Joseph Kim J. , Ph.d -  CEO, President & Director,  Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Biography

Dr. J. Joseph Kim, Ph.D has been the Chief Executive Officer of Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (alternate name: Inovio Biomedical Corp) since June 1, 2009 and has been its President since October 6, 2009. Dr. Kim co-founded ADViSYS Inc., a subsidiary of Viral Genomix in 1997 and served as its Chief Executive Officer and President. He co-founded VGX Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Formerly Viral Genomix, Inc) in 2000 and served as its Chief Executive Officer and President from 2000 to June 1, 2009. Dr. Kim is a veteran of the biopharmaceutical industry. Dr. Kim joined VGX Pharmaceuticals from Merck & Co. He has over 10 years of experience in the field of biopharmaceuticals, with a focus on drug and vaccine development. He serves as the Chairman of VGX Animal Health, Inc. He has been Director of Inovio Biomedical Corp since June 1, 2009. He served as Director of ADViSYS Inc. Dr. Kim served as Director of VGX Pharmaceuticals, LLC from 2000 to June 1, 2009. In 2002, Dr. Kim has been named one of the world’s top 100 young innovators by Technology Review magazine. The “TR100”, as this group is called was chosen by a very distinguished Panel of Judges (which includes 2 Nobel Prize Laureates). Recently, he has been selected for the “40 under 40” by the Philadelphia Business Journal as one of the 40 most dynamic professionals who are under 40 years of age in the region. Dr. Kim was also selected on the list of the “50 Most Influential Men“ in the October 2003 and in the October 2006 “Power Issue“ of Details Magazine. He was featured in the “Who's Next 2005“ issue of Newsweek International. In 2006, Dr. Kim has been named a Young Global Leader by the Forum of Young Global Leaders, an affiliate of the World Economic Forum. He was among 175 leading executives, public figures and intellectuals under the age of 40 from 50 countries. Dr. Kim has been a Director at Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. since June 1, 2009. Dr. Kim is a veteran of the biopharmaceutical industry. He was trained in economics, engineering and biological sciences at MIT where he was a Robert C. Byrd Federal Honors Scholar. Dr. Kim holds a Ph.D. in Biochemical Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania and an MBA in Finance from the Wharton School

Viruses learned how to better infect people over millions of years of evolution; chemical engineer and MBA J. Joseph Kim is using their knowledge to fight other diseases. Kim figures touse the viruses’ strategies as the basis for new drugs for cancer and inflammatory illnesses. In 2000,after several years at Merck, Kim founded Viral Genomix in Philadelphia, for which he has raised $1 million. “Since I was in high school I wanted to start my own biotech company,” he says. His company may soon have its first drug: Kim has tinkered with a protein called vpr, which helps the HIV virus replicate, and has coaxed it to trigger cell death in more than 50 different cancer cell lines. So far, the protein has worked in laboratory cultures and in mice and macaques; Kim intends to begin testing it in human cancer patients within a year and a half. To that end, Viral Genomix has established a partnership with the University of Pennsylvania. Kim is also developing a drug based on vpr that can limit the proliferation of the immune system cells that cause rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis.

Experience

• Geneos Therapeutics

  • • Board Member  /   Jan 2019 - Present · 4 yrs 5 mos

• The Aspen Institute

  • • Fellow  /   Nov 2015 - Present · 7 yrs 7 mos

      1. 1. Inaugural Class of Health Innovators Fellowship

• INOVIO Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

• Co-Founder/President/CEO/Director  /   Jun 2009 - Present · 14 yrs  

• International Vaccine Institute (IVI)

• Member of the Board of Trustees  /   Nov 2013 - Feb 2020 · 6 yrs 4 mos

  • • Chair, Compensation Committee

    • Chair, Strategy Committee

    • Chair, Compensation Committee Chair, Strategy Committee

• Council of Korean Americans

  • • 1. Board Member  /   Oct 2015 - Oct 2019 · 4 yrs 1 mo

• World Economic Forum

  • • 1. Member, The Global Agenda Council  /   Oct 2012 - Oct 2014 · 2 yrs 1 mo

• World Economic Forum (total -    7 yrs 1 mo )

  • • Member, The Young Global Leaders  /   Jan 2006 - Jan 2011 · 5 yrs 1 mo

    • Technology Pioneer  /   Jan 2004 - Jan 2009 · 5 yrs 1 mo

• VGX Pharmaceutical Inc

  • • Co-Founder, President, CEO  /   Dec 2000 - May 2009 · 8 yrs 6 mos

• Merck ( total -   9 yrs )

  • • R&D  /   Sep 1998 - Dec 2000 · 2 yrs 4 mos  /  West Point, PA

    • Manufacturing  /   1992 - Sep 1998 · 6 yrs 9 mos

Education

• University of Pennsylvania

  • • Ph.D., Biochemical Engineering/Immunology  /   1995 - 1998

• The Wharton School

  • • MBA, Finance  /   1994 - 1996

• University of Pennsylvania

  • • Master of Engineering (M.Eng.), Chemical Engineering  /   1992 - 1994

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • • S.B., Chemical Engineering  /   1988 - 1992

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • • S.B., Economics  /   1988 - 1992

The estimated Net Worth of Jong Joseph Kim is at least  $14 Million dollars as of 11 March 2022. Jong Kim owns over 139,387 units of Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc stock worth over $1,067,497 and over the last 14 years he sold INO stock worth over $10,338,808. In addition, he makes $2,588,530 as President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director at Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Jong Kim INO stock SEC Form 4 insiders trading

• Jong has made over 31 trades of the Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc stock since 2011, according to the Form 4 filled with the SEC. Most recently he exercised 139,387 units of INO stock worth $101,753 on 11 March 2022.

• The largest trade he's ever made was selling 2,129,553 units of Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc stock on 31 May 2019 worth over $5,025,745. On average, Jong trades about 88,560 units every 69 days since 2009. As of 11 March 2022 he still owns at least  1,462,325 units of Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc stock. [...]

Jong Kim biography

• Dr. Jong Joseph Kim Ph.D. serves as President, Chief Executive Officer, Director of the Company. Dr. Kim qualifies to serve on our Board given his broad scientific and industry experience and his experience as our Chief Executive Officer. He was co-founder of our subsidiary VGX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("VGX"), and also served as its President and Chief Executive Officer and a director from 2000 until its merger with us in 2009. He previously worked at Merck & Company, Inc. developing vaccines. An immunologist by training, Dr. Kim holds an undergraduate degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT"), a Ph.D. in biochemical engineering from the University of Pennsylvania, and an MBA from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He has published more than 100 scientific papers, holds numerous patents, and sits on editorial boards and scientific review panels. He also serves on the board of the International Vaccine Institute and the Council of Korean Americans. The World Economic Forum selected Dr. Kim as a member of its Global Agenda Council and named him a Technology Pioneer as well as one of its Young Global Leaders. MIT’s Technology Review magazine called him "one of the world’s top innovators." Dr. Kim is a Fellow of the inaugural class of the Health Innovators Fellowship and a member of the Aspen Global Leadership Network where he is working with a team to develop a vision of tomorrow’s healthcare system.

What is the salary of Jong Kim?

• As the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc, the total compensation of Jong Kim at Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc is $2,588,530. There are no executives at Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc getting paid more.

How old is Jong Kim?

• Jong Kim is 51, he's been the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc since 2009. There are 13 older and 1 younger executives at Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc. The oldest executive at Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc is Simon Benito, 75, who is the Independent Chairman of the Board.

What's Jong Kim's mailing address?

Jong's mailing address filed with the SEC is 660 W. GERMANTOWN PIKE SUITE 110, , PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA, 19462.

Insiders trading at Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc

• Over the last 18 years, insiders at Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc have traded over $23,653,627 worth of Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc stock and bought 1,958,377 units worth $5,174,071 . The most active insiders traders include Austin W & Greenhouse David..., Jong Joseph Kim, and Felix Theeuwes. On average, Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc executives and independent directors trade stock every 22 days with the average trade being worth of $83,337. The most recent stock trade was executed by Lota S. Zoth on 15 May 2023, trading 19,000 units of INO stock currently worth $12,730.

What does Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc do?

• INOVIO is a biotechnology company focused on rapidly bringing to market precisely designed DNA medicines to treat and protect people from infectious diseases, cancer, and diseases associated with HPV. INOVIO is the first and only company to have clinically demonstrated that a DNA medicine can be delivered directly into cells in the body via a proprietary smart device to produce a robust and tolerable immune response. INOVIO's lead immunotherapy candidate, VGX-3100, currently in Phase 3 trials for precancerous cervical dysplasia, cleared high-risk HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 in a Phase 2b clinical trial. High-risk HPV is responsible for 70% of cervical cancer, 91% of anal cancer, and 69% of vulvar cancer. Also in development are programs targeting HPV-related cancers and a rare HPV-related disease, recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP); non-HPV-related cancers glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and prostate cancer; as well as infectious disease DNA vaccine development programs in coronaviruses associated with COVID-19 diseases and MERS, Lassa fever, Ebola, and HIV. Partners and collaborators include Advaccine, ApolloBio Corporation, AstraZeneca, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)/Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND)/Department of Defense (DoD), HIV Vaccines Trial Network, International Vaccine Institute (IVI), Kaneka Eurogentec, Medical CBRN Defense Consortium (MCDC), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Ology Bioservices, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Plumbline Life Sciences, Regeneron, Richter-Helm BioLogics, Thermo Fisher Scientific, University of Pennsylvania, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and The Wistar Institute. INOVIO also is a proud recipient of 2020 Women on Boards 'W' designation recognizing companies with more than 20% women on their board of directors.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc executives and stock owners

• Jong Kim, President, Chief Executive Officer, Director
• Dr. J. Joseph Kim, CEO, Pres & Director
• Jacqueline Elizabeth Shea, Chief Operating Officer
• Peter Kies, Chief Financial Officer
• Laurent Humeau, Chief Scientific Officer
• Peter D. Kies, Chief Financial Officer
• Dr. Laurent M. Humeau, Chief Scientific Officer
• Dr. Jacqueline E. Shea Ph.D., Chief Operating Officer
• David Weiner, Director
• Lota Zoth, Independent Director
• Simon Benito, Independent Chairman of the Board
• Ann Miller, Independent Director
• Wendy Yarno, Independent Director
• Jay Shepard, Independent Director
• Asli Gevgilili, Chief HR Officer
• Robert L. Crotty J.D., Gen. Counsel
• Robert J. Juba Jr., Sr. VP of Biological Manufacturing & Clinical Supply Management
• Dr. Jeffrey Skolnik, Sr. VP of Clinical Devel.
• Dr. Ami Shah Brown, Sr. VP of Regulatory Affairs
• Jessica C. Lee MS, MPH, Sr. VP of Clinical Operations & Global Integration
• E. J. Brandreth, Sr. VP of Quality Assurance
• Ben Matone, Director of Investor Relations
• Morton Collins, Director
• George Bickerstaff, Director
• Adel Mahmoud, Director
• Mark Bagarazzi, Chief Medical Officer
• Niranjan Sardesai, Sr. VP Research & Development
• Nancy Wysenski, Director
• Avtar S Dhillon, President & CEO
• Angel Cabrera, Director
• Austin W & Greenhouse David..., 10% owner
• Dietmar P Rabussay, V.P. Research & Development
• George F. Iii Mc Hugh, Vice President, Operations
• Eugene A Larson, Director
• Felix Theeuwes, Director
• Robert S Goodenew, V.P. Corporate Development
• Michael Fons, VP, Corporate Development
• Kevin Rassas, Sr. VP Business Development
• Cheryl Jo White, Chief Medical Officer
• Tee Khiang Ng, Director
• Robert William Rieder, Director
• James L Heppell, Director
• David J Williams, Director
• Punit Dhillon, VP, Finance & Operations
• Riaz Amirali Bandali, Director
• Stephen Rietiker, Director
• Beng Lee Gan, Director
• Tazdin Esmail, Director
• Keith H Wells, Director
• Chin Cheong Chong, Director
• Roger D Dansey, Director
• Michael John Sumner, Chief Medical Officer

There's a lot resting on the very slender group of shoulders at VGX Pharmaceuticals .

The company, which until recently was known as Viral Genomix, is a lean, three-man operation based in Philadelphia and run by an earnest 36-year-old, J. Joseph Kim J. Joseph Kim

"This drug," says Kim in the roar of a congress center lobby in Davos, "is a small molecule drug like Tylenol, that blocks HIV's key to unlocking the pathway into our nucleus, which is a [cell's] command-and-control. If it can't get into the nucleus, it can't replicate." VGX's work lead to it being singled out as one of the World Economic Forums' 30 Technology Pioneers for 2004.

Kim's father, a professor of international relations in Korea, sent his children and wife to Kansas in 1981, so that the children could get a better education and seize opportunities only available to them in America. Young Joseph Kim did just that: he picked up a string of chemical engineering degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania, and an MBA from Wharton. Many of his degrees were underwritten by drug giant Merck , where Kim worked both in the research labs (on an AIDS vaccine) and in ensuring its drug manufacturing process met the approval of the U.S. Food And Drug Administration.

But the ambitious Kim, also an ordained Presbyterian deacon, was restless at Merck. "I felt I was part of the Titanic," he says, "something that was seemingly invincible, very big, lots of people, but moving very slowly. Ever since high school, when I first heard about companies like Genentech , I wanted to be a biotech entrepreneur."

He shared his ambitions with a leading professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who had made many of the patented discoveries revolving around viruses and their use of proteins, and the two joined forces to found VGX, with a chunk of the company's equity also owned by the University of Pennsylvania. Kim painfully raised $1.2 million in the post-bubble venture capital markets, but was blessed by the medical establishment's heavy backing: $650,000 in grants and an additional $10 million in clinical trial support from the United States' National Institute of Health. So far his HIV drug, called VGX-410, has safely passed tests in mice and macaques, and now awaits the first human trials.

"As we say in our industry, mice lie and monkeys exaggerate," says Kim. "You don't really know a drug's safe until it's tested in humans."

If the HIV drug now on fast-track approval passes all its hurdles, Kim says it's likely he will license the find to a major drug manufacturer like Merck, GlaxoSmithKline or Wyeth That, in turn, will finance the next drug in Kim's pipeline, which will try to use proteins to kill cancer cells.

"They call America the land of opportunity," says Kim, "and for me, that has been an absolute truth." He hesitates and suddenly offers one of his extremely rare smiles: "Well, let's see how the story plays out."

In a small, preliminary study, an experimental vaccine provoked a strong immune response against precancerous cells in women treated for cervical lesions that can progress to cancer.

Most cases of cervical cancer are caused by infection with two types of human papillomavirus, or HPV. Some women who have precancerous cervical lesions associated with the Type 16 and Type 18 strains of HPV are able to fight them off without medical intervention. They do so by producing high levels of immune cells called killer T-cells. 

The experimental drug, called VGX-3100, is a therapeutic vaccine using synthetic DNA that is intended to work in patients who have abnormal precancerous changes in the cervix. It is not related to preventive vaccines meant to protect against infection with HPV. The experimental vaccine attempts to harness the human immune system to fight disease: Similar to gene therapy, the drug inserts a piece of DNA into a patient’s cells to produce a protein that primes the immune system to attack HPV-altered cells.

“Our immune system is capable of protecting us from millions of pathogens,” said J. Joseph Kim, president and chief executive of Inovio Pharmaceuticals, maker of the experimental vaccine. “We want to use the existing hardware in our immune system, but use better software to train our immune system to fight off disease.”

The new study, published online on Wednesday by the journal Science Translational Medicine, was very small, involving only 18 women, all of whom had already been treated with standard therapies for precancerous conditions associated with infection with Type 16 and Type 18 HPV. All 18 participants received three doses of the DNA vaccine by electroporation, in which an electric pulse accompanies the injection.

Administration of the experimental vaccine increased production of killer T-cells, which were aimed at the abnormal cervical cells altered by HPV. Whether the vaccine can actually eliminate or control precancerous cervical lesions in untreated patients will be tested in the next phase of research, the scientists said. Results are expected by the end of next year.

Other vaccines that mobilize the immune system, priming it to attack cancers like melanoma and multiple myeloma, have met with varying degrees of success. Some scientists who were not involved in the research urged caution in interpreting the findings of the new study, an early so-called Phase 1 clinical trial.

Similar cancer vaccines have been under development for about 20 years, but over all the results have been disappointing so far, said William C. Phelps, program director for preclinical and translational cancer research with the American Cancer Society. Two years ago, he noted, the Food and Drug Administration approved a cancer vaccine, Provenge, for treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Trials showed it extended life by just four months on average.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals (SYMBOL: INO) is one of most interesting and potentially revolutionary biotech companies on Wall Street. They are a company on the verge of changing the landscape of future vaccine treatments, utilizing a DNA platform to target specific and designed results.

I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. J. Joseph Kim, CEO of Inovio Pharmaceuticals, where he addressed the history of Inovio, his personal stake in the company and addressed the many levels to which Inovio Pharmaceuticals is clearly misrepresented and misunderstood.

The transcript of my interview follows:

• BRG: Good morning, Dr. Kim, and thank you for taking the time to answer some questions about the history, current focus and direction of Inovio Pharmaceuticals. I would like to start by asking you to comment on your history with Inovio. It is often cited by some biotech bloggers that Inovio is a 30 year old biotech with no products and plenty of dilution. However, you came to Inovio in 2009. Can you set the record straight as to where Inovio was 30 years ago and as to where Inovio is positioned now?

  • • Dr. Kim: 30 years ago I was 15 years old. The idea of DNA vaccines had not even been conceived.

    • In 2000, I formed VGX Pharmaceuticals with my PhD mentor, Professor David Weiner, who is recognized as the father of the field of DNA vaccines, using technology licensed from the University of Pennsylvania. David was instrumental in formulating the concept of DNA vaccines in the early 1990s.

    • Like any powerful new scientific concept, bringing commercially useful products to fruition is typically a multi-decade process: monoclonal antibodies are a prime example. Apart from their success with cancer drugs like Herceptin, monoclonal antibody technology is today the basis for another new class of medicines called checkpoint inhibitors. But it took a couple of decades for the first FDA approval of a product based on this science.

    • In the case of DNA vaccines, there were a number of elements that had to be resolved and refined, including: targeting the right antigens and immune system mechanisms, enabling sufficient cellular uptake of the DNA vaccine, and facilitating sufficient production of the antigen by the cells.

    • Dr. Weiner's lab has made tremendous advancements in DNA vaccine design to refine their immune system targeting and to optimize their ability to generate significant antigen production by cells in the body.

    • One of the big remaining challenges was delivery. While many scientists focused on other methods such as virus or lipid carriers, these approaches have all faced important unique challenges to their efficacy. In 2006, Dr. Weiner saw the first results of testing he was doing to deliver DNA vaccines using electroporation. The results were exceptional!

    • VGX subsequently acquired a private company called Advisys, which possessed electroporation technology, in 2007. In 2009 we further strengthened our competitive positioning in electroporation by merging with Inovio Biomedical, which had a leading electroporation patent estate and engineering know-how. These two steps solidified and provide Inovio Pharmaceuticals as you see it today with the broadest and deepest electroporation technology assets and patent estate in the world. Today our electroporation devices are based on the unique attributes of the Advisys CELLECTRA electroporation system.

    • The history of Inovio Biomedical (previously named Genetronics ), which merged with VGX in 2009, and its predecessor companies does in fact date back to 1983, when that company was formed to develop electroporation devices for use in research labs for ex-vivo applications, i.e. for use outside an organism. In fact, the company at one point became the #2 seller of such devices in the research marketplace. While the original idea of using electroporation to enable cellular uptake of an agent is the same, earlier generations of laboratory electroporation devices, methods and conditions bear no resemblance to the refined and optimized parameters we use today for using electroporation directly in humans.

    • The fact is that it is DNA vaccines and immunotherapies that are now proving to be the ideal agent to best leverage the delivery capability of electroporation, creating so to speak a higher and more valuable purpose for that delivery technology. At the same time, electroporation has raised the bar of success in terms of resolving one of the multiple parameters that had to be resolved to advance DNA vaccines to the point where they could provide medical utility. This has all materialized in the last 10 years.

    • Today Inovio continues to apply the greatest amount of R&D and clinical resources to DNA vaccines and electroporation and has by far the greatest data set and expertise relating to the use of these technologies together for medical applications in humans. And we have a clinical and near-clinical pipeline of nine studies for multiple cancers and infectious diseases.

• BRG: Touching on electroporation, can you provide a layman explanation to exactly what this technology does and how it benefits delivery of a vaccine?

  • • Dr. Kim: The way a DNA vaccine works is that it provides genetic code for a target antigen relating to a cancer or infectious disease to a cell. The cell's natural machinery for producing useful proteins for the body can then take the code and instead produce the targeted antigenic protein(s), which are then presented to the immune system to induce the desired immune response. For all of these processes to occur productively, the DNA vaccine must be taken up into cells of the body in sufficient quantity to allow the cells to perform this role as a manufacturing facility. This is where electroporation fits in.

    • Immediately after we inject the vaccine into muscle or skin tissue, our electroporation applicator applies millisecond electrical pulses for a just a few seconds to create pores in the cells' protective membrane. These temporary pores allow an increase in uptake into the cells by 1000 fold or more compared to without electroporation. The electrical pulses do not cause unwanted immune responses or toxicity.

• BRG: As revolutionary as electroporation is proving to be, the delivered payload is still the vital piece of the puzzle. Can you discuss the "payload' being delivered through electroporation as it relates to DNA vaccines and your SynCon program?

  • • Dr. Kim: Thanks to the modern science of genomics and fast computing power, today we can take the genetic code for one or more antigens relating to a cancer or infectious disease, build that into a DNA vaccine, and employ that in a very controlled manner to produce enough antigen in the body to induce a desired immune response. This DNA code cannot recreate an organism - it is for the antigen only. The additional benefits of DNA vaccines are that they can be designed in weeks, are readily manufactured using scalable off-the-shelf fermentation technology, and they are more stable at room temperatures than conventional vaccines.

    • But all DNA vaccines are not created equal. There are proprietary optimization techniques that Inovio has designed to further enhance the production of the antigens by the cells. Furthermore, Inovio's novel SynCon design technique results in antigens that are similar to but do not precisely match those that exist in nature. Using this approach, we can create preventive vaccines able to provide more universal protective capabilities, overcoming the "one bug, one drug" paradigm of today in which the vaccine must match the circulating strains. We can also use the SynCon design to help break the immune system's tolerance of cancer cells that are made by the body, i.e. to more readily recognize and fight the cancer cells. Importantly, all our SynCon product sequences are patentable.

• BRG: While discussing payload, it is important to note that phase ll results for your treatment of cervical dyplasia caused by HPV, namely the VGX-3100 study, are scheduled to be released by the middle of 2014. Is there some publicly released data that you can discuss that leads your team to expect positive results?

  • • Dr. Kim: There are two important elements to this forthcoming data. One is obviously the efficacy of this therapeutic vaccine against these cervical pre-cancers. What will be no less important, however, is the immune response data. If we confirm (relative to our earlier data) the excellent characteristics of our T cells in this larger controlled study, this will further build the enthusiasm for our technology. Here is why: cancer cells have the ability to ward off T cells sent to kill them. When checkpoint inhibitors such as PD1 inhibitors achieve compelling results, it is because they are enabling T cells to perform their SWAT team function. So checkpoint inhibitors have shown unequivocally that T cells have a vital role to play in fighting cancers and infectious diseases. When checkpoint inhibitors have not achieved compelling results, anecdotal observations suggest that is because there is not a sufficient level of pre-existing, antigen-specific T cells. While this passive immunotherapy approach releases the brakes that cancer cells can apply to T cells, they don't have the ability to trigger a higher level of T cells. So we need a gas pedal; we need acceleration. That is where Inovio's active immunotherapy comes in. We can actively generate and expand cancer-specific killer T cells.

    • There are other relevant anecdotal observations. Women who naturally clear cervical dysplasias and HPV have been observed to have high levels of T cells. Similarly, sex workers at high risk of contracting HIV who have not become infected or sick have also been observed to have high levels of T cells.

    • So, going back to the phase II clinical study, if we show efficacy and confirm strong T cell generation, we will validate the potential of our technology and products as a monotherapy, i.e. a stand-alone therapy, against diseases, where the T cells alone are able to overwhelm and clear pre-cancers and potentially cancers. But industry players and smart investors have also been noting to us that they see important potential of our technology as a combination with complementary technologies such as checkpoint inhibitors: if we confirm the ability of our platform to repeat our previously generated best-in-class T cell responses in this larger controlled study, they will be convinced of the long term potential of our technology and products as the necessary active immunotherapy side of the equation.

    • The excellent T cell data from our HPV and HIV DNA immunotherapies highlighted in two published studies is what leads our team to be so optimistic about the phase II results fulfilling the above outcomes.

• BRG: Biotechs are results driven, however, it is encouraging when large pharmaceutical companies recognize success. Can you discuss what initially brought Roche to the bargaining table and the significance of this partnership through the clinical trials, other than from simply a financial standpoint?

  • • Dr. Kim: It's all about the T cells. All of the explanations prior to this question explain what is attracting industry players to our technology. We have published over 70 peer-reviewed papers covering our preclinical and clinical study results since 2009. In fact, Roche and other Big Pharma suitors first learned about our early development work for the products licensed by Roche from such publications.

    • While the financial benefit of this deal is very significant, Roche's commitment at this stage of our development simply emphasizes the degree of strategic weight they are applying to an active immunotherapy capable of generating strong T cells.

• BRG: Speaking of partnerships, you have alluded to potential additional partnerships during prior conference calls. Can you elaborate on what areas of clinical study that new partners would be interested in developing a deal over? And, is there a particular company that you feel would be the proper fit to your company vision?

  • • Dr. Kim: We have a broad spectrum of cancers and infectious diseases we can target with our products and technology. By the end of this year we will have a complete stable of cancer immunotherapies targeting multiple key antigens that we believe have the greatest potential impact to treat the full spectrum of cancers. We also have DNA vaccines advancing through R&D for other important infectious diseases. What matters to us most is that the partners we commit to have strong competitive positioning in the areas that they wish to partner with us and that they are making a significant commitment to achieving future success in those areas using Inovio technology.

• BRG: Even without new partners, you have stated that the year 2014 will dwarf the prior year, which can be classified as a breakout year, at least for the price per share. What do you see as the main catalyst to dwarf the results of 2013?

  • • Dr. Kim: Without question the phase II data will be a key event for us: a first look at efficacy; and T cell immune response data from a larger controlled study. This data could be a significant driver of industry and investor interest. This study data also represents the first opportunity we have to directly link generation of antigen-specific T cells to clinical efficacy. We will also initiate multiple additional clinical studies this year, which will expand the perception of Inovio as having a broad pipeline with multiple shots on goal and additional forthcoming data that in aggregate will all help to continue building our expertise, ideas for further optimization, and potential for success with our DNA vaccines delivered using electroporation.

• BRG: Liquidity is often a concern for small and emerging biotech companies; however, you have placed Inovio in a position of comfort from a cash standpoint. Can you elaborate on what you feel is a comfortable level of cash on hand for Inovio even with partnership agreements in place?

  • • Dr. Kim: Capital is a strategic variable for any biotech company like Inovio. We will do our utmost to ensure that we are not relying just on third party grants and cash flow from partnerships and have a strong internal war-chest. We are truly at an important transformational point of our technology development, where we can advance on multiple disease and product fronts. As is visible through recent announcements, we are moving forward on another optimization approach for our DNA vaccines: that is to further refine the immune response with DNA-based cytokines. We also announced our DNA-based monoclonal antibody technology with our first publication of data in this promising field last year. The full potential of Inovio's technology "toolbox" is way beyond the DNA vaccines visible today. We are not standing still.

    • So capital is good. More capital is great. We don't want to dilute our stock without consideration of shareholders - and I am the largest shareholder - but being well-capitalized allows us to negotiate more strongly with potential partners and advance our technology and product developments at a competitive and advantageous pace. It allows us to build and maintain leadership. As an interesting example, from 1995 - 2005 Gilead raised $1.6 billion in equity capital, with its related dilution. I doubt that any shareholders from that time who continued to hold Gilead are today unhappy with Gilead management's strategic decisions to raise and invest capital and the share price that resulted from those decisions.

• BRG: Inovio has zero debt currently on the books. Do you ever see Inovio utilizing debt to further your clinical studies?

  • • Dr. Kim: Debt is an instrument best used when a company is aiming to leverage a proven technology in the marketplace. We have no intention to use debt until Inovio is more advanced in its developmental and commercialization process.

• BRG: Speaking of cash and the availability to increase cash reserves, you recently filed a Form-3 which can seek approximately $125 million dollars over the next three year period. Several writers tried to exploit this filing as a weakness for the company and that dilution is on the horizon. Can you explain the reasoning behind the filing and to what extent, if any, you would plan to draw on these available funds?

  • • Dr. Kim: We are striving to build an excellent company and maximize shareholder value over the long term. Only traders looking for short term gains would argue against a company being well-capitalized. Most eligible biotech companies have shelf registrations in place. It is normal course business practice. We will ensure the financial strength of the company in the most opportune fashion.

• BRG: Other than the science, cash is king for any biotech company. Pending successful results of the VGX-3100 trial, would you entertain a partnership or would Inovio rather keep the prize at hand and use funds from the S-3 filing?

  • • Dr. Kim: If the results of the phase II warrant advancing to a phase III, I would expect Inovio to be well-positioned from a valuation perspective to secure incremental capital to fund such a study, but we would also be willing to partner. It all comes down to valuation and terms.

• BRG: Back to the science. The pipeline at Inovio has showed tremendous early stage results. What trials and studies are you most excited to move into the next trial phase?

  • • Dr. Kim: We look forward to taking VGX-3100 and starting two new clinical studies for HPV-related diseases: cervical cancer and head and neck cancer. We will be adding a DNA-based cytokine, IL-12, and look forward to assessing this approach in a clinical setting.

    • I am also very excited about our planned initiation of a human study with our therapeutic vaccine encoded for hTERT, an antigen whose over-expression is seen in over 85% of cancers. In this first exploratory study, we will be treating patients with breast, lung and pancreatic cancers. These results will help guide future combinations and clinical studies.

    • In the end, I am excited about everything we are doing. We have the potential to generate important medical results in all the disease areas we are targeting and the cumulative knowledge from all these applications will continue to guide our R&D efforts.

• BRG: After mid year results are published for the VGX-3100 trial, what is the next focus for you and your team to progress to a Phase lll trial?

  • • Dr. Kim: We are already laying the groundwork with respect to designing a phase III trial design. This will not be completed until we analyze the data and confer with the FDA in an "end of phase II meeting."

    • We are also planning for scaled up manufacturing.

    • Post-data we will also consider prospects for a partnership.

• BRG: On a personal level, 2013 was a special year for you, earning several honors and accolades. How does it feel to be honored by your peers and do you think that they smell success for Inovio as well?

  • • Dr. Kim: Naturally, it always feels good to be acknowledged for your effort and accomplishments and our whole team deserves to be recognized with these honors and accolades. Whether it is awards, the partnership with Roche, or the positive feedback we get through the frequent dialog we have with industry people and very knowledgeable institutional investors, we are clearly seeing their recognition of the importance and potential of active immunotherapies alone or in combination with other technologies including passive immunotherapies such as checkpoint inhibitors. Much of their recognition of the potential of active immunotherapies is being driven by the important outcomes achieved by DNA vaccines delivered using electroporation. Do they smell success? People may think large pharma have lots of resources to spread around. And they do - but they are no more motivated to fail or waste time on useless endeavors than we are.

    • On the investor side, you can see that a fundamental investor, a fund called Candriam Luxembourg, established an initial position in Q3 last year. They are a $100B fund out of Belgium. With the latest institutional shareholding report, we have seen First Eagle step in. I expect to see other new positions established by fundamental investors.

    • So do industry players and smart investors smell success? You and your readers can be the judge of that.

• BRG: If you could tell the investment community one thing about the direction of Inovio in 2014, what would it be?

  • • Dr. Kim: There is only one thing that matters: Inovio is working to build a great immunotherapy company with the potential to become the next Gilead or Amgen.

• BRG: To your critics who simply will not leave the year 1986 alone as their focal reference point for Inovio, how would you advise them to view Inovio since 2009?

  • • Dr. Kim: I think all the pertinent information has been provided in the prior answers. Let's call a spade a spade: there is risk in biotechnology development. And yes, there are steps forward and backward. But anyone that chooses to be a naysayer with respect to Inovio and its progress has typically not referenced the positive steps that Inovio has taken that show the accomplishment and potential of its immunotherapy technology. So they are either incapable of recognizing our progress or they choose not to recognize our progress. We are clearly seeing the evidence that industry players and fundamental investors are acknowledging Inovio's capabilities and accomplishments. Their credentials are simply so far beyond the credentials of the critics that it should be obvious to any purposeful reader which opinion and "vote" really matters.

• BRG: Finally, you are the largest shareholder in Inovio. Do you see yourself buying additional shares in the near future, barring quiet and prohibited periods?

  • • Dr. Kim: Clearly, I have chosen in the past to vote my confidence with my wallet. I added almost half a million shares with purchases in the open market over about 12 - 18 months. In fact, my financial net worth is about 99.9% concentrated in Inovio stock. While I don't comment on my future purchases, I do feel that INO's valuation today is very attractive relative to the potential of our technology and the many products that may be advanced based on this technology.

End interview.

Disclosure: I am long INO. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. 

Since the World Health Organization declared an international health emergency due to the Zika virus, at least a dozen companies have announced plans to develop a vaccine. Many are basing their research on prior work done on West Nile virus and dengue, which are related to Zika.

Dr. J. Joseph Kim, co-founder and CEO of Inovio Pharmaceuticals, thinks he can beat all of them. "Clinical product manufacturing will begin within the month," says Kim. "Our goal is to have a clinical supply of vaccines for human clinical testing by the end of the year." Inovio began work on a Zika vaccine in the fourth quarter of 2015, when it also began testing in animals. An Indian biotech company, Bharat Biotech, also says that it has a vaccine candidate.

About 80 percent of people who get Zika don't show any symptoms, which can include a fever and rash. But Zika in pregnant women has recently been linked to a serious birth defect called microcephaly, in which a baby is born with a small head and brain.

Kim co-founded VGX Pharmaceuticals about 15 years ago, after working in vaccine development for Merck. VGX later merged with Inovio. Kim says he co-founded his company precisely for opportunities like this--to be able to tackle a problem more quickly than could a giant pharmaceutical company.

The biotechnology Kim is using has the potential to work more quickly than traditional routes to vaccine development. Essentially, Inovio creates DNA sequences that look like pathogens, and uses them to alert the immune system. When the actual pathogens do show up, the immune system is then primed to fight them. "All of our products are just DNA sequences formulated in pure water," says Kim. "We're cutting through a lot of potential pitfalls of the safety or toxicity concerns of a traditional vaccine."

So far, Inovio has made the most progress with a so-called therapeutic vaccine--one that helps defeat a disease even after a patient has been diagnosed--for human papilloma virus, or HPV. The company chose HPV for its flagship efforts, says Kim, because about 25 percent of women who get cervical dysplasia as a result of HPV have immune systems strong enough to defeat the virus without outside help. So it was at least theoretically possible that the immune systems of other women could also learn to successfully fight the virus.

Inovio's vaccine against HPV is currently in Phase II clinical studies, and Kim says "about 50 percent" of the subjects in that trial are defeating the disease. "In Phase III, hopefully, we will get that higher," he says. He's optimistic that a Zika vaccine would come closer to providing blanket protection. He says that in animal trials, a vaccine against dengue protected "a hundred percent of animals from a pathogenic dengue challenge."

Kim seems unconcerned about the challenges of developing a vaccine for Zika. "We have a consistent record and successes across animals and early-to-mid human studies," he says. His worry is actually about human testing in the field, but, he says, he's already talking to WHO about how those studies would be done. Assuming, of course, Inovio gets there first.

Pennsylvania-headquartered Inovio Pharmaceuticals is a late clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of DNA immunotherapies that transform the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases. Inovio's proprietary platform technology applies next-generation antigen sequencing and DNA Dr. J. Joseph Kim delivery to activate potent immune responses to targeted diseases.

Inovio is the only immunotherapy company that has reported generating T cells whose killing capacity correlates with relevant clinical outcomes. Inovio's most advanced clinical program, VGX-3100, is in Phase 3 for the treatment of HPV-related cervical pre-cancer. Also in development are Phase 2 immuno-oncology programs targeting head and neck cancer, bladder cancer, and glioblastoma, as well as platform development programs in hepatitis B, Zika, Ebola, MERS, and HIV.

Inovio was co-founded by President, CEO, and Director, J. Joseph I(im, Ph.D, and David B. Weiner, Ph.D, currently Executive Vice President and Director, of The Wistar Institute's Vaccine Center. The company, which spun out of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, now has a market cap of around $500 million and close to 300 employees. This week, following publication of data in Clinical Cancer Research from a study of MEDI0457, an investigational immunotherapy developed by Inovio (and licensed to Medimmune in August 2015) to treat human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive cervical cancer and head and neck cancer, Inovio shares increased by 13.3%.

Dr. J. Joseph Kim earned B .S. degrees in Chemical Engineering and Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a Ph.D. in Immunology from the University of Pennsylvania, and MBA in Finance from the Wharton School. Co-founding Inovio (previously VGX Pharmaceuticals) in 2000, he has led the company to become a thriving late-stage biotech deeply focused on developing next-generation immunotherapies.

Pharm Exec sat down with Dr. Kim to discuss his journey from humble beginnings as an 11-year-old I(orean immigrant with no English to his present position at the forefront of a new medical frontier.

Pharm Exec: How difficult was it to move from research scientist to entrepreneur?

• J.Joseph Kim: I'd like to say it was easy, but memory is a funny thing, you tend to remember the positive things, and for get the negative things. I always had this vision of combining business and technology to bring medical products that can positively impact hundreds of thousands of patients, if not millions. That's why I got into pharma and biotech. When Genentech went public in the 80s, and they were getting their first products approved-the human growth hormone, the insulin, and so on-I was really smitten by that. The founding CEO was Bob Swanson, an MIT-trained chemist and venture capitalist. As an impressionable young teenager, I wanted to be like that guy. That's actually what drew me to MIT to do my undergraduate degree. I joined Merck shortly thereafter, then the largest pharma company in the world, and Merck actually financed my PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

• In reality I had been preparing for launching what became Inovio Pharmaceuticals for close to a decade. When I found the science that I fell in love with, and a pioneer in the field of DNA therapies and vaccines in Professor David Weiner at the University of Pennsylvania, I felt that this was an area that I wanted to devote my career.

• It's been a fantastic journey, but obviously the biggest lesson early on was that no one teaches you how to raise money. I must have taken like five business plan classes between MIT and Wharton, but there is no course on "fundraising". But I'm a quick learner, and I've had a lot of great mentors and teachers. We ended up raising about $40 million in the first seven years as a private company. We went public in 2009 and subsequently have raised over $250 million in capital, and another $150 million in non-dilutive grants and supported capital from places like the US NIH, the Gates Foundation, DARPA, and most recently from CEPI ( Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations). I believe I was able to turn fund-raising, one of our greater challenges, into one of our strengths as we grew.

Q: In 2009 Inovio consisted of about 30 people, and now you have about 300. How did that acceleration come about?

• J.Joseph Kim: I guess the first six years of that nine- or ten-year span was pretty steady growth. In the last three years it became more like an inverse hockey stick. That was predicated upon preparing and launching our first Phase 3 Trials, transforming our company into a Phase 3 near-commercial organization. We also entered global partnerships with AstraZeneca's Biologics Unit, Medimmune, about three years ago, and then we received a $57 million contract from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) in two tranches, to accelerate some of our technology and vaccine development. We also received $56 million in April from CEPI to advance our vaccines for MERS and Lassa fever through Phase 2 clinical testing. All these catalysts propelled us to where we are today.

Q: In terms of the DNA technology you're working on at Inovio, where are we now in terms of bringing this kind of treatment to humans?

• J.Joseph Kim:  I think we're very close. We're probably two, three years from getting out first products approved. Our lead product is in Phase 3 global registration trials right now. In the next three to five years, I expect to have multiple products hitting the markets from our clinical pipeline.

• Even with all of the advancements in immunotherapies and targeted therapies, we are still losing millions of people to cancer. We have a mantra in our company: "Patients are waiting," so we need to make sure we do everything possible to accelerate our, potentially, life-saving products to these patients as rapidly as possible.

Q: Was it difficult, in the early days, to communicate the importance of the technology that you're working on?

• J.Joseph Kim:  Ironically, in the very beginning, where your new technology is in early development--you are testing only in mice and you're dream casting--it's easier. You can see some of these unicorns with very little clinical data capturing the imagination of the financial and investing public. Then eventually the reality hits, and you have to do things like clinical trials, and where you may have successes and failures. But as you get past Phase 1 and Phase 2, and subsequently Phase 3, your credibility and value increase, and true, long-term investors come on board once you have products on the market that are actually helping patients and making money for the shareholders, where there's a sustainable growth. This is precisely where Inovio is now, with growing level of impressive clinical data of our products.

• Inovio has gone through all aspects of this cycle. DNA vaccine had a Eureka moment, and a lot of hype, in the late 90s early 2000s, but it was dominated by companies like Merck and Pfizer, big companies with big research plans. But a lot of their early trials failed, and that actually allowed Inovio to move in. We kept asking: how do we make this incredible technology work in the clinical setting, and then in patient setting? And around the mid-2000s we found a way to deliver these incredible high-potential products and demonstrate clinical efficacy and safety.

• Now we have a wealth of almost 2000 patient's worth of data, late-stage products, and mid-stage products coming right after, with a very strong funding and partnership support from big pharma companies and global organizations.

Q: Going back to your childhood, you had quite a few obstacles to overcome, coming to the U.S. without speaking English, for example. Who have been your key mentors since that time?

• J.Joseph Kim:  I didn't know English beyond "Thank you" and shaking my head and shrugging my shoulder when I landed as an 11-yearold with my mom and our life savings of just $300. I thank my mom's foresight. She brought me to America mostly for my education and better economic opportunities. It's a typical immigrants' story.

• Later at MIT, Professor [Robert Samuel Langer Jr. (born 1948)] became my mentor and advisor during my undergraduate years and was a Founding Scientific Advisor of [Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated]. And, of course, Professor David Weiner has been very impactful in my career. He played an even greater role as a co-founder of the company and as head of the Scientific Advisory Board still does today. These are two of the most influential people in biomedical scientific field today. There were other business mentors such as Hubert Schoemacher, who founded Centocor, which later became Janssen Pharmaceuticals, one of the most successful biotech companies of its time. When I started, he was suffering from a brain cancer, but he still gave me a lot of advice, especially regarding fundraising and starting up an innovative, disruptive companies.

Q: How do you feel about the company growing larger? Do you see yourself looking to expand considerably when this technology starts to heat up?

• J.Joseph Kim:  I think we're prepared to grow it as much as our product development and the advancement of our pipelines allow us. I focus on maintaining our entrepreneurial culture and spirit, however. One of our corporate values is acting, thinking, and behaving like an entrepreneur. Every employee is encouraged to be her or his own entrepreneur, thinking about how best to develop his or her own business within our overall business. It's something that we stress all the time at Inovio. We can be very successful and very large, but we can't lose that spirit. This is a very fast-moving industry, and if you lose that entrepreneurial drive, as you know, hungry dogs run faster and hunt faster.

• Obviously, we have great science behind us--great data coming out of the trials. The CEO of Regeneron once told me that Inovio reminded him of Regeneron ten years ago. So that's a good aspiration to have in the next five years or so - to become the next Regeneron.

As a longtime Philadelphia resident born in Korea, I am deeply concerned about loose talk of nuclear war with North Korea. We should be de-escalating tension with North Korea, not trading insults about the sizes of each other's nuclear buttons.

As 58 retired U.S. military leaders recently reminded us, any unilateral attack by our country on North Korean soil would put countless lives of South Koreans and Americans at risk, and wreak havoc on the global economy. It's time for Congress, including the Pennsylvania delegation, to listen to the American people and avoid miscalculations that could turn war of words into war of fire and fury.

Like many immigrants, I feel a deep sense of loyalty and patriotism to a country that has given me so much. In 1981, my mother and I left South Korea with $300 in our pocket and two bags of clothing. I entered the sixth grade in public school not speaking English and graduated from high school as a valedictorian with a scholarship to MIT. My first job out of college was at Merck's Pennsylvania research facility. In 2000 I founded my own biotech company.

My job has taken me across the world, including back to South Korea, home to technological innovations, the world's 12th largest economy, and next door to the world's second and third largest economies, China and Japan. I have seen firsthand the incredible advancements by South Koreans, who painstakingly rebuilt their country after the armistice that halted (but never ended) the Korean War in 1953. It is the first country that went from being a recipient of foreign assistance to a major donor country with a thriving democracy. By any measure South Korea is a remarkable success story.

So that is why talk of military option against North Korea is so disturbing. A military strike by the United States would immediately put the 10 million people living in Seoul, South Korea's capital, at risk. For me, that's not just an abstract number; my extended family lives in Seoul, and so do tens of thousands of American men and women who are stationed in South Korea to protect our ally.

Disturbingly, no one who says only military action will change North Korea's behavior has explained what happens after the first strike

Who among them have seen what war does to a country? Ask any older Korean who lived through the war and they will tell you that it brings out the worst in humanity. About 1.2 million South Koreans perished as a result of the Korean War and the GDP fell by 80 percent, making the already poor country at that time even poorer. Those lucky enough to survive the immediate impact of war dealt with unimaginable poverty and lasting health issues.

My father's family came down from North Korea during the Korean War. But hundreds of thousands of people just like me and my father still languish in North Korea under a totalitarian regime hell-bent on arming itself for survival. Without talking to the regime, we risk miscalculating each other's intentions and stumbling into confrontation. It's time for the United States to pursue direct talks with North Korea without pre-conditions.

I urge everyone to call or write your member of Congress and demand talks, not war, with North Korea before it's too late.  [...]

It’s September 1918 at Camp Funston, in central Kansas, a young soldier is awaiting his departure to France to fight in World War 1. One night he feels chills, spikes a fever. The next day he notices a bluish tint to his skin. Within a week he’s dead — suffocating from fluid in his lungs.

Many historians speculate that the “Spanish Flu” actually began in Kansas. But the 1918 pandemic killed more people in one year than AIDS has killed in 40 years, more than the bubonic plague killed in a century. Today, 100 years later, we cannot say we are immune to a similar outbreak.

Question: Would we accept a jumbo jet with 500 people on board crashing to earth 1,000 times every year? Of course not. We would demand a better effort from industry and government to save those 500,000 lives worldwide per year. 

Somehow, 12,000 to 65,000 deaths from the influenza virus each year in the U.S. alone has become acceptable to us. In fact, last year was the worst flu season in 40 years — 80,000 flu-related deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Most years it is the elderly who pay the highest price — 80 percent of flu deaths are in people over 65, but their cause of death is usually noted as pneumonia. This year what’s making news is that the strains in circulation are killing people of all ages — young, healthy women and men and a chilling 100 reported deaths of children so far just in the U.S.

Part of the problem is that we’re relying on a vaccine technology that:

1) Makes a good estimate each year as to the three or four strains that will be most common out of thousands possible. A good estimate usually, but still an estimate

2) Today’s vaccine technology relies on design and manufacturing that is little different than what was in place more than 50 years ago — a flu vaccine that begins growing in eggs. Would you use a phone or watch a TV with technology from the 1950s?

This needs to change. I’m calling for a “Moon Shot” scale effort to address our response to the seasonal (annual) flu virus before we face a once-in-a-lifetime flu pandemic. We need to fully engage the capacity of the private sector coupled with government and non-governmental support to provide solutions. 

Working together, fully funded, we can create a public and private partnership to find the holy grail of infectious medicine — a universal flu vaccine. This vaccine would have the ability to cover many strains and even be ready to protect against in-season shifts in flu strains.

We have the technology and from a variety of funding sources — we have the money. In fact, the cost of the status quo is very substantial. A recent estimate of the total economic cost of influenza in the U.S., i.e. medical and indirect costs, is about $35 billion annually. Therefore, at some point an improvement in influenza prevention will effectively pay for itself. We need the political will and industrial and government leadership to throw off a 20th century flu response system that was good for its time and rapidly build a new one for the 21st century.

We need to develop an innovative partnership for influenza. Imagine what we could accomplish to fight the flu — instead of where we are today as we hope this year’s vaccine matches strains in circulation. We normally expect the annual flu vaccine helps between 10 and 60 percent who get it — only 36 percent overall as this year’s flu vaccines do in the U.S. Imagine what industry, non-profits, governments and academia coming together could do to protect us from the next flu epidemic or pandemic?

Let’s be honest, although flu seasons and strains are unpredictable, our response to the flu epidemic this year (and in many past years) was woefully inadequate and it cost too many lives. Our Zika response was just as ineffective, especially for our citizens in Puerto Rico.

We owe Americans better, particularly since advancements in vaccine technology and effectiveness have made the prospect of preventing epidemics well within reach. This becomes all the more crucial as more virulent strains of the flu and other infectious diseases loom just on the horizon and even already in animals around the world. 

We must re-examine how we prepare for inevitable, more lethal outbreaks in the future. We need to figure out how to more fully engage the total capacity of economy and our research expertise (both in government and in the private sector) so as to employ all the resources at our disposal in order to achieve victory over diseases that we have already virtually conquered in the laboratory. 

No one company, one university lab, one government facility is going to find a universal flu vaccine. But, together, it’s within our reach.

J. Joseph Kim, Ph.D., entrepreneur, immunologist and health policy leader, is co-founder and chief executive officer of Inovio, a biotechnology company developing novel immunotherapies — medicines that attack a broad array of cancers and challenging infectious diseases by training the body’s immune system to identify and fight disease.