Texas Biomed is a nonprofit infectious disease research institute that combines discovery science, high-containment research, and contract science to develop vaccines, therapies, and translational solutions against infectious disease threats.
Could you briefly tell us about your background and how you see Texas Biomed’s core mission today?
I’m trained as an MD and infectious disease specialist, and I practiced clinical medicine for 26 years. Throughout my career, though, I also performed biomedical research, which is really my passion. For more than 35 years, I worked in academia at university medical schools, leading major multidisciplinary programs in infectious disease and R&D. In 2017, I brought that background into the nonprofit world for the first time. What drew me was not only discovery-based research, but also the opportunity, as a physician-scientist, to translate science more effectively into the regulated space, to the FDA, and ultimately to the clinic.
At Texas Biomed, I believe we are accomplishing that.
My definition of infectious disease is not just about bugs. It is also about the people most vulnerable to infection.
So we are as focused on older individuals and people with cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes as we are on the infectious agents themselves. Our core mission is to protect you, your families, and the global community from the threat of infectious diseases. Linking our science to the community is really the focus of the Institute.
What makes Texas Biomed’s business structure unique?
Traditionally, nonprofit research institutes in the U.S. have relied heavily on NIH funding, both for the science itself and for the infrastructure that supports it. When I joined in 2017, I knew that would be a challenge for a nonprofit institute like ours. So we developed a structure with two main goals: first, to move discoveries more efficiently through the regulatory pathway to the FDA and into clinical trials, and second, to diversify our revenue base by engaging not just government, NGOs, and pharma, but also foundations and other national and international stakeholders.
That structure rests on two intersecting pillars. One is our discovery-based science program, which looks much like academia: dry and wet bench science, infectious agents, and grant funding. The other is Applied Science and Innovation, where we have built a large contract science organization within the Institute itself. That lets us connect fundamental research with contract science in a nimble, non-bureaucratic system. It also helps us build trusted relationships with customers, so when we generate intellectual property, we are not simply shopping it around cold. We can go directly to partners who already know our capabilities. That model has let us move much more quickly than a large academic institution could.
Does that make you relatively impervious to federal funding uncertainty, and how are you navigating the current uncertainty?
No, it does not. We have diversified, but we still have a large NIH portfolio. When I arrived in 2017, NIH represented about 85% of our annual grants and contract revenue. Now it is about 43%. That is not because it has shrunk in absolute terms; in fact, our annual revenue has grown to about three times what it was. So percentage-wise we are less dependent on NIH funding, but NIH is still the major funder of biomedical research, and policy changes have introduced real uncertainty around how and when that funding moves.
One challenge is that NIH funding is reimbursement-based. You do the science, submit the bills, and then get reimbursed. That process has slowed, and if you are building an annual budget at a nonprofit research institute, that creates pressure, especially later in the fiscal year. We meet weekly across finance and sponsored programs to make the pivots and adjustments we need. Because we are in the nonprofit space, we can do that more easily than a large institution. Our contract science organization also helps because it is more predictable. Our win rate is 75%, contracts typically run from one to five years, and that stability has been very helpful relative to the NIH revenue stream.
Which current focus areas at Texas Biomed excite you most?
The first is vaccines. If you look at the history of human health, there is no science more important than vaccine development. We continue to have robust programs on novel vaccine strategies, especially polyfunctional vaccines with more than one protein in them. We are using reverse genetic engineering to create vaccines that may provide broader protection against pandemic viruses and influenza. One of our goals is a universal influenza vaccine, as well as broader vaccines for respiratory viruses that may drive the next pandemic.
Equally important is understanding the immune response. Even among otherwise healthy people, immune responses to the same viral threat can vary enormously. We want to understand what defines those differences, because that could mean the difference between a vaccine that protects and one that does not. Imaging is central to that work, especially newer technologies like spatial imaging, which let us analyze disease at the site where it occurs. I am also very excited by the growing evidence that infection can have long-term consequences and can trigger non-communicable diseases. The divide between communicable and non-communicable disease is not as clear as people once thought, and those connections are going to change how we think about therapeutics.
Do you see Texas Biomed as having a role in rebuilding public trust in vaccines?
Absolutely. I think working on public trust is a fundamental goal of the Institute. The problems around vaccine confidence began well before the pandemic, and it became clear that we were not communicating effectively enough with the public. Texas Biomed sees itself as a leader in communicating science. In the STEM K-12 arena alone, we reach more than 16,000 students in the community each year, and we educate not only students, but also their science teachers, which helps us reach parents as well.
But K-12 is only the starting point. We think in terms of cradle to career, from school all the way through undergraduate, graduate, postdoc, staff, and scientists. We also hold public-facing events and outreach programs. What matters is meeting people where they are, listening, understanding where they get their information, and speaking in a way that is honest and interactive. At one event with more than 100 women with young children, we talked openly about what vaccines are, the different types, and what side effects mean. I began by saying no vaccine is 100% safe. That honesty immediately changes the conversation. Afterward, several mothers told us they felt reassured and went back to their pediatricians ready to continue with the recommended vaccine schedule.
Looking ahead over the next 12 months, what are your top priorities, and what message would you want readers to take away?
Our mission is becoming more and more important, and my number one priority is to accelerate infectious disease R&D, particularly around pathogens with pandemic potential. We will continue diversifying our revenue and expanding our customer base, working not only with the Department of Health and Human Services but also with the Department of Defense and international agencies like CEPI, where we are a prime contractor. We are also expanding our international efforts and strengthening our global health symposium platform as an interactive international space.
At the same time, we will continue our educational programming, and we are now on the back half of our 10-year strategic plan launched in 2019, which includes modernizing our campus. We currently have more than $220 million of building underway and are raising additional funds to modernize facilities for containment research, new technologies, imaging, and animal science. My message to readers is simple: we need to remain mission-focused and fact-oriented. I believe in rigorous, transparent science in which every platform is tested and validated. If we lose the opportunity to explore, we will lose the chance to find new therapies and vaccines.
