News Article | June 14, 2017
As executive partner at Flagship, Mr. Berenson will join Flagship's Investment and Management Committees. He will focus on capital formation at the fund and portfolio company levels and will help the firm's management teams grow and realize value. Mr. Berenson will also drive strategic and operational improvements across the firm and its 35 companies, help deepen relationships with critical external partners and serve on the boards of directors of select portfolio companies. "Flagship Pioneering is unparalleled in its ability to create bold and disruptive life science companies that create significant value in human health and sustainability," said Mr. Berenson. "The firm and its ecosystem are envisioning and creating new, exciting possibilities for the world, and I look forward to collaborating with this impressive group of executives and entrepreneurial scientists to capitalize on the incredible potential and impact of the firm and its portfolio of life science innovations." Mr. Berenson joins Flagship Pioneering following the appointments of other leading industry executives including Executive Partner David Epstein, former CEO of Novartis Pharmaceuticals; Chief Medical Officer Dr. Michael Rosenblatt, former CMO of Merck; and Senior Partner Jim Gilbert, formerly of Boston Scientific and Bain & Company. About Stephen Berenson Mr. Berenson joins Flagship from J.P. Morgan after more than 33 years with the firm as an investment banker, where he worked across all major geographies, product areas and industry groups. Mr. Berenson played key roles in building J.P. Morgan's M&A, equities and technology investment banking businesses. During his last twelve years at J.P. Morgan, he was vice chairman of investment banking and focused on providing high-touch strategic advice and complex transaction execution to leading companies across all industries globally. He was co-founder of J.P. Morgan's Global Strategic Advisory Council and co-founder of the firm's Board Initiative. During Mr. Berenson's leadership of the Board Initiative, more than 1,000 independent directors of public companies attended at least one of J.P. Morgan's board events to discuss, debate and share best practices on the key issues they faced in the fulfillment of their duties. Mr. Berenson also made important contributions to J.P. Morgan's culture through his deep support of recruiting, training and development, and mentoring, and he helped to build and maintain a robust control environment through his participation on the firm's Equity Underwriting and Reputational Risk Committees. Mr. Berenson holds an S.B. in mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a member of the board of trustees of the Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. About Flagship Pioneering Flagship Pioneering conceives, creates, resources and develops first-in-category life sciences companies. Its institutional innovation foundry, Flagship VentureLabs®, is where Flagship's team of scientific entrepreneurs systematically evolves enterprising ideas into new fields or previously undiscovered areas of science into real-world inventions and ventures. Since its launch in 2000, the firm has applied its hypothesis-driven innovation process to originate and foster nearly 100 scientific ventures, resulting in over $20 billion in aggregate value, 500+ issued patents and more than 45 clinical trials for novel therapeutic agents. Since inception, Flagship has capitalized its growing portfolio with over $1 billion coming from $1.75 billion of aggregate investor capital committed across five funds. The firm's current portfolio includes pioneering ventures that are transforming human health and sustainability, including: Agios Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: AGIO), Editas Medicine (NASDAQ: EDIT), Seres Therapeutics (NASDAQ: MCRB) and Syros Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: SYRS), as well as private companies, including Axcella Health, Indigo Agriculture, Moderna Therapeutics and Rubius Therapeutics. Flagship has ongoing corporate innovation alliances with several market leaders, including: AstraZeneca, the Crop Science Division of Bayer and Nestlé Health Science. To learn more about Flagship Pioneering, please visit our website: www.FlagshipPioneering.com. To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/jp-morgan-vice-chairman-stephen-berenson-joins-flagship-pioneering-300473519.html
Andreu-Vieyra C.,Oncotherapeutics |
Berenson J.R.,Oncotherapeutics |
Berenson J.R.,Institute for Myeloma and Bone Cancer Research |
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy | Year: 2014
Introduction: Advances in drug therapy for multiple myeloma (MM) during the previous decade have improved survival outcomes; however, the disease remains incurable as patients eventually relapse or become refractory to all available therapies. Therefore, there is a clear need for more effective and well-tolerated treatments. Areas covered: We review preclinical and clinical data regarding the use of carfilzomib, a proteasome inhibitor that is structurally and mechanistically distinct from bortezomib, for the treatment of MM patients. Carfilzomib pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety and tolerability are summarized, based on Phase I/II trial data. Expert opinion: Carfilzomib represents a significant advance in the management of relapsed and/or refractory MM patients, including those intolerant or resistant to bortezomib. High response rates have been demonstrated with carfilzomib as a single agent or in combination with alkylating agents, immunomodulators and corticosteroids, even among patients who have failed multiple prior therapies. Carfilzomib also has significant potential in the frontline setting, with encouraging response and survival rates observed for combination regimens. Further evaluation of carfilzomib-containing regimens is ongoing in Phase III trials and investigator-sponsored studies, which include combinations with novel investigational agents. These findings will shape the future role of carfilzomib for MM patients across multiple settings. © 2014 Informa UK, Ltd.
Eldaief M.C.,Berenson |
Press D.Z.,Harvard University |
Pascual-Leone A.,Harvard University
Neurology: Clinical Practice | Year: 2013
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a neuro-physiologic technique to noninvasively induce a controlled current pulse in a prespecified cortical target. This can be used to transiently disrupt the function of the targeted cortical region and explore causal relations to behavior, assess cortical reactivity, and map out functionally relevant brain regions, for example during presurgical assessments. Particularly when applied repetitively, TMS can modify cortical excitability and the effects can propagate trans-synaptically to interconnected cortical, subcortical, and spinal cord regions. As such, TMS can be used to assess the functional integrity of neural circuits and to modulate brain activity with potential therapeutic intent. © 2013 American Academy of Neurology.
Common metal drawer pulls; Common metal pulls; Metal handles for kitchen and bath cabinets; Metal knobs; Metal pulls for kitchen and bath cabinets.
Berenson | Date: 2012-02-07
Common metal drawer pulls; Common metal pulls; Metal bathroom hardware, namely, pulls; Metal handles for kitchen and bath cabinets; Metal knobs; Metal pulls for kitchen and bath cabinets.
Berenson | Date: 2012-02-07
Common metal drawer pulls; Common metal pulls; Metal bathroom hardware, namely, pulls; Metal pulls for kitchen and bath cabinets.
Berenson | Date: 2012-01-31
Common metal pulls; Metal bathroom hardware, namely, pulls; Metal handles for kitchen and bath cabinets; Metal knobs; Metal pulls for kitchen and bath cabinets.
Berenson | Date: 2016-01-05
Common metal drawer pulls; Common metal pulls; Metal bathroom hardware, namely, pulls; Metal knobs; Metal pulls for kitchen and bath cabinets.
News Article | June 7, 2015
POMONA, California – A robot is going to save your life or the life of someone you love. A small team of researchers, scientists and engineers from South Korea just proved that this is possible — and they won $2 million in the process. Their victory wasn't fast or a particularity dramatic one, but Team KAIST’s DRC-Hubo robot slowly and methodically proved that robots could take on the rough and dangerous job of disaster response, going (in a simulated environment) where no human should go. The students, professors, engineers and coders with the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) remotely guided and programmed DRC-Hubo through eight tasks for the 2015 DARPA Robotics Challenge, a competition to develop semiautonomous robots that can help with disaster-relief operations. These eight tasks may seem easy to humans — driving a car, getting out of it, opening a door and walking through it, turning a valve, walking over rubble, climbing stairs, drilling a hole –- but here's the catch: They must perform them in the aftermath of a highly toxic nuclear meltdown. For DARPA's Robotics Challenge, the goal isn't simply to see if robots can perform the same tasks as humans, but to see if they can do them in places where humans should never venture. "We model the task environment on what happened in Fukishima," said Dr. Gill Pratt, program manager in DARPA's Defense Sciences Office and architect of the Robotics Challenge. During the challenge, there were 24 teams from around the world who competed over three days, Many failed at tasks, or skipped them altogether. We saw Carnegie Mellon Institute's CHIMP fall over, as it walked through a door, only to remarkably recover — to the cheers of the Fairplex sports facility crowd that filled the viewing stands — and complete all of the tasks. Even the winner, KAIST’s DRC-Hubo, stumbled on the drilling task. It skillfully picked up the correct drill, but then missed the sheetrock target and instead pressed a drill bit into a brick wall, snapping the bit off. DRC-Hubo showed determination, though, and tried to drill out a hole in the sheetrock with half a bit. But it failed, and was forced to repeat the task. Similar incidents occurred throughout the competition, with robots skipping tasks and repeating them in an effort to gain another point (each task was worth one). Of course, each robot had exactly one hour to complete all of the tasks. So setbacks like a fall or improperly completed tasks often proved costly to teams that had to redo a task or skip it altogether. Despite the high stakes — $2 million to the winning team, $1 million to second place (Running Man from Team IHMC) and $500,000 to third place (CHIMP from Team Tartan Rescue) — the robots appeared to move at a glacial pace. Part of this had to do with the quality of communications. DARPA purposely made the communications situation poor to recreate conditions that these robots and their managers may encounter on the ground in a disaster situation. It could sometimes take minutes for a command to reach the robots. The other reason was caution. Professor Dimitri Berenson, a CMU and WPI team member, told Mashable that the teams were especially cautious on Thursday, the first day of the finals. That's becuse no team or robot was being scored; everyone was just battling for position in the scored finals on Friday and Saturday. Some teams believed that performing later in the last two days of competition might give them an edge, but Berenson wasn't so sure about that. "We're at the point where we don't want to make any changes to the software. So extra time won’t make a difference," he said. That was true for many of the teams, which — even though they only had an outline of the challenges, but not the exact conditions — were not trying to recode to more effectively handle tasks. Instead, they had to deal with many obstacles on the fly. In fact, one surprise task changed between day one and two. It was a switch on the first day, but robots and the teams were faced with a pair of magnetized outlets on day two, and the robots had to move the plug from one outlet to the other. DARPA's Pratt said the teams were only told the night before the change. When we visited the teams in the "Garage" before the last round of competition, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory RoboSimian’s team was busy programming against a mockup of the new outlet task. Engineer Brett Kennedy, told Mashable that while he was concerned about a new unknown task, he liked how it reflected exactly what rescue teams might encounter in the field. In the end, RoboSimian never completed that task. There was also concern that one of these robots — which can weigh 300 pounds — could take a tumble on day one if the teams pushed too hard. "It's nerve wracking," Berenson said. "One false step and the robot could be out of commission." "Yesterday doesn’t matter," said Dr. Peter Neuhaus a senior research scientist at IHMC who, along with his team, were frantically preparing their robot for its final run through the course. The day before, they had scored seven, but purposely left out stair climbing. "We already fell once," Neuhaus said. He believed three teams would score eight that day, so "to win you have to have eight." That meant IHMC would take its chances on the stairs. By the end of the day, IMHC stood on the stairs with its robot arms raised over its head. To a certain extent, this entire Robotics Challenge is risky for the teams. Prior to the competition, none had even run their robots without tethers to hold them up, Pratt said. But that's the point. The challenge "kicks robotics out of the labs and outdoors," he added. It’s a philosophy that flies in the face of lab technicians' desire to play it safe While the majority of competition robots were what you might call humanoid, there were several that looked like multi-armed spiders, octopi and other more terrifying things. Team NEDO’s Hydra lived up to its name with a tangle of wires, bars and very little recognizable body, while Team Grit’s Cog-Burn looked like a walking table. Other robots looked like brothers — not surprising when you consider that roughly eight teams were using Boston Robotics’ (a Google company) Atlas Robot. Engineers told Mashable that they had done little to change the robots, but every team selected their own grippers; this is a key decision since each competing robot would have to use its "hands" or gripping technology to turn a valve, pull a light switch, hold a car's steering wheel and wield a drill. According to TORC software engineer Shawn Hanna, the Atlas-based Florian from Team ViGR (another Atlas robot) features Robotique grippers. Hanna explained, though, that the grippers were modified with small Raspberry Pi computers surrounding them to drive cameras inside the gripper. The variations in grippers and design led to some unusual solutions for these seemingly mundane tasks. Winning robot DRC-Hubo, for example, walked up the stairs backwards quite well, and CMU’s CMHIP steered the jeep with the treads on one of its arms. That said, the robots are are only semi-autonomous. Certain tasks for some teams, such as driving, are done via remote control. TORC’s Hanna told Mashable that his team controls ViGR’s driving skills via joystick. Other tasks, like stair climbing, "are all robot." "The robot tells us the path it wants to take, we verify it and then say, ‘Go ahead,'" Hanna explained. But even that little interaction can be excruciating. Because of the communications constraints imposed by DARPA, "we send really tiny commands," he added. This slow back-and-forth results in a lot of robots just standing around, doing nothing, as they wait for their next commands. So, yes, there were many long silences on the field, while the robots competed in four identical tracks, broken only by shouts of encouragement and instructions from fans and team members. Each time a robot completed a task, there were cheers and high-fives, but when they failed or fell over — which happened quite often — there were gasps. Pratt told Mashable there were lots of moving parts at the Robotics Challenge, but managing all of them, as well as the 300 DARPA and Defense Department employees on site was not the most difficult part. Instead, "getting this contest to just the right level of difficulty" was the hardest part, he said. Based on the results, though, Pratt thinks they got it right. After CMU conquered the DARPA Grand Challenge for autonomous driving in 2005, engineers from many of the competing teams entered private industry, and for the better part of a decade, driverless cars entered a period of gestation, according to Pratt. Now, Google, Uber, Delphi, as well as every major automaker are investing in the technology. Disaster-response robots will likely enter a similar period of gestation, but because there’s less demand for them than driverless cars, Pratt said he thinks we’ll initially see related technologies appear in sectors like healthcare, eldercare and local rescue response. Eventually, though, the technology will migrate back to disaster zones, though it's unclear when that will happen. Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.