

The least sustainable sector of the fashion industry is fast-fashion. With relatively cheap products, the business model aims to allow customers to keep up with current trends. Production processes have to be low-cost in order to make fast-fashion viable; products are often made from a combination of different cheap materials. Such a blend of fabrics makes recycling these cheaper products difficult. These problems are compounded by the volume of clothes produced by fast-fashion companies. With some fast-fashion companies releasing as many as 20 new clothing lines each year, fashionable apparel quickly becomes outdated. Purchased at relatively low prices, and with  such short product life-cycles, these clothes are perceived of as being disposable. Indeed, in the UK, 336,000 tonnes of clothes are disposed of in landfill each year.

There is, however, a profound circular shift underway in the fashion industry, driven by consumer demand. In a recent survey, two-thirds of textile sourcing executives said that consumer pressures for sustainably sourced materials would likely become a top factor in their supplier ratings by 2025. As a result of these changing patterns of demand, sustainable sourcing at scale will soon become essential for fashion companies who wish to remain competitive. Recycling and upcycling materials will be the main avenue through which sustainability can be achieved in the fashion industry. Reusing materials will allow the fashion industry, responsible for at least 4% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, to cut out carbon-intensive resource extraction processes.

A Circular Approach:

A circular approach which creates value whilst limiting waste and emissions must be adopted not solely by the fashion industry, but by industries across the board. From food to plastic production, we must reduce our linear approach, characterised by over-extraction and unused waste. Future Planet's focus on innovative solutions spinning out from the world’s top universities that intersect both digital and circular shifts ensures that these start-ups can realise their growth potential to make a substantial difference. While assisting with the creation of these new circular systems, they must characterise production and consumption to have a positive impact on our future planet.

by James Derham

Sustainable Growth

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

May 2021    |    Did someone forward you this email? Subscribe Here Sustainable Growth: for now and the future At Future Planet we are an impact-led, global venture capital firm built to invest in growth companies from the world's top universities. We provide venture and growth funding to entrepreneurs and businesses profitably solving the world's greatest challenges in Climate Change, Education, Health, Sustainable Growth & Security. From our focus areas, the challenge we get asked about most is Sustainable Growth. People are often confused by the term. We all know that it is a good thing - but what does it really mean? It is clear that everything is continually changing and growing. It is also increasingly evident that many of the challenges facing humankind, such as climate change, water scarcity, inequality, and hunger, can only be resolved at a global level by promoting growth sustainably. As a part of the sustainable development roadmap, in 2015 the United Nations approved the 2030 Agenda, which contains the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They are a call to action to protect the planet and guarantee the global well-being of people. These common goals require the active involvement of individuals, businesses, administrations and countries around the world - and they are what we at FPC have built our thesis around.  Sustainable Growth is central to SDGs - it is a commitment to social progress, environmental balance and economic growth. Last year's Sustainable Development Report noted that, five years since the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, progress has been made in some areas, such as improving maternal and child health, expanding access to electricity and increasing women’s representation in government. Yet even these advances were offset elsewhere by growing food insecurity, deterioration of the natural environment, and persistent and pervasive inequalities. It is evident that we need to refocus and ensure that we are supporting sustainable growth which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Progress toward any worthy objective is enhanced when people work together to create solutions. We have this opportunity - it's ours to grasp together! The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), are a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity 1. Economic Growth Sustainable economic growth means a rate of growth which can be maintained without creating other significant economic problems, especially for future generations. There is clearly a trade-off between rapid economic growth today, and growth in the future. Rapid growth today may exhaust resources and create challenges for future generations. At the same time, sustained and inclusive economic growth is absolutely vital and can drive progress, create decent jobs for all and improve living standards.    2. Environmental Balance The global economy faces significant environmental challenges, from averting dangerous climate change to halting biodiversity loss and protecting our ecosystems. Natural resources are ultimately vital for securing economic growth and development, not just today but for future generations - and we are pleased to see a number of exciting companies leading the way and demonstrating that it is possible to achieve economic growth whilst also tackling these challenges   3. Social Progress The human condition is not reflected simply by GDP statistics. Social progress can be overlooked but is incredibly important. Social sustainability is a process for creating sustainable successful places that promote wellbeing, by understanding what people need from the places they live and work. Social sustainability combines design of the physical realm with design of the social world – infrastructure to support social and cultural life, social amenities, systems for citizen engagement, and space for people and places to evolve. It is the ability to develop processes and structures which not only meet the needs of now, but also support the ability of future generations to maintain a healthy community. Architect, and FPC Advisory Board Chairman, Norman Foster discusses his own work to show how computers can help architects design buildings that are green, beautiful and "basically pollution-free." From the 2007 DLD Conference, Munich; www.dld-conference.com Challenge Investing Within our universe, we have a significant number of companies that are helping to profitably address this significant and vitally important global challenge. If you’d like to invest in some of the most promising growth companies based on top research then please don't hesitate to get in touch. Want to know more? Contact Ed Phillips or Abi Wye at Future Planet Capital.    This monthly digest is brought to you by Future Planet Capital.  This information is being communicated by Future Planet Capital (UK) Limited which is an appointed representative of Midven Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are considered privileged and confidential. If you have received this email in error please (i) delete it and all copies of it from your system and (ii) destroy any hard copies of it. You should not divulge, copy, forward, or use the contents, attachments, or information in any way. Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be unlawful. Future Planet Capital gives no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of email messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after dispatch.   Copyright © 2021 Future Planet Capital, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

A Better Future Planet - Series Summary

*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*

April 2021    |    Did someone forward you this email? Subscribe Here A Better Future Planet Last week marked a significant step forward in the global response to Climate Change - during a summit of more than 40 world leaders the Biden administration committed to cutting planet-heating emissions by 50% by 2030, essentially doubling the US' previous commitment.  On top of this, the summit saw an American promise to double financial aid for developing countries struggling with the escalating droughts, floods, heatwaves, and other impacts of the climate crisis, as well as a new US push to work with other countries on clean energy innovation. It is clear - as we have explored over the last four months of our climate change series - that the heating of our planet and climate disruption continues apace and it is more important than ever to tackle this significant global challenge.  2021 can be, and must be, a turning point in the fight against global warming. In the UK, plans continue apace for the delayed Glasgow Climate Change Conference at the end of the year, and it is hoped that these new commitments by the US will spur other countries to do more. At Future Planet, we seek the intersection of high return and meaningful impact while addressing some of the world's biggest challenges. As we set out in January, we firmly believe that addressing climate change doesn’t require a smaller economy or a decade-long depression. Instead, transition to a low-carbon economy means primarily less emission-intensive growth; by decoupling growth and emissions. In this edition of Future Thinking we are pleased to conclude our climate change series and review, as investors, where we have a clear opportunity to support initiatives to build back better, encourage the development of green jobs, and accelerate our path to net zero. We are also pleased to feature an opinion piece from our Executive Chairman, Douglas Hansen-Luke at the bottom of this edition. We've proved Global Britain is an innovation superpower - now we need worldwide investment. Read on to find out more.  Thank you for joining us on this journey as we continue to look at ways we can introduce new technology, challenge preconceptions, and how we can invest profitably, to be more responsible and sustainable - creating a better Future Planet. David Attenborough: 'This is the last chance' to address climate change | BBC News FPC's Focus on Tackling Climate Change   Future Planet, working in partnership with scientists and founders emerging from the world’s top universities, is seeking those companies best able to meet this challenge and address the $50 trillion market opportunity created by the challenge of climate change.    The very essence of capitalism is to make more from less and the essence of responsible capitalism is to reduce unnecessary consumption and waste.  A sustainable approach to emissions, consumption and the environment is not only profitable but will reduce untold suffering for billions of humans and their fellow creatures.  Future Planet brings together the world’s leading thinkers in these spaces and identities companies in three focus areas most likely to make a valuable difference to climate change, reducing our environmental footprint and husbanding bio-diversity. 1. Energy & Emissions  The Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a short-term reduction in emissions over the last 12 months and recent reports suggest that a number of countries, including Germany, UK, Sweden and Spain, are increasingly generating electricity from renewable sources rather than from fossil fuels. This is positive, but it is clear that there is a lot more that can - and needs to be done - in this area. AI and hardware increasingly drive both investor value and impact and at FPC we're particularly looking at investments around renewables and electric vehicles.   2. Sustainable Consumption  Embracing a circular, sustainable economy and living within smart cities is a matter of survival. Resource productivity, efficiency and waste elimination will have enormous impact & externality benefits for investors able to deploy & scale physical, digital & biological solutions to recycling and upcycling. Creating sustainable supply chains and new manufacturing methods, value chains will allow us to maintain productivity and create new opportunities in everything from FMCG to fashion. In this category, we're particularly looking at the circular economy, fashion and smart cities 3. Environment & Agriculture  As humans continue to encroach on natural eco-systems, unless we ensure our practices are sustainable there will undoubtedly be greater environmental destruction, further pandemics and the increase of other diseases. There are some really exciting and positive signs - biotech, CRISPR & new deep tech are offering new opportunities to increase yields while lowering CO2 and waste in the global food value chain. In addition, new meat substitutes and advances in agri/aquaculture are helping to maintain biodiversity and planet health. In this area, we are particularly interested in AgriTech and Food Security & Green Protein.    We’ve proved Global Britain is an innovation superpower – now we need worldwide investment  Douglas Hansen-Luke  Five years ago, we were a different world. Former Chancellor Philip Hammond had just committed £23bn to a National Innovation and Infrastructure fund to catalyse private sector investment. We were still in the EU and COVID-19 was in the distant future. Since 2016, we’ve demonstrated the principle of investing in British innovation. Oxford remains the world’s top ranked university. The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID vaccine is proof that UK university-led ventures can be profitable and impactful upon global challenges. Now, with Abu Dhabi and the UK partnering to invest millions in new technologies, the Government needs to strongly capitalise on our success. We need to bring global investors, public funding and entrepreneurs together to make Britain a technological and science superpower on the world stage. Point proved Brits have a reputation for letting home-grown inventions slip through our fingers. We’re often seen as understated inventors, unwilling to commercialise, and with a tendency to fail to recognise marketable talent. Back in 2016, I argued that British inventiveness had significantly contributed to the success of two of the world’s biggest companies – Google and Apple. Yet, as a country, we only captured a fraction of that value, with much of the profit realised overseas.  Today Vaccitech, the university start-up behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, is one of the many companies showing how Britain can profitably address global challenges in areas such as healthcare, clean energy and infrastructure.  Vaccitech is developing new drugs to fight cancer and other infectious diseases that could emerge as global threats. The company recently secured its largest private investment, $168 million to take three therapies into first-in-human studies. Vaccitech isn’t alone. Another blockbuster British biotech, Oxford Nanopore, is about to list on the UK stock market. Its rapid COVID-19 tests have proved critical to the pandemic response in Britain and elsewhere. Taking success forwards: Priming the pump So, what can we do to build on this success? The Government needs to continue to fund the best of British inventiveness.  The UK Innovation & Science Seed Fund (UKI2S) is a great example of how public money can help boost strategically-important sectors of the economy and help innovative new technologies reach a global market. UKI2S invests Government funding in innovative, often risky, research with global implications. Among the rising global stars in their portfolio is Tropic Biosciences in Norwich, who are using cutting-edge science to save the humble banana from a fruit-ending pandemic disease. Another company in their portfolio, Tokamak Energy, near Oxford, is leading global efforts to commercialise the holy grail of energy production – fusion power, with the aim of providing a source of limitless clean power. Attracting overseas investment Yet, Government funding can only prime the pump for private sector investment. And, to make the most of our technologies, we need the rest of the world to recognise our potential and to invest in the UK. In late March, the Financial Times reported that the United Arab Emirates had agreed a multibillion-pound investment partnership with the UK. This includes £800m from Abu Dhabi state fund, Mubadala, to invest in life sciences, to be matched by £200m from the UK. It’s a huge boost to UK innovation, and to post-Brexit Britain. The Vice-Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge both had concerns about losing funding from Horizon, the European funding agency, but – in fact – the appetite of international investors, with an estimated £5bn from a single sovereign wealth fund, should more than compensate for the shortfall. As public sector funding, Horizon is a distraction. The profit-first approach to funding innovation is always going to produce better results. Replicating Silicon Valley  Around the world, there are multiple innovation ‘hot spots’ where new companies are born ready to meet a global market. Professor Jerome S. Engel, from the University of California, Berkeley and an advisor to Future Planet Capital, calls them Clusters of Innovation – “global economic hot spots where new technologies germinate at an astounding rate and where pools of capital, expertise, and talent foster the development of new industries and new ways of doing business.” One such example is Silicon Valley. And, through two decades of study, he has distilled the elements that make this tech cluster a worldwide success. US Government funding contributed, of course, to the stratospheric rise of California’s tech industry. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) funded the developers of ARPANET, the first computer network designed with the foundational technologies that underpin today’s World Wide Web.  But private sector funding was also critical to superpowering today’s Silicon Valley, along with a culture of entrepreneurship.   Can we turn Britain into a superpowered version of Silicon Valley? Certainly. Lord Gerry Grimstone, the UK’s investment minister, is not alone in thinking – as he told the FT – that the future opportunities are sizeable.  We have top universities, world-beating research, and a burgeoning culture of commercialising inventiveness.  A decade ago, David Willetts talked about the eight great technologies that would propel Britain forwards. Five years ago, I talked about driving Britain’s ‘innovation mojo’. Now, let’s go and do it. Our future place in the world will not be defined by our warheads, but by the inventiveness of our minds. Douglas Hansen-Luke is the Executive Chairman of Future Planet Capital, where he is focused on connecting the world’s large investors, including sovereign wealth funds, with hard-to-access opportunities in technology and life sciences. Previously, he has held senior managerial positions across the Middle East and Asia and also stood as a Parliamentary Candidate at the 2015 UK General Election. Future Planet Capital is the third largest investor in Vaccitech after the University of Oxford and M&G plc, and is partnered with Midven, the manager of UK Innovation & Science Seed Fund. Challenge Investing Within our universe, we have a significant number of companies that are helping to profitably address this significant and vitally important global challenge. If you’d like to invest in some of the most promising growth companies based on top research then please don't hesitate to get in touch. Want to know more? Contact Ed Phillips or Abi Wye at Future Planet Capital.    This monthly digest is brought to you by Future Planet Capital.  This information is being communicated by Future Planet Capital (UK) Limited which is an appointed representative of Midven Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are considered privileged and confidential. If you have received this email in error please (i) delete it and all copies of it from your system and (ii) destroy any hard copies of it. You should not divulge, copy, forward, or use the contents, attachments, or information in any way. Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be unlawful. Future Planet Capital gives no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of email messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after dispatch.   Copyright © 2021 Future Planet Capital, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Food For Thought - VC & Livestock Production

The impact of livestock production:

Livestock supply chains account for 14.5% of global greenhouse-gas (‘GHG’) emissions. There is a strong case, for those in the position to afford alternatives to livestock produce, to reduce their consumption. Producing 100g of red meat generates 40 times the emissions given off when growing 100g of vegetables. An individual who chooses to go vegan for two of their three daily meals would reduce their food-related GHG footprint by around 60%. Conscious choices made by consumers who are in a position to reduce their consumption of livestock produce will thus be essential in reducing agricultural GHG emissions. This solution also requires no innovation. 

However, meat, milk and eggs provide 34% of the protein consumed globally. These foods also supply billions of people with essential micronutrients, inter alia, vitamin B12, A, iron, zinc and calcium. As the global population grows in size and wealth, consumers will demand more meat and dairy. Ruminant meat demand is projected to grow by 88% between 2010 and 2050.

So, whilst it is necessary that those who are in a position to do so reduce their consumption of livestock produce, it is clear that innovative solutions are required which allow us to continue to supply the demand for these products sustainably. Future Planet, strives to provide solutions to both of these problems. By utilising our global network and connecting spin-outs from the world’s top universities with those who are working to implement low carbon livestock production, we aim to address these problems with growth funding to increase their scale and marketability.

Low Emission Livestock Production:

Enteric fermentation, the process of digestion in ruminant livestock, is responsible for 44.1% of global livestock emissions. The product of enteric fermentation is methane. Per tonne, methane has 86 times the warming effect of CO2. Researchers and alumni at the world’s top universities are providing solutions which can help abate ruminant methane production by adding natural compounds to feedstocks. With the necessary funds to scale these solutions it will allow them to be integrated into highly optimised feedstock supply chains. Future Planet aims to help these start-ups and spin-outs unlock value, whilst decreasing ruminant methane production.

Green Proteins:

Plant-based pork and chicken could reduce GHG emissions by 30-36%, and plant-based beef by 80-90%, compared with their meat counterparts. However, consumers bear an average premium of 86% when purchasing plant-based proteins. High prices are one of the most significant barriers to consumer adoption of plant-based protein foods. A similar issue is faced by innovative start-ups producing cell-based alternative meats, a method which reduces the impact of livestock on land use by more than 95%. The capacity to provide both types of alternative protein to consumers at a price parity with their meat counterparts will be crucial in reducing agricultural emissions. 

Whilst it is essential that those in a position to do so reduce their consumption of livestock produce, it is also clear that low emission husbandry is achievable. Abating GHG emissions from livestock farming will allow us to supply the growing demand for meat more sustainably. Also it is essential in ensuring that meat demand is met sustainably will be Green Proteins. Nonetheless, it is clear in both the low emission livestock production and Green Protein spaces, innovation and investment are required to ensure that these solutions unlock their impact potential.

By James Derham

Food for thought - VC & AgriTech

Food for Thought: Why VC Investment in Sustainable Agricultural Practises is Essential

This article will focus on Future Planet Capital’s (FPC’s) approach to the agricultural ‘Challenge Area’, first defining the scale of the problem, and then showing how our approach can help encourage the implementation of best practices that allow us to sustainably produce more food, whilst consuming fewer finite resources.

Food Security: The Growing Demand for Food. 

As the global population rises to a projected 10bn by 2050, the demand for food will also increase. The difference between the total global agricultural land area used in 2010 and the projected total area required to feed the global population by 2050 is 593 million hectares. This is an area nearly twice the size of India.

Today, almost 800 million people face hunger on a daily basis. Unless the food supply can be increased, the number of people suffering from hunger will increase. However, arable land is finite. Thus, we must develop solutions that allow us to produce more food, from the same amount of land, whilst consuming fewer resources.

This means that new technologies and practices must be developed to ensure a sustainable increase in agricultural yields. Globally, 75% of farms are smaller than three football fields. These new technologies must be low-cost, to allow them to be adopted by these small-scale farms. Researchers and alumni at the world’s top universities are providing such solutions. At Future Planet, we know that impact drives returns. The growing companies in the Sustainable Agriculture space, emanating from innovation dense ecosystems, promise not only meaningful impact, but also profitable future opportunity.

Sustainable Agriculture: The Rising Demand for Food Must be Supplied Sustainably. 

Agriculture is responsible for 19% of green-house gas (‘GHG’) emissions. The proportion of total global emissions for which agriculture is responsible is set to increase. As the global population grows in size and wealth, consumers will demand more meat and dairy. Thus, the projected increase in population is not proportional with the expected rise in meat demand. Indeed, ruminant meat demand is projected to grow by 88% between 2010 and 2050. To meet these changing patterns of growing demand, the business-as-usual outlook will see agricultural emissions increase by 15-20% by 2050. Green protein solutions can help supply this increased demand sustainably, by offering plant or cell-based alternatives. Ruminant animals are almost 10 times more carbon intensive than alternative animal protein and more than 30 times more carbon intensive than vegetable protein. FPC is helping to connect researchers and spin-outs from top universities in the Green Protein production space with growth funding to increase their scale and marketability. This will help abate emissions from carbon intense protein production.

Alongside Green Protein solutions, we need new Agri-Tech methods that enable us to produce higher yields, whilst consuming fewer resources. Knowledge gaps are being plugged by promising Seed and Series A start-ups and spin-outs from universities. The Agri-Tech solutions that FPC are looking to fund not only help to ensure that farming becomes more sustainable, but also that revenue streams are maximised for farmers. Take, for instance, Genetic Engineering. By enhancing the genetic resistance of crops and livestock to disease, the companies that FPC are investing in will help increase yields and thus revenues for farmers, whilst also increasing the food supply and thus food security for consumers.

For current and future generations, embracing sustainable agriculture is a matter of survival. Farming is significantly less consolidated than other sectors; reducing emissions requires action by the more than 2 billion people employed in agriculture. New low-cost, high-impact solutions that increase yields and reduce emissions are essential. Innovative ideas that fit these parameters are being developed at top universities. However, many are yet to be commercialised. At FPC, we provide growth financing to scale these innovative solutions. In doing so, we ensure that these companies realise their growth potential, whilst assisting with the creation of the sustainable agricultural systems that must characterise the industry on our future planet.

Thank you for joining us on this journey.

By James Derham