- Name: Ansbert S. Gädicke, M.D.
- Title: President/CEO/General Partner,
MPM Capital
- Age: 42
- Background: Dr. Gädicke originally
trained as a physician, receiving his M.D. from J.W. Goethe University
in Frankfurt, Germany. He subsequently held post-doctoral
research positions at the German Cancer Research Center, Harvard
University, and the Whitehead Institute at MIT. His research
interest was focused in the fields of molecular biology, genetic
engineering, virology, oncology and immunology.
To gain business experience, Dr. Gädicke then spent three years
as a consultant with the Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
There, he worked with top management of a variety of pharmaceutical,
diagnostic, biotechnology and health insurance companies, in the
areas of business strategy, pharmaceutical product development,
marketing, company valuation and acquisitions.
-
- In 1992, he left BCG to found MPM.
For a time, MPM continued some of the work Gädicke had done at
BCG, ultimately recruiting one of its clients, Dr. Michael Steinmetz,
the global head of Biotechnology at Hoffmann-LaRoche, to join
the firm and to help raise the first venture fund, BioVentures
I, in 1997. Nobel laureate, Dr. David Baltimore, was then
recruited as the chair of the medical and scientific advisory
board.
-
- Dr. Gadicke is a member of the Harvard
Medical School Advisory Council as well as the Human Science and
Technology (HST) Advisory Council of Harvard University and the
Masssachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Interview
To
Topic Index
Getting Started...
CR: Thanks for taking
the time to speak with me. Can you tell me about how you came
to found MPM?
AG: Well, I was, originally, a physician. And while practicing
medicine in an internship, I became more and more interested in
the academic and scientific side of medicine. At that time, nearly
twenty years ago now, there weren’t really that many diseases
where you were able to provide other than purely symptomatic therapy.
So, I found the clinical medicine, at that time, rather frustrating
in that there were very few meaningful treatments available. In
a way, there still are few treatments that really cure diseases.
So, I got more interested in the scientific side.
But, it was pretty apparent
to me that I didn’t want to become the typical researcher where
I would focus the rest of my life on, potentially, one particular
aspect of science and become the world’s expert in something.
I was rather more interested in gaining a broad experience. So,
I worked at the German Cancer Center and then came to the U.S.
in the mid 1980s, worked in immunology and biochemistry at Harvard,
and then joined friends of mine at the Whitehead Institute. During
that time in Boston I met many people that were involved with
biotech companies and I really got excited about the possibilities.
I thought a lot about it and it became obvious to me that I really
wanted to be on the commercial side of things and that that would
bridge my interests in medicine, patient work, and science. Through
commercialization, I could bring the science back to the patients.
In a way, I went in a full circle.
The question, then, was how
do you get from the science and medical side to the commercial
side? And there my interests were, again, very broad. I thought
that, rather than work in one particular company for a long period
of time, I would like to have an impact on a whole set of companies.
I decided to first gain some experience on the business side and
took some courses at Sloan [MIT] and then went to work at BCG
for three years. At that point, I felt that I had enough background,
which may have been an overestimation, but I still felt that I
had spent enough time in medicine and science and three years
in business. I wanted to do my own thing.
I decided in 1992 to start
my own company. The concept, at the time, was to build an investment
firm that would be completely dedicated to the healthcare area.
My goal was to bring top scientists, top physicians, and top investment
professionals together to build THE healthcare-focused investment
firm and, over time, offer the full spectrum of investment vehicles.
In 1992, when I started the firm, that was perceived as unusual.
First of all, it’s unusual to go out and rent an office and say,
"I’m starting an investment firm." And secondly, at
that time, the idea of an industry-focused or technology-focused
investment firm was perceived as not mainstream at all. Venture
capital was completely dominated by generalist firms. Nearly all
venture capital firms had 2/3 or 3/4 of their funds in software
and high tech and about 1/3 or 1/4 in biotech. The idea of focusing
on one of the two was perceived as not particularly appealing.
So, I obviously needed to
work my way into this. Being by myself, with no investment track
record, it wouldn’t have been realistic to raise a fund at that
time. I basically continued the work that I had done at BCG, which
was partially M & A work. I worked with a number of the clients
that I had had at BCG. Among them was Hoffmann-LaRoche, where
I worked on a number of projects and got quite close with Michael
Steinmetz [former head of research], who was later the first partner
that joined me for the first venture fund. I also maintained a
close relationship with David Baltimore, with whom I had developed
a good relationship at the Whitehead Institute. So, that work
on the M & A side really got the firm going in respect to
cash flow as well as in respect to building the relationships
and developing the track record that then, ultimately, allowed
us to raise the first fund in 1997.
CR: Was that the BioVentures
I fund?
AG: Exactly. We raised that in 1997 and that was a $230
million fund, which at the time, was actually the largest biotech
venture fund.
CR: Do you think that
working at BCG was useful in terms of acquiring the skills to
be a venture capitalist?
AG: I think it was extremely useful. If you look at the
successful venture capital or LBO [leveraged buy-out] firms, a
very large percentage of those firms have people with backgrounds
in consulting, mostly from BCG, Bain, and McKinsey. Bain Capital,
itself, is probably one of the two or three most successful private
investment firms in the US. So, I think a consulting background
is incredibly valuable.
To
Topic Index
Transition to Business...
CR: Was the transition
from medicine and research to BCG a shock to the system?
AG: Oh, yeah! That was a complete nightmare both for BCG
and for me. In that respect, BCG was probably the most difficult
firm at the time because BCG, when I joined them in 1989, held
the principal of exclusively hiring and building generalists.
It was not possible, at that time at BCG, to specialize in any
industry. They did not have a program to hire non-MBAs. I think
that in my class, of 20 or 25 consultants that were hired that
year, I was the only MD. To my knowledge, there had been only
one MD hired before and still in the system. So, for BCG, it was
very experimental and I certainly felt like the lab mouse that
was ready to be sacrificed at any time for the purposes of the
experiment. What I think saved me was that I had taken a few courses
at Sloan so, at least, I knew some of the terminology involved
and had looked at a balance sheet and things like that. But it
was, nevertheless, quite an experience because I basically had
to compete with MBAs on what was, essentially, business work.
There was nothing scientific to be done there. But in the end
it worked out quite well though I certainly had to go through
a pretty dramatic learning curve.
CR: That’s interesting
because a lot of the top firms are now actively recruiting MDs
and Ph.D.s.
AG: Yes; that was eleven years ago. By now, everything’s
changed. Also, in the last few years, most venture capital firms
have specialized; most of them do IT and related fields only and
some of them do biotech only. Now, consulting firms hire specialists
and investment banks hire specialists. There’s an entirely different
perception of technology. Now, people talk about the new economy,
relating to technology, and the old economy, meaning everything
else. It’s just completely different compared to eleven years
ago.
To
Topic Index
Raising the Funds...
CR: OK, I’d like to
move on and talk a little more about MPM. The BioVentures I fund
was raised in collaboration with a firm called Bellevue Asset
Management. Can you explain the relationship between MPM and Bellevue?
AG: Bellevue helped us with a road show as part of the
effort to raise the first fund in Switzerland. That fund is completely
committed by now and the second fund, which we just raised, was
raised without collaboration with Bellevue. So, at this point,
it’s more of a historical feature.
CR: What’s the name
and size of the second fund?
AG: Its called MPM BioVentures II and it’s a $600 million
fund. The fund raising was really like a feeding frenzy. We sent
the documents out in the second week of January [2000] and by
the beginning of March, we had $850 million in commitments. But,
we felt that the maximum we could responsibly manage in the venture
capital fund, with the existing people, was $600 million. We actually
talked for a long time about what the right number should be but
we felt that we should not go over 600 million and we, ultimately,
cut the 850 in demand down to 600. That makes it, by quite a good
margin, the largest venture capital fund in biotech.
CR: Can you describe
the process by which you raise a venture capital fund?
AG: Well, assuming that you have established investor relationships-
we’re not talking about raising a first fund for somebody who’s
trying to get into the business- you let the investors know, several
months ahead, that you’ll be out raising a fund. Then, you send
out the documents- both the private placement memorandum and the
partnership agreements and so on- and you visit the investors
and give them presentations. Afterwards, they will typically get
back to you with particular questions. Then, depending on the
level of interest, a dynamic develops between investors. You can
gain a lot of momentum- which happened in our case- when people
come to understand that the fund will likely be oversubscribed.
Things can happen very quickly because investors want to make
sure that they’re able to get in. So, in our case, we ended up
with $850 million in commitments within less than two months.
CR: That was also
nice timing coincident with the market run-up on genomics companies.
I’m sure that helped?
AG: Absolutely. But we also had had two incredibly successful
IPOs. We have five IPOs in the pipeline right now. So, what also
certainly helped was that the first fund looks to be extremely
successful in financial terms.
CR: Is BioVentures
II targeted to a particular stage of investment?
AG: Our philosophy is to be completely focused on healthcare
technology. But within healthcare technology, given that we’re
the largest fund, we feel that we should cover all relevant stages.
The way the fund will be invested is that about one third will
be invested in early stage companies and two thirds in later stages.
Early stage, for us, is anything from start-up to financings that
are still the first round of institutional money coming in- sometimes
the start-up is done through angel, private, or university funds
or whatever. So, until the first real institutional investor comes
in, we still define that as early stage and that’s about one third
of the investments. Then, two thirds are targeted to later stages,
which include all private investments up to the IPO. That’s still
venture capital but then there are also so-called PIPES, which
stands for Private Investment In Public Entities. Those are privately
negotiated investments in companies that are already publicly
traded. It’s basically a venture capital investment in a public
company. Now, that’s the strategy for BioVentures II. We’re also
going to put a public fund together that will cover public companies
in the broader sense, rather than just PIPES.
CR: I hadn’t heard
about PIPES before. Is it a new type of investment?
AG: Well, it’s not particularly new but it’s just not that
common. The reason is that the typical public investors don’t
use it; they simply buy stock through the stock exchange. Most
venture funds don’t do it either because most are focused purely
on private companies. It’s really on the interface of venture
capital and the public markets. So, it’s something that’s existed
for a long time but it’s just not that common.
In biotech, it’s particularly
appropriate for two reasons. First, I don’t think that anybody
who understands the biotech market would claim that it’s a really
efficient market. There are several hundred public companies out
there. Many or most of them are not well covered by analysts;
many of the technologies and projects are not well understood
by analysts. Therefore, it’s not that efficient. And that means
that there are good companies out there that are ignored by the
public market and that can get into cash crunch situations.
The difference between providing
a PIPE and buying stock on the open market is two-fold. First,
the money goes directly into the company and the company issues
stock. That’s really what’s needed because those companies are
in a cash crunch and they actually need the cash. Usually, if
their stock price simply increases, that doesn’t necessarily help
them. The second reason is that, with PIPES, you can often negotiate
more attractive terms than through the public market. If you invest
$20 million, through the public market, in a stock that’s thinly
traded, the price will go up dramatically and you’ll buy at a
higher price simply because you are buying. And, the money doesn’t
even go into the company so that company isn’t necessarily better
off. If you do a PIPE, you may be able to negotiate a discount
so that you buy more cheaply. Plus, the cash goes into the company
and supports the company, which, from our perspective, is much
more attractive.
To
Topic Index
Evaluating Business
Plans...
CR: Interesting. So,
when you receive a new business plan through your network- I know
that VCs never look at anything that comes in over the transom-
and the technology looks interesting, how do you perform the necessary
due diligence and how involved is your scientific advisory board
in that work?
AG: Well, to give you some idea of the situation, we get
about 800 business plans per year. Now, you hear all sorts of
different numbers in this industry. I recently heard from one
of our competitors that they get 5000 business plans per year.
But that’s certainly not possible since there aren’t that many
companies. So, there’s a lot of double counting going on. Our
800 business plans are not double counted. If the same business
plan gets into different offices during the year at different
times, we don’t count it every time. And also, business plans
for, let’s say, unrealistic companies are not counted at all.
A lot of business plans are out there that don’t really describe
a company; it’s just somebody in a lab who has an idea or two
and writes a summary of something. So, those are 800 real investment
opportunities.
Based on our own internal
knowledge- we have nine partners plus several associates and analysts,
most with an MD or Ph.D. background in addition to business experience-
we can determine, in the vast majority of cases, that it’s not
interesting to us. Either it’s in a field that we don’t find interesting
or the team looks weak in terms of the people behind the company
or the technology or the product looks unattractive. So, one can
probably bring it down from 800 to 100 very quickly purely based
on internal resources. To get from the 100 that look reasonably
interesting down to about 15, which is roughly the number of investments
we make per year, that’s where the real work needs to be done.
In those cases, we often work with experts in the area. We know
many of these experts directly. We’ll involve the advisory board
if it’s an area in which the advisory board members are experts.
In some cases, we don’t know an expert ourselves but then the
members of the advisory board, who are very well known people,
will get us in contact with the right experts to look into it.
CR: What types of
analyses will you perform when evaluating a business plan or technology?
AG: Well, one should distinguish between technology and
product opportunities. In any case, we’ll always do a patent review.
That’s done by external patent lawyers. The scientific or medical
experts usually do not have a good grasp of that area. Then, with
respect to technologies, it’s more a question of whether the core
technology has proof of concept. We go in depth with the data
to get a very good understanding of the competitive field. We
only invest in companies that we believe will be the leaders of
their particular fields. We have no interest in investing in the
45th gene therapy company- there are a lot of those
like that. So, those are some of the questions for technologies.
With respect to products,
there’s obviously a calculation of value for the patient and both
the market size- the number of patients- and the reimbursable
price, which is related to the severity of disease, to the value-added
for the patient, to the types of alternative treatments, and so
on. That’s where a lot of work is involved. Last but not least,
management is extremely important, whether it is a technology
or product focused company.
CR: How important
is exit strategy when deciding whether to invest in a company?
AG: I’m sure it’s important for everybody but we put considerably
more emphasis on it than most venture funds. One of our venture
partners- a venture partner does not work full time but basically
spends as much time with us as needed- is Paul Brooke. Paul was,
until recently, the global head of healthcare research and strategy
at Morgan Stanley. He is, clearly, one of the most respected investment
bankers and analysts in the healthcare industry. We discuss every
potential investment with him to assess the likelihood of taking
the company public. And in particular, what types of milestones
would have to be met to take the company public, as well as what
kinds of valuation expectations to have. So, for each investment
we make, we have an expectation both for the timeframe to an exit,
as well as for the profitability at an exit.
To
Topic Index
Working with Portfolio
Companies...
CR: How would you
describe your role in the portfolio companies? Is it an active
role? Do you encourage interactions between the portfolio companies?
Do you look for synergies?
AG: It’s an active role that is characterized by the facts
that, first, we are the largest fund in the industry, which means
that we typically play a lead investor role. Our investment size
is $5-50 million per portfolio company. That makes us, to my knowledge,
not only the largest venture capital fund in the healthcare space,
but also the fund that has the capability for the largest individual
investments in a portfolio company. And that, combined with the
fact that we have, I think, the broadest and most experienced
partner team in the industry, allows us to work very closely and
very actively with our portfolio companies. As I mentioned, we
are the lead investor in most companies and, in nearly all cases,
we are represented on the board. We like to have close relationships
with management so that management can use the resources within
our partner group to help them with some of the critical decisions
they face, particularly in areas where they may not have experience.
By way of example, Michael
Steinmetz ran biotechnology worldwide for Hoffmann-LaRoche. He
had 800 scientists working for him and he guided several products
through the R & D phase. That’s an experience that most biotech
companies don’t have internally. Nick Galakatos [another MPM partner]
was a senior manager here at Millennium, obviously an extremely
successful biotech company. So, we have the resources internally-
the people who can give very valuable advice to the management
of biotech companies.
We certainly encourage collaboration
between portfolio companies. When we see synergies, we get them
in touch. Several of our companies collaborate but, on the other
hand, those have to be arms-length transactions. We certainly
don’t push companies to collaborate with each other simply because
they’re our portfolio companies. If there’s a better reason to
collaborate with a company that we’re not invested in, that’s
obviously what they should do.
CR: I’d like to talk
about of couple of the portfolio companies. Recently, you invested
in DoubleTwist, which formerly was Pangea. Can you explain how
you came to this deal? I think that it was a late stage investment
and that you hadn’t been involved with the company previously?
AG: Actually, we looked at Pangea a couple of years ago
and, at the time, we were not particularly excited about the business
model. The business model, then, was to sell very expensive bioinformatics
packages to companies- they would have been in the $1-3 million
range per package. We thought that that was a very difficult business
model. It actually turned out that it is indeed a very difficult
business model- that doesn’t mean that we’re always right- and
the company changed its focus, a while ago, to offer access to
its software, as well as databases, as an ASP [Application Service
Provider] through the internet. From our perspective, that dramatically
changed the dynamics because one can now gain access through a
subscription model. That means that one doesn’t have a capital
investment of, potentially, several million dollars but rather
one pays for a subscription, which makes it achievable and attractive
for a dramatically larger number of companies. It also makes it
very simple to have access to the newest version of the software;
you don’t have to worry about keeping your hardware and software
going and you don’t have to hire the internal people to handle
that. So, we felt that that was a dramatic improvement in the
business model.
We did quite a bit of competitive
research on the other companies that are out there and we concluded
that DoubleTwist was the leading company in that space. And therefore,
we were very excited to work with the company. It was, actually,
an extremely competitive financing. To my knowledge, they had
six, basically identical term sheets on the table and selected
us as the lead investor. I think that’s a good example of the
fact that portfolio companies recognize that we are the largest
and, probably, the most knowledgeable venture fund in this space.
That also helps us to get highly competitive terms.
CR: Two other portfolio
companies that caught my interest, partly because I used to work
in the HIV field, are Novirio and Pharmasset. I noticed that they’re
working together and was wondering if you could explain how you
came to that deal and how they have come to collaborate?
AG: We identified the Novirio founders first, through our
network. Anti-virals is one of the areas in which we have a strategic
interest. We believe that that’s an area where a lot of progress
is being made, and where the medical need is still growing. So,
it’s and area where we like to invest. We don’t mind having several
investments in one area, particularly if the companies are collaborating
closely, which is the case between Novirio and Pharmasset. The
founders of those companies are actually overlapping and they
intended a collaboration between the two companies when they were
founded. We invested in Novirio first, got to know Pharmasset
through Novirio, and then decided to invest in Pharmasset as well.
The founders are clearly among
the top leaders in the anti-viral field. Jean-Pierre Sommadossi
[Novirio] is extremely well known in the HIV field on the clinical
side. He led several of the big clinical studies. Raymond Schinazi
[Pharmasset] is probably the chemist with the best record of developing
compounds as anti-virals. Bruno Lucidi [Noviro] was the head of
anti-virals for Bristol-Myers Squibb and worked on the most successful,
fastest product introduction in the HIV field ever, to my knowledge.
Maureen Myers [Novirio] did a fantastic job managing, from research
to product launch, the very successful Boehringer Ingelheim HIV
project. And Martin Bryant [Novirio] did a fantastic job with
respect to the anti-viral field as head of research at Aviron.
So, we put a just stellar team together. They have a strong pipeline.
It’s an exciting area. Those are really the reasons why we invested.
CR: Would you say
that investing in two, closely related companies is the exception
to the rule? From a portfolio management standpoint, is over concentration
a concern?
AG: Well, having two investments out of 26- the size of
the BioVentures I portfolio- in one field is not a problem with
respect to diversification. If you want to invest heavily into
one field, then, doing that with a couple of companies rather
than just one probably reduces your risk, particularly if they
are companies that have synergies and like to collaborate- that’s
a great situation.
To
Topic Index
On People...
CR: What qualities
do you look for in an entrepreneur?
AG: The main thing we want to see is vision and the appropriate
experience- appropriate experience in the entrepreneurial field.
If somebody has, let’s say, 15 years of experience in a large
pharmaceutical company, that’s great experience but it doesn’t,
necessarily, mean that he will be successful in running a small
company. On the other hand, people like Mark Levin, here at Millennium,
didn’t have a lot of experience at running companies but he had
great vision and motivation and an ability to motivate others.
He did an unbelievable job; no one else would have been able to
do it. So, it’s the combination of having the vision and having
the mental ability to really drive the sector forward, together
with the appropriate background.
CR: Do you think a
strong board can be sufficient to support an inexperienced CEO,
provided he has the vision?
AG: If he has the vision and the right personality and
if he’s smart enough, I think that’s definitely true. I’d rather
have somebody who’s smart and young and has energy and vision
than someone, again, who has 25 years of pharma experience and
is basically retired.
CR: On the other side
of the coin, what qualities make a good venture capitalist?
AG: Well, I’m probably the wrong one to ask [laughs]. But,
I think you should not only try to select the right companies,
but also focus on adding value. My personal bias is that many
venture capitalists don’t have enough understanding of the industry
to really provide a lot of guidance to biotech companies. On the
other hand, I think a lot biotech management feels that they get
a lot of guidance anyway. So, that’s what I would say is the big
problem. I think one has to make sure that one only provides guidance
when it’s needed and if one really has the qualifications to give
the guidance. But, if that’s the case, then one has to be willing
and able to support the portfolio companies’ management at the
right time as much as possible. And that has to include funding
as well as advice. If you only have advice and the company is
in a cash crunch, that’s not necessarily that helpful. Having
a large fund allows you to support the companies on a sustained
basis and to provide stability for them.
CR: Ok, other than
starting your own fund, what paths are you aware of into the venture
capital industry?
AG: I think there are a number of paths. It’s great to
gain experience at a consulting firm. We have people that worked
at BCG, McKinsey, ADL, and the Wilkerson Group. I personally think
that’s a fantastic background. Obviously, there are other ways,
not counting getting directly into a venture group. A background
in investment banking is very helpful. It helps you understand
what the exit opportunities are and how different stage investors
are looking at the opportunity. Gaining some operating experience
in these companies, particularly on the corporate development
side, is helpful as well.
To
Topic Index
Looking Ahead...
CR: In the two minutes remaining, can you talk about where
you see the technology moving and opportunities for investment
in biotech outside of the medical space, such as in agriculture?
Also, can you say a word about whether you think the Clinton-Blair
statement of March 14 is going to have a lasting impact on the
market, particularly on the genomics side?
AG: In the big picture, I’m sure that biotech is having
a large impact on the agricultural side as well as on environmental
technologies. However, we made a strategic decision not to focus
on that at all. We focus purely on the medical applications. So,
I’m biased in that aspect and am probably not the best person
to talk about the other areas. However, we feel that, so far,
we have been on the right side of things because, at least recently,
the most public criticism has been on biotech with respect to
agriculture. I think it’s much easier, for people who view biotech
as something scary, to worry about modified food rather than to
argue against new drugs being developed.
In respect to technologies,
I think the next ten years will probably be the most exciting
time for biotech and for medicine ever due to the secondary effects
of the human genome project. The pure sequencing that has happened
so far is essentially not that exciting, but this next stage-
bioinformatics, proteomics, understanding pathways and system
interactions- is where the value added will come.
And that leads to the Clinton-Blair
initiative. I, personally, think it’s incredibly positive for
the industry. If a few companies, like Celera, would be able to
dominate the patent positions in the human genome, it would certainly
be a potentially great opportunity for those very, very few companies.
But it would constitute a problem for the rest of the industry,
which is 99% of the companies out there. So, I don’t know how
it’s going to play out. A political remark is one thing. How will
it really play out? I don’t know. I feel that these remarks certainly
hurt a small portion of the industry but I think it’s not bad
for the industry, as a whole, at all. But, it will take a while
for the markets to, hopefully, come to that conclusion.
CR: What about Europe
and other regions of the world with respect to the biotech revolution?
Do you anticipate them playing a larger role in the second fund?
AG: Currently, we see about 80% in the US and 20% in Europe.
We have a European office, and a very high level presence in Europe,
so we certainly see what’s going on there. It’s shifting a little
bit towards Europe over time- not because the US is slowing down
but because Europe is catching up to its appropriate role given
the size of the economy and the existing science. I also think
that Asia will pick up. We’re very excited about what’s going
on in Singapore and my expectation is that that’s going to be
a first beachhead for biotechnology in Asia. I think it’s too
early to say how that will translate into other countries. But,
I would be extremely surprised if, five to ten years from now,
our portfolio would still look like 80% US, 20% Europe, and very
little in Asia.
Overview
| Interview Topic Index
About the Author
Carlo Rizzuto is a post-doctoral fellow in the Department
of Neurobiology at Harvard Medical School and a director of the
GSAS Harvard Biotechnology Club. In his "free time,"
he plays a decent game of rollerhockey and enjoys growing prize-winning
vegetables in his community garden plot. Carlo lives in Cambridge
with his wife, Rita, and their cat, Sweetie. He didn't name the
cat. He can be reached at: carlo@thebiotechclub.org
General Comments or Questions
about Profiles should be sent to: kim@thebiotechclub.org
Copyright 2000 GSAS Harvard
Biotechnolgy Club
All Rights Reserved.
