Welcome to Partnology’s Biotech Leader Spotlight Series, where we highlight the remarkable accomplishments and visionary leadership of biotech industry pioneers. This series is about showcasing the groundbreaking strides made by exceptional leaders who have transformed scientific possibilities into tangible realities. Through insightful interviews, we invite you to join us in following the inspiring journeys of these executives who continue to shape the landscape of the biotech industry. This week we are recognizing:
Dr. Kartik Krishnan was named Chief Executive Officer of OncoNano Medicine in 2024, having previously served as OncoNano’s President, Head of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer since joining the company in 2022. Kartik is an accomplished biotechnology executive focused on corporate excellence and execution. He has over 20 years of hands-on experience in developing experimental cancer therapeutics as an investigator and sponsor. Prior to joining OncoNano, Kartik served as Chief Medical Officer of Arcus Biosciences where he oversaw a diverse portfolio of biologics and small molecules across multiple phases of development, ranging from first-in-human to Phase 3. Prior to Arcus, he held clinical development and pharmacovigilance roles at Astex, FivePrime Therapeutics, BioMarin, Genentech, Roche and Amgen. Kartik previously worked in academia, holding a faculty position at the University of Arizona with both clinical and primary research responsibilities. Kartik received his bachelor’s degree in history (with Distinction) from the University of Virginia and completed his Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of Philosophy in cellular, molecular and biophysical studies at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. He trained in pediatrics at the University of California, Los Angeles, and in pediatric hematology and oncology at Johns Hopkins University and the National Cancer Institute.
Your career has spanned academic medicine, pharmacovigilance, and multiple leadership roles in biotech. What key moments shaped your transition from physician-scientist to biotech CEO?
I think there were a few key moments, but probably the most important one was when I transitioned from academic medicine into a career in industry.
You often hear people in academic medicine talk about the pharmaceutical industry as “the dark side,” but my experience—and one I’ve since heard echoed by many others—has been quite the opposite. I’ve come to believe that effectively treating complex diseases like cancer requires true partnership across sectors: federal agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, and academic medicine all play essential roles.
At the time, I was a junior faculty member at the University of Arizona. I had a lab, a clinical practice, and a one-year-old child at home. I did a 360-degree evaluation of my life and realized I didn’t feel like I was excelling in any of those roles—whether as a scientist, a clinician, or a husband and father. The demands were just too high, and there were only so many hours in the day.
I knew I needed to find a way to contribute meaningfully while also finding balance. I began speaking with recruiters and industry professionals I met at conferences. That exploration opened the door to a realization: I could still pursue my goal of improving the lives of people with cancer, but do so through a different path—by working in industry rather than in the clinic or the lab.
That decision was the turning point. Everything that followed—from understanding the nuances of clinical development to working with global health authorities and physicians—really stemmed from that moment of clarity.
At OncoNano, you’re working on targeted anti-tumor technologies. What excites you most about this platform, and where do you see its greatest potential impact?
I joined OncoNano almost three years ago. As I was transitioning from my previous role, I was looking for something truly innovative. “Innovation” is a word that gets used often, but I was searching for something not only forward-thinking but also unique.
One of the fundamental challenges in treating cancer is that it originates from our own cells—cells whose machinery has simply gone awry. That makes it incredibly difficult to target cancer precisely without harming the healthy tissue surrounding it. We know this is a major limitation of many therapies today.
What drew me to OncoNano was its distinct approach. I won’t say it’s the only company doing this, but it’s certainly one of the very few taking advantage of a unique characteristic of cancer that sets it apart from normal tissue. The goal is to deliver therapies directly to the tumor while minimizing systemic side effects—an ideal scenario in cancer treatment.
What excites me most is that we’ve already seen success with our imaging agent, and we’re optimistic that our targeted anti-cancer therapies will follow suit. It’s a truly novel approach, and I’m energized by the potential impact it could have on how we treat cancer.
We’re a small biotech, so like many others, we’re always actively seeking funding. We recently closed an extension of our Series B, and this fall, we’ll be officially launching our Series C raise. With one asset already in the clinic and a compelling preclinical platform that we believe has the potential to transform the cancer treatment paradigm, we’re excited about what’s ahead. So to any investors listening—I’d be more than happy to connect, share our pitch, and discuss the opportunity further.
You’ve led programs from preclinical through Phase 3—how do you approach building a truly seamless end-to-end development strategy?
I think, like many people say, it’s important to begin with the end in mind. That said, it’s often very difficult to predict—especially when you’re looking at preclinical data—what a Phase 3 trial or the eventual registration pathway will look like.
I was fortunate early in my industry career to join a program that was already quite mature. In fact, its first BLA had already been filed by the time I came on board. While most of my work over the past 10 years has focused on early-stage development—preclinical, translational, Phase 1, and sometimes Phase 2—I still consider myself a late-stage drug developer. That’s where the real impact happens.
Seamless development is always challenging. You have to follow where the data takes you, stay nimble and flexible, and be willing to rethink your original plans based on new insights. But if you start with the end goal in mind—thinking about how you’re going to get the drug registered and commercialized—it becomes much easier to map out the critical steps along the way.
You’ve worked extensively in both solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. What key scientific or strategic differences do you see between the two from a development standpoint?
I think the key differences really come down to a few scientific and clinical aspects. There are differences in how you assess response and measure tumors—solid and liquid tumors are evaluated differently. But at the end of the day, cancer is cancer. Some agents work better in solid tumors, others in liquid tumors.
What also varies significantly is the community of physicians treating each type. For example, a lung cancer specialist typically wouldn’t treat leukemia. So, developing relationships with experts across different tumor types is essential. These specialists deeply understand what’s needed—from a molecular and scientific standpoint, as well as from a practical, therapeutic perspective.
Take leukemia, for instance. Patients often have widespread disease affecting their entire bloodstream, which can cause symptoms like anemia and fatigue. If you introduce a drug that exacerbates those symptoms, it can be extremely difficult for the patient. But that kind of insight usually comes from working closely with clinicians who are on the front lines treating these conditions.
Scientifically, there are meaningful molecular differences between solid and liquid tumors. That complexity—and the opportunity to explore it—is one of the reasons I was drawn to oncology in the first place. The molecular biology is fascinating and constantly evolving.
What are your thoughts on the role of biomarkers and patient stratification in accelerating oncology development timelines and improving success rates?
Yeah, this is always an interesting question. Ideally, you’d like to develop an agent that can be universally applied to treat the broadest possible patient population. But the reality is that patients—and their tumors—are different. Tumors can evolve over time, and individuals often develop resistance to therapy.
Ultimately, the goal of clinical development in cancer treatment is to move toward an individualized treatment paradigm—one that’s informed by molecular biology and any other relevant information we can gather about a patient and their cancer. This would allow us to deliver the most effective, tailored treatment for each person. So yes, I’m very much pro-biomarker. We still have a long way to go in that space, but I’m encouraged by the fact that many smart people are working hard to push it forward.
What trends in oncology research or clinical development do you believe will define the next 5–10 years?
I think there are probably two major areas. One, which is on everyone’s radar, is artificial intelligence. I don’t think we’ve fully figured out how to leverage machine learning to advance oncology therapeutics—we’re really just scratching the surface. But with increasing computational power, I imagine that in the next five to ten years, we’ll see some strong ideas emerge around how to make AI a meaningful part of the arsenal against cancer. It could play a key role in integrating vast amounts of biological data to generate individualized treatment algorithms. That’s one exciting direction.
The second area is early detection. It’s somewhat intuitive—the more cancer a person has, the harder it is to treat. As we improve early detection technologies, such as blood-based screening, we’re starting to move into a space that lives between prevention and treatment. I think we’re making real progress in this area, and ten years from now, I expect our approach to cancer—especially in terms of early identification and intervention—will look very different from where we are today.
Is there anything you’d like to add that we did not cover?
I’d say that while we live in an age of uncertainty, there is no shortage of great science being done. That said, the gap between good science and effective treatments remains significant—we all understand that. It’s certainly not naive to acknowledge the risks involved; these are inherently high-risk ventures. Translating strong science into real-world therapies is incredibly challenging.
Still, I want to highlight something I often reflect on when speaking with peers and colleagues: these are incredibly smart, dedicated people who are deeply committed to helping patients. Whether it’s in oncology, where I focus, or in rare diseases or neurology—which is more my wife’s domain—there’s a shared drive to make a difference. People are working tirelessly, and I hope that their efforts will not only continue but also be meaningfully rewarded.
