Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (DNA) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

All right, good afternoon. Welcome, everybody, to our panel on synthetic biology. We've got a great group of speakers with us today. Quick round of introductions from JPMorgan. It's myself and Rachel from our team. We've got [indiscernible] from [ Capitol Street ]. And then for our panelists, we've got Max Bronstein from the White House Office of Science and Technology. We've got Jason Kelly from Ginkgo; Sri Kosaraju from Inscripta; and Gregory Yep from International Flavors & Fragrances. I thought to kick it off, maybe each of you could just give us a quick overview of your respective companies and positions and how it relates to synthetic biology. Max, we'll start with you coming out of the White House Office of Science and Technology. Talk a little bit about your role in the synthetic biology universe.

Well, thanks very much for having me Tycho. And I'm just excited to be here at JPMorgan. I'm the Assistant Director for Health Innovation at OSTP. And I've been doing health policy for about 15 years. And my career is sort of across the private nonprofit and government and academic sectors with a more recent focus on rare disease and genetic medicine. So really, one of the big focuses and sort of themes of my career has really been around advancing health innovation, particularly in instances where there are diseases that are underserved or don't have treatments for them. And at OSTP, we're really focusing on the launch of ARPA-H, and you'll hear more about that later. So really happy to be here and excited to be part of the panel today.

Great. Jason, want to give a quick intro?

Sure. Jason Kelly, I'm the Co-Founder, CEO at Ginkgo Bioworks. Maybe I'll give an intro on sort of how I see synthetic biology, Tycho, as useful. So the core idea is DNA fundamentally is digital code, right? A, D, Cs and Gs not 0s and 1s, but with genomics, we can read it. And with DNA synthesis, DNA printing, we can write it. And so the kind of core idea of Gingko and synthetic biology generally is we ought to use the same tools to sort of program biology to genetically engineer cells, independent event application, right? So synthetic biology is fundamentally a tool of revolution. And Ginkgo is fundamentally a platform tools company, right? Now we have a certain business model where we basically aggregate many of those tools. Sri and I announced a partnership this morning to integrate some of his tools into Ginkgo's platform. And then we make those available with the services business model, right? So think of us kind of operating like a Amazon Web Services. And then we -- if you use our platform, we'll take a royalty or some sort of value share on the end application developed with the platform. And the last thing I'll say is, the key idea behind synthetic biology is these tools should improve with scale. So every year, those machines at Inscripta should get better, every year as our infrastructure gets larger, the cost should fall, right? And so that -- we believe that gets us kind of rolling to ultimately seeing many, many more applications including in areas outside of therapeutics, which is why I'm so excited that Greg is on the panel here today, so you can hear some of the nontherapeutic applications of the technology as well.

Great. Sri, over to you. Talk to us on Inscripta and how you're thinking about synbio.

Great. Tycho, thanks to you and Rachel and Ipsita for hosting us. Great panel. I think it's an awesome opportunity to share more about the sector. I share Jason's view, we share Jason's view about the vision of synthetic biology. Inscripta is a private company that develops cutting-edge genome engineering technology and solutions. We enable researchers to realize what we think is the full potential of biology. In March last year, we began shipping our first platform, Onyx. And as Jason touched on, we're starting to see some of the early results of our early adopting customers. Onyx is the world's first benchtop digital genome engineering platform, which is a huge feat. But as Jason mentioned, our hope and our goal is to consistently make it better and better. We're also in development on additional platforms in other areas. And hopefully, in the future, we'll be able to talk more about those.

Great. Finally, Greg, do you want to talk a little bit about International Flavors & Fragrances and how you're thinking about it?

Yes. Thanks, Tycho. Well, welcome, everyone, and I'm glad to be here. I'm Greg Yep, Chief Science and Sustainability Officer at IFF. Our organization, public company provides technology and innovation solutions to a lot of the consumer product goods companies in many different areas. One, we have 4 divisions, Pharma, Food & Nutrition, Scent and Health & Biosciences. The way we look at synthetic biology is we clearly look at it as a tool to actually make our products or give us solutions for our customers. And it gets us from point A to point B. What IFF does well is we can take these tools and apply them in multiple different applications, as Jason mentioned, but also scale these so that can be scaled in the way where the consumer gets to benefit into the performance, but also gets the benefit in the size and scale and the cost innovation there.

Great. Going into some of the questions then. I'll start with Inscripta and Ginkgo, so for Jason and Sri. You guys are technology enablers of the synbio industry. You kind of touched on that a little bit in your introductory comments, but it's a relatively new space for investors. So maybe Sri, kicking it off with you. Can you just spend a couple of minutes talking a little bit about how are you thinking about synbio and how Inscripta can kind of play a role to the industry?

Yes. Tycho, I'll just make a couple of comments. I know many investors come to this conference looking for themes of the future. I've been in those conference many years. We've been looking for those. As an opportunity, I personally haven't come across anything as big as this in my career. I'm increasingly excited about what biology can do. We tend to think of it in the sphere of therapeutics, life sciences or health care, but it's larger than that. It can affect many diverse markets, and I'm excited Greg is here today to talk about some of the examples of that, that we can hear and see tangibly. This may sound like a big statement, but I view this movement almost the same as what tech has been in the last decade in enabling consumers, enabling and driving efficiencies in our economy, but the pivot now is how does this become a reality over the next decade. As Jason mentioned, it's a multidisciplinary effort. It's going to be -- the engineering of cells will do a number of things, will create new traits, characteristics, functions. Will create new products out of this, which I think is really the essence of what it can tangibly do. It's going to play a huge role into some of the current needs that are going on around this, health care, manufacturing, the environment. The scale of this is too large, not to pay attention to. So our role, as you mentioned, we are an enabler. We develop technology. We work with folks like Ginkgo. We work with folks like IF&F. Our hope is to enable the next stage of discovery and invention and innovation that's going to happen to drive not just health care, but other industries in and around health care as well.

And Jason, maybe you could spend a minute just talking -- you touched so many different industries at Ginkgo. Your business model is broad with a foundry approach. Can you maybe just talk about some of the successes you've seen out of the foundry thus far? And what industries do you believe synbio could play, maybe the biggest role in?

Yes, happy to do that. And so I'll figure a couple of those. I'll also give you kind of like -- as I talked to a lot of investors, I think people kind of maybe misunderstand a little bit around the industry and kind of how I see it. So I think there's a key point here, which is the people who will see where this is going the earliest are going to be the ones that watch the intrinsic improvements in the underlying technology, right? The folks that got on the train on genomics earliest were the ones that were sort of watching the falling cost rates on sequencing and then extrapolating on what that then might impact in the world in the future, right? And we're in this interesting spot where the sort of platform technologies, right, what Ginkgo does. Well, we basically say, look, there's a historical status quo to engineer a cell, which is have a bunch of scientists in a lab working by hand. We take that activity in our lab here in lab here at Boston about 20,000 square feet behind me, and we put it on robots and automation, and we say, "Outsource that work." Well, it's only been in the last couple of years that facilities like ours passed the capabilities of a scientist at the bench, right? But what's important is they keep getting better and the scientists at the bench stay flat. And so what you're really going to start to see, and I'll speak to the first products that are popping off is you'll see a couple and then more and more and more and more because as the technology exponentially improves, it just gets easier to do things, right? And so we're going to have a fundamental change in the ease of engineering cells. So some of the first applications off the platform that we've announced publicly I'm going to -- project with Aldevron. For example, recently acquired by Danaher to engineer strain that produce vaccinia capping enzyme, where they said that, that improved their production efficiencies by a factor of tenfold. We work in the animal-free meat space. One of our partners, Motif FoodWorks, launched a product called HEMAMI. It's like -- you put it into burgers, it makes them red, it makes smell right and things like that, that's actually heme molecule. And then thirdly, in the cannabis industry, work with our partners, Cronos, that's doing cannabinoids. We've had a couple of strains now go into production to produce products for them. So those are examples just at Ginkgo, and you can expand that horizon broadly across the industry. And I think in the therapeutic sector in particular, you're going to see more and more in cell and gene therapy. So we announced a partnership with Biogen earlier this year, with Selecta Bio today on novel capsid development. That's an area that's ripe for synthetic biology tools to be disruptive in speeding products to market.

Greg, I want to pull you in. I know at IF&F you've been doing bioengineered alternatives for years. Can you talk a little bit about some of the success you've had internally developing products?

Yes. Thanks, Tycho. We've been kind of a little bit on the radar utilizing this technology. But as Jason mentioned many, many years ago, it was about cost, it was about size and scale. And -- but just in the recent years, we've been really been fortunate to be set up well to really make some great strides in technology and innovations and ingredients. And I see great advances, especially in the home and personal care areas, but also in the nutrition area. And then Jason mentioned a couple of alternative proteins in food, but also in the scent area. So it's pretty highly likely the consumer touches or feels a product that's been made by this technology, by IFF ongoing. The reason we can do this is, one, the technology has gone a lot better. And even in the past 3 or 4 years, we made things that we couldn't make 3 to 4 years ago. But also the scale has gotten a lot better, meaning that we can supply some of the big global manufacturers out there, the quantities that they need at the cost it need, but also with the performance that it also performs in a similar way of traditional biology and chemistry type products. So with that being said, we're just on this journey, like with everyone else on the panel to continue advancing this. But again, we're looking at this as a tool. Common examples of the successes that we have, for example, is cold water cleaning enzymes in detergents and laundry care could be areas in foods such as alternative proteins to also very simple ingredients such as vanilla in specific areas. And also in the commercial fragrance area and the commercial scent area really making these keynotes for our perfumers that we probably couldn't achieve and make before. And this has also taken a lot of pressure off of us in the sustainability initiatives, especially in our ESG goals because it takes -- it really drive us in a way to do better in clean, green chemistry and utilizing less of the natural resources that traditionally for the past 150 -- 120-year history of this industry has been using a lot of natural resources. So we've been fortunate enough to adopt this technology to really alleviate a lot of that stress.

Those cold water enzymes, for example, are great climate impacting product, right? This is something we forget in biotech sector, but that is a direct application of biotechnology, moving the needle substantially on a big energy user. And right, I mean, Greg, I don't know how you guys think about that in terms of consumer demand.

I mean it's changing the game on demand, but also the amount of water you use. It's also shrinking the footprint on the machines that are being used. We just got back from the -- we had a booth at a Consumer Electronics Show just last week in Vegas. I mean it's going to change the way the appliances are made and how they're doing and then also the footprint there. So it actually spans across multiple different touch points.

Maybe just a follow-up on that, Greg. What's resonating most with consumers, is it the environmental footprint impact? Is it better products? Is it lower cost? More -- better cadence of products? What -- when you go out and talk to customers, what do they get excited about when it comes to synbio?

I think it's all of that. I think a lot of the big things is definitely the ESG and sustainability piece, and that's appealing not just to customers but also the consumers because I think it resonates that we can -- are able to achieve a lot of these products with this very, very unique type of technology. But also the performance is there. In previous years, we kind of get the performance of how the ingredient delivered in the application, but now we can do it via this technology. So there's no compromise in performance, and there's actually a boost in scent, there's a boost in flavor. So it's really allowing us to do a lot more with the pallet, with the creativity side that we never had a chance to do before.

Great. One last one for me, and I'll hand it off to Ipsita. But biosecurity comes up in general when we talk about synbio. I know, Jason, you've been kind of vocal about this and the need for better biosecurity. Can you just talk a little bit about how you're approaching it? And is there a need for more regulation?

Yes. So I think what the interesting thing to me about the pandemic is it is sort of well timed in the sense that it is waking everybody up to our susceptibility to infectious disease, just as the tools are coming online to engineer biology at better and better scale. And so it's actually -- we're kind of getting to build out -- the cybersecurity actually got built after the fact. Build out -- I get all the communications that these banks started going down the early 2000s, remember all this, slammer worm and all that. And then they had to build out real bulletproof cybersecurity. Too late, right? Well, here, we have a chance around the pandemic worldwide, to build out biosecurity. I think it's a real chance for -- I'd love to hear Max's thoughts for the U.S. to lead here. Obviously, we've led in rapid vaccine manufacturing. You've seen China adopt a 0 COVID strategy. They're really, I'd say, leading in terms of monitoring where the virus is and using containment as a control strategy, a very different approach. These are both forms of biosecurity. From Gingko standpoint, we've been happy to help on the manufacturing side where we can to further optimize there. I think rapid therapeutic development is going to be really critical, like a new variant pops up and the map stop working, how do you make new ones? And then in this area of weather mapping or monitoring for the virus. So we've rolled this out -- we're one of the largest providers in sort of weekly K-12 testing in the country, more than 200,000 students a week, and I think, I don't know, 10 or 15 states. That's actually where we're currently running the experiment in this country of sort doing a little bit of what China has done well, which is look where the virus is and use that to make controlled interventions rather than shutting -- gross interventions, close a classroom, not a school. And so that is -- it's just a brand-new area and it's different than diagnostics. And so we're happy to be doing that. But I think it's -- these are tools that need to get built, we just haven't had them.

Yes, I'm happy to jump in here a little bit. So the pace of innovation in this synbio space is really exciting and the breadth of potential applications is just as exciting as well. But I think we have to be mindful about what some of the dual-use potential is for some of these technologies. And that's going to require foresight and deep thought from not only the industry side, but from the government side as well. We at OSTP are routinely thinking about these issues. And in fact, we partner very closely with the National Security Council on these types of issues to make sure that we are properly balancing innovation with some of the emerging threats that are out there in the world today.

Great. Ipsita you want to jump in?

Sure. So -- let's see. I guess, just from a policy perspective, I would say briefly that we are of the opinion that this is going to be a fairly big regulatory year sort of regulations, guidances, et cetera. The first year of any administration, you've got a lot of legislating, which we saw, of course, in '21. And now the agencies get to do some work, whether it's FDA, CMS all of the above, NIH. So I think that will be exciting to see whether we see small pipes or bigger ones. So I guess with that, of course, there's Congress. There's the agencies and there's the White House. We're really excited to have you here, Max. Do you want to go ahead and just talk about the office that you're in and sort of how unprecedented that is kind of the focus, your leadership, how big your office is? And what are your current priorities?

Yes, happy to jump in on that. Thank you for the question. So I should note that the President has really made investment in health and life science a top priority for this administration. And for those who might not have had the chance, the President wrote a really thoughtful letter to Dr. Eric Lander, the Science Advisor. And in fact, every paragraph in this letter mentions health. So I would encourage folks to read that because it lays out some of the biggest challenges and opportunities before the nation. So check out the letter. The other really big development was that for the first time in U.S. history, the President made a decision to elevate the Science Advisor to the cabinet level, so -- which is a huge step. I could see Jason applauding. So for the first time in U.S. history, science and technology literally has a seat at the cabinet table, which is great news for folks like us and really for all Americans who are relying on the benefits of science and technology to improve their lives, improve their health and hopefully address some of the major challenges facing climate and other areas that the nation faces. So the other big change is, as I mentioned Dr. Lander's name, I'm hoping many of you are familiar with him already, but for those who are not, he is the President Science Advisor. But his appointment also represents the first time that we've actually had a life scientist in the role of Science Advisor. Historically, those folks have been coming from the physical sciences and very happy to have Dr. Lander in this role. For those who might not know about him, he's [ CARD-carrying ] geneticist, formerly led the Broad Institute and was a leader of the human genome project as well. So the other big change, and this is the last thing I'll mention is that when Dr. Lander came in, he made a decision to create a new division within my office, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and that division is focused on health and life science. And that's the team that I sit on and happy to report. We have really broad expertise on our team. So everyone focusing on things like cancer, public health, telemedicine, nutrition, bioeconomy, pandemic preparedness. So we're really covering the gamut of health and life science policy issues. So really excited to be part of this office and part of this team at this point in our nation's history, and would certainly welcome input from the stakeholders out there. And so yes, those are just a few of the ways that the administration has really put life science and health into focus this year.

Max, you mentioned at the outset in your intro ARPA-H. Could you talk about that effort and where we could see perhaps some real opportunities for public, private partnerships?

Absolutely. So let me do a quick level set on ARPA-H. I imagine many of you have heard about what this is. But for those who haven't, we actually did 16 listening sessions open to stakeholders, open to the public to get public input on what this would be. I should also mention that we do have an inbox set up, which is [email protected]. So if you miss the listening sessions, I won't hold it against you. You can still weigh in and jump in with some comments at that inbox. But let me give a little bit of background on what this actually is. So I hope many of you know what DARPA is because ARPA-H is modeled very much off of DARPA. For those who don't know about DARPA's track record, this was something that helped lay the groundwork for some really incredible innovations like the Internet autonomous vehicles, GPS and even mRNA technology. So ARPA-H is really intended to sort of follow that same model and fund some very high risk and hopefully game-changing innovations and health. So that's sort of the big picture of what ARPA-H is about. I should spend a little bit of time talking about how -- what ARPA-H is going to do is different from what's already going on either in the public or the private sector. I get this question a lot. So I think we can imagine there are some projects that are perhaps too risky to make it through peer review at a public research agency, for example. We can also imagine that maybe there are some projects oriented towards the private sector, but maybe they don't fit perfectly because the time horizon is too long for a return on investment or maybe the IP is difficult to secure. So basically, what I'm trying to illustrate here is there's this gap of projects that could be funded but are currently not because they don't fit into the current research paradigm very well. And that's the sweet spot for ARPA-H. So if we had an ARPA-H, we would be able to fund those types of projects with the broader goal of really making an impact for patients. And to get to your point from earlier, Ipsita, this is where we envision a big role for industry here, particularly in supporting the development of platform technologies since ARPA-H will really be focused on translating some of these transformative science ideas into products that will ensure all Americans ultimately live longer and healthier lives. So that's the sort of big picture vision for ARPA-H. I'm happy to spend some time talking about the state of play as well, if that would be helpful.

Jason was just talking about kind of these tools being developed as we were in the middle of COVID. So probably a good question to follow up here is what lessons did you all learn throughout COVID in year 1? I imagine a lot of the oxygen was focused on that.

Yes. So I'm happy to start and then if Jason wants to jump in on this, I'd be interested in hearing his thoughts, too. But yes, so I mean, we've definitely learned a lot. We've learned a lot about clinical development, about regulatory science. And I think what we've been spending a lot of time doing in the government is thinking about how we can apply some of those lessons learned, especially from projects like Warp Speed and some of the other public private partnerships out there and thinking about how can we not only apply this to future pandemic threats but also other areas, other disease areas that have unmet medical needs. So what are the things that we learned about doing clinical trials? What are the things that we learned about speeding regulatory science while maintaining high standards for safety and efficacy? How can we apply those lessons to other areas? Those are the kinds of things that I think we want to be hearing from stakeholders about. Ultimately, in the government, we want to be thinking about ways to partner with industry and into advanced innovation. So if folks have ideas or policy suggestions of how to do that, those are things that, I think, our office would welcome and would be interested in hearing about.

Yes. Maybe the only thing I'd add in the part we were close to, which is really around sort of kind of diagnostic testing and monitoring testing. I think there's been a dawning awareness and you've seen, I think, the administration make some really nice move or the agencies make some nice moves in concert with the administration where there's now a new pathway where the NIH is working with FDA to have a faster path for new diagnostics, you're seeing now suddenly rapid at-home tests and given the sort of rapid onset of Omicron and the spread of it has led that to suddenly be clear is like, wow, this a really powerful public health tool. People want to gather, you can take that test right before you walk in the door, that's a thing that you rewind the clock 1.5 years ago, and there wasn't that sort of same awareness of that product as tool. A lot people yelling into the wind, that, hey, maybe this is a good idea, but not a lot of uptake from the government. So I think Warp Speed really did a really nice job on the vaccine side to push boundaries. And I think we've learned some lessons on the kind of diagnostics side that are now being implemented to hopefully make it so that next time around, there is a lot more muscle there. And so I think that -- and it's almost a creation from my standpoint of a different industry. It's not quite the same as traditional diagnostics. You're taking these tests in the doctor's office, it's in your living room. You're collecting samples in classrooms, right? It's being done by a teacher, right? There's a very different -- it's just a different product profile. And -- but they're important for biosecurity. And so I think figuring that out and have a smooth regulatory path. And there's a lot there to unpack, but really cool progress in the last 6 to 9 months.

A couple more quick questions for Max and the group, and then I'll pivot it back to Tycho since synbio was the topic of our panel. Would you talk about where that falls on the priority list? What your discussions have entailed and how the folks like the other panelists can engage with you going forward on synbio, specifically, just kind of noting that it is such a unique industry and one that has grown quite a bit without a lot of government involvement.

Absolutely. So let me pivot back to ARPA-H and then I'll jump back to the synbio topic. So assuming Congress finalizes its budget this year, which we are optimistic that they will. We are hoping that ARPA-H can actually start launching its operations. And I think that would be a great opportunity to collaborate with industry in areas like synbio and many of the other areas that are so promising in the realm of science and technology. I should also mention that our office has been thinking very deeply about the bioeconomy. This is sort of the biotechnology industry and the bioagricultural industry combined and thinking about what steps can the nation take to ensure that the United States remains a global leader in this space. And that's an opportunity for folks in industry and folks in academia, other folks to weigh in with the administration. We want to hear about what are the opportunities out there, whether they be in synbio or other fields. And what are the challenges out there? Are there challenges in workforce that are holding back the development of these companies or technologies? Are there barriers and manufacturing and availability of capital? These are the kinds of policy type challenges that we want to hear about because we can use those as inputs and hopefully create policies to help ensure that bioeconomy and other emerging industries, like the synbio industry, remain very competitive in the space and across the globe. So please take that as an invitation to connect with us on these topics.

Awesome. I'll kick it over to Rachel. I just wanted to mention a couple of other things in the policy landscape. We had the Endless Frontier Act that passed on a bipartisan basis in the senate in about mid-'21. So keep an eye out on that as a way to propel synbio forward. There's some guidances where information -- RFI, stakeholders have been able to chime in on an earlier double-stranded synthetic DNA guidance back in, I think, 2010. So I just wanted to put that out there, and thank you so much, Max, and everyone. I'll hand it over to Rachel.

Max is going to get a human genome project scale, probably got OSTP, got Dr. Lander in there.

Any day now.

Get after it, that was moment. Synbio needs one, I think it'd be great.

Perfect. So stepping back, we've talked a lot today about what's driving a rapid increase in demand in synbio. But with that, the industry will need to scale and increase capacity. So what are each of you seeing from a scaling standpoint? Where are we now? What steps does the industry need to really scale and make it to the near and long term to support that increasing interest in the sector and hopefully, support a broad range of commercial scale products in the future?

Well, I'd maybe jump on that a little bit and talk about what we need is technology and investment, and I'll pivot a little bit. If -- again, if you're an investor watching this panel, I think most investors tend to evaluate progress of a particular company or an industry by growth, right, revenues, growth rates. But these are the topics that I would advocate that ought to be evaluated as we think about where is this industry going, where all of us as individual contributor is going. If you look at other sectors, what's informed sort of the opening of a new market or a new opportunity like this. You need people, you need technology and you need collaboration. I think synbio can be an incredibly successful sector, if we have industry participants, technology solution providers like Ginkgo and Inscripta working with industry leaders like IF&F, but it will be a blowout sector if we have the involvement of the government. So Max and everything he's talked about. And if you look at that, what does that do? Collaboration with industry, with technology. Collaboration with academia and government, trains people, provides funding, and it allows us to share information with each other to catalyze future innovation. I mean these are not new concepts. You look at other sectors and areas that have succeeded and grown, that's what's been involved. So those are the things that are important to synbio. And those are part -- going back to your question of what does it take to scale? That's my view on some of the things that are important and necessary.

I could chime in on some of the -- oftentimes investors will talk about scaling up various products, particularly outside of therapeutics. There's a lot of just how do you ferment, grow cells at large scale to produce some of these lower-cost products? I think it would be great to hear from Greg, IFF obviously acquired the Genencor -- original Genencor assets that went through DuPont. And so it's really one of the world leaders in industrial biotechnology scaling. I would just know that the problem splits into few pieces. They're sort of the -- okay, I've got an organism that I've engineered to do something. I want to grow it in a big tank and start producing product, right? And actually, the therapeutics industry got a taste of this. Usually scaling is like an issue when things go wrong in a small way, but the vaccines created a big scaling problem for therapeutics. So suddenly, manufacturing was at the fore for once. Usually, discovery is at the fore, right? But outside of therapeutics, manufacturing is always at the fore, right? It's really can you make these things cheaply enough. And so I think there's that half. I've got the strain, can I grow it in big tanks and make it there's a whole skill set associated. And then there is, did I program the cell to work when I put it in that tank? And that's a function of the technology scaling on the back end that lets us ultimately design organisms better. So those are the 2 types of scaling in the industry. I'll just note the technologies themselves are improving, we've been roughly tripling the output of these facilities and having the cost to do the work each year for 6 years. That's a technology scaling to program to sell better. And then you can ask Greg, what's working and not on running the big tanks to actually make these things cheaply and what new technology do we need there and even opportunities for government.

Yes. I'll add onto that. I think Jason is right. I think there's a couple of ways to look at scale. We're fortunate enough at IFF to acquire the DuPont Nutrition & Bioscience, which came from Genencor technology. So we have the steel in the ground to be able to do it. But now we look at do we need more investment in more steel or make the vessels more efficient -- and make the cells more efficient? And I think there's -- it's a two-pronged approach there because everyone knows, especially this past couple of years, everyone's at capacity and actually to find synbio production sites is almost impossible now because everyone's at capacity in specific situations. So you got to look at different angles of process R&D to actually make these more efficient. But also on the far end of the product also, you have to look at the application science of these products to actually shrink the footprint. So can you make these products more efficient? And you see a common example, for example, on laundry detergents where you don't need a whole cup full anymore, you don't need hot water, you just have the small amount of detergent that's needed to do the same amount of effect in dish or laundry and specific things. So that's a direct result of looking at the efficiency of the molecules that we make, but also the efficiency of the cells that are made in those specific areas. So I think -- do think there's -- and Sri said this well, is there needs more collaboration, I think. And it's not just collaboration with myself and Sri's organization and Jason's, but it's also with our peer groups. Because if we're working on a biodegradable renewable molecule, I don't need to work on all of those molecules. I mean maybe I work on one and one of my peers works on another or even a competitor works on another and we share a lot of these resources together because I'm not -- we're not going to apply these in all different applications. And also sharing and collaborating across industries. I think there's a lot of knowledge there that still needs to learn because the technology is very, very similar, whether you apply it to a different application, that's a little bit different. But technology is similar and the same. So I think that collaboration needs to happen. I see that happening more and more probably in the next couple of years.

There's also a big manufacturing sector for the U.S. in the future from my standpoint, right? I mean we talk about -- we lost a lot of the, obviously, electronics manufacturing and things like that. This is an emerging new area of manufacturing. It's green. It produces a lot of specialty products. People are coming up with new products all the time, and it's currently manufacturing constraining, right? So this is exactly the sort of thing, I think, we should be building out in the U.S. And frankly, it's mixed, right? You still see a lot of the builds happening here overseas, including new ones. So I think that's an area also where you could see, I think, government put the foot on the scale.

Maybe in the closing minutes, we can reflect back a little bit. There's been a lot of volatility in the sector. There's a lot of flaming wreckage out there between Zymergen and Intrexon and even Amyris has had issues, are there lessons learned maybe either for Sri or Jason, looking back on some of the failures that we could learn lessons from?

Sure. I'll chime in on this. I'm a student of this history. Yes. So I think there's a couple of things we learned. I mean, Ginkgo started in 2008. So we sort of -- we're at the -- right, a couple of years in, was when kind of biofuel push crashed, and that drove -- that was like a first round of failures in the industry and Intrexon and that's sort of story is another one. Here's what I would say. The -- one of the things to realize now is these technologies are being applied across many industries. So there's not the single industry systemic risk there was when the only industry that was pulling on the most advanced tools is the fuels industry that was part of the reason you had that hiccup. I think we're over that hump. So I think the lesson of the fuels was more like a concentration of industry with regard to where the tools are deployed. And I think we're clear. I think the challenge with Intrexon was, "Hey, can you really use these same tools for every application, right? And they had apples and they have the salmons. And I think that is -- you got to think of it like the -- I think you got to say is not everything, right? You can't use the same thing to engineer a pig today as a microbe, but the same platform that let engineer microbes, yeast, mammalian cells and a single cell level today, where you can run all that through the same infrastructure at Ginkgo. That's important, right? You don't want it cheap. You have to make sure you're actually running everything through the same infrastructure to drive that scale. That was the lesson there. But yes, I think it's just getting products out the door, that will help people realize it at the end of the day. But the people that will see it first, like I was saying earlier, I actually think some of the people on this call, biotech investors who can evaluate the technology directly, right? Everyone will know as more and more consumer products come off in all these different industries and drugs go to market, sure, that it's obvious this day. But the people that see genomics first are the ones that are watching cost curves on sequencing closely. Same thing here. It's the people that watch how the technology improves and bet on the exponential are the ones that will catch it first here.

And I'll just tack on to that, just some of the lessons learned. Again, the things we're talking about here are not things that are going to happen overnight, right? So the perspective or the longevity you have to have against these items that we're talking about are long, right? So how do you as an investor evaluate a company in that sort of dynamic. Again, it's not just revenue. And I'll go back to something I said at the outset, I think we can all successfully advocate the vision of what this could become. But now it's time to pivot. Now it's time to pivot to real technologies, seeing things that are built purposely for applications today, hearing more from companies like Greg and IF&F that are using this technology frontline in their products and their end markets. And the last thing I think we all need to learn and discover is how do the models, the business models for these companies evolve, right? That's -- it's not entirely clear yet for many investors. And that might be that way for a little while as this evolves. But we're talking about not hundreds of millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of end markets. It's not a question of whether there's opportunity there. I think it's a question of how do these companies get it most successfully? And do they have the longevity? Can they work with their investors to share the progress points and the mile markers along the way that we're making progress against that opportunity? So I think at least that's how we look at it and what we would advocate for this sector or at least how investors should think about it.

And what do you think it takes to get more funding in the space? I mean, Sri, you and I have talked about this. Unlike genomics, which started off half a dozen genome centers and then human genome project. You referenced, Jason, like it was a very concentrated market and it is easy to see how that was going to move from academic into clinical. Here, it's industry-leading, not academic, right? And so is there enough funding in the space? Does academic need to step up? Do we need the government to jump start some of this?

That's why it's brilliant that Max is on this panel. This will be forever known historically as what set off the next movement of synbio is Max's involvement, you inviting for this panel. But in all seriousness, I think it's needed. It's certainly needed. It will accelerate the pace of progress, no doubt.

Yes. I mean -- so I agree with that. I celebrate that Dr. Lander is in there and we could get ourselves a human genome project. I think it will get there either way. Gingko raised $1.6 billion. We plan to spend a lot of that on platform, right? So that -- we will do that. We will pull on all of those tools so our customers don't need to, right? I spent $0.5 billion on things already, and we're going to keep spending into it because our business model is not to develop end products, I don't have all those development costs. All my costs are just in the platform technology and that might be in the [ back ], right? So I think we're funded to push it now and because of our focus there. So we'll buy machinery...

I would love the capital markets to fund this whole thing, but I think it's going to require a little bit more help. So Max, you're not off the hook yet.

And I guess what are the hurdles going forward? I mean we talked about scale up. Is it reducing costs further? Is it downstream processing? Is it getting talent at the cell engineering level? Is it software and AI and machine learning? What are kind of some of the points of friction going forward as you think about it?

I think it's getting people to adopt the technology who are currently doing it with a more traditional approach. To me, that's the biggest hurdle, right? Because there is a way to do biotechnology today. It just doesn't get that much better every year, right? You can get those scientists in there and work at the bench. And so I think it just takes time. People are conservative when it comes to their R&D, right? You want to -- so I think you got -- needs more proof points and it's more bringing people across the river on that. I think that to me is the biggest hurdle in the industry, and it will be solved by just seeing more programs go out the door and new people by betting on it in my view.

Totally agree. I think the adoption of more applications seeing folks like IF&F who have gotten religion and made the investment, and Greg can talk more about that, how they got there. But as more people pursue this, it is going to take a mind shift. Companies weren't built this way, right? How do they change what they've done or adopt a new strategy. We're going to have to help lead the way on that to some extent. And we need to see more and more of it in practical reality and show the value of it what Ginkgo and Inscripta demonstrated in what we announced this morning, I think, it was incredible. We edited -- a project that edited 3,000 genes showed 100 candidates with improved titers in a matter of 3 months. People need to see that. That's good for the industry. Greg, I don't know if you want to comment on that.

Yes. And I agree with all those points, and I think -- truly I don't think we can get sustainable innovation without this type of technology. I mean I think the pull right now with biodegradable renewable especially in the plastics area, especially in our raw materials and raw material security. I think we need to adopt technology similar to -- just to reach a lot of our goals. And it's not just our goals, it's our customers' goals, too. And frankly, I can't see a pathway without this type of technology in specific areas. I do think the more applications that we can create -- and in fact, it's not just duplication of existing applications, it's new applications we never could do before. So you have different nuances of flavor, different nuances of scent. It allows us to go into areas such as digital scent in areas. It allows us to go into areas such as the Metaverse that we couldn't get into before and what specific types of a course and technologies that we have. So it opens a lot more spaces there that once we start applying these and you can see the real work in action. Then you'll see it probably be adopted a lot more. I do believe we do need a lot more funding. I mean it's -- I wish I had more funding to do this. So we're going to need some help from academia and also government to help us alleviate some of these areas.

The other thing, Tycho, just to flag it. I think with the success in electric vehicles, so what Tesla has done, breaking the $1 trillion barrier. There's a big deal there that, that is a company that's fundamentally atoms-based, not information-based for the first time to see. And so that's opening a lot of people's eyes to both the trend of pull on climate and that atoms-based companies can hit that same scale as tech companies, right? And so I think that opens up a much wider set of investors to understand this technology than you'd imagine. And I think that's another thing that will be like wind in the sales on the capital market side.

Great. I know we're out of time. Maybe just one last one, if we were to kind of look ahead, say, Morgan 2025 as it relates to synbio, what do you think is going to be on people's radar screens that we're not talking about today? That's probably you, Jason. Climate?

Yes, Bill Gates has said, he thinks there's going to be 8 to 10 Tesla scale companies in climate, right? That's 10 more trillion companies. I promise you, they're not going to be tech companies. Bits don't matter in climate, right? It's all atoms. Yes, half of those are going to be biotech companies.

Got it. Sri, any predictions?

I agree. I think you're in companies that have developed proprietary products and have become massive companies that are off developing great things in their pipeline. I think we're onto the next wave of synbio. We will approve its foundational underpinnings. It will have gotten off the ground. Technology will be developed, and it will be -- innovation will be constant. But more importantly, we will have verticals on products that get developed off this, and there will be major companies that spun off it. So that's my view.

Got it. Greg?

Yes. I think we're going to get the pull from sustainability. I truly believe that and that this is going to help drive that. But also -- we'll see new -- in 4 to 5 years, we'll see new products out there that -- new scents, new flavors, new nutritional type products that were created through this technology that couldn't be achieved before.

Okay. And Max, anything from your side from the DC angle?

Well, I won't pretend to have a crystal ball here. But what I would propose is that in 20 years, we do the same panel again and see if these predictions actually come true. I would certainly love to see some of them come through and the potential is extraordinarily exciting in this space and very much excited to partner with industry and with other folks working on synbio. So thanks again.

Great. Well, I think we'll leave it at that. Thanks all for taking the time. Really appreciate it. Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Goodbyes, everyone. Thank you.