Karen Akinsanya: Yes. I mean, I think from a mechanism point of view, this is a PPI inhibitor. I think that mechanistically, they’re both very similar. I will say that obviously, we were in a position to benchmark our compound during the discovery phase of the program that we ran with BMS, and we’re very happy, I would say, with the profile of the compound. And BMS brought that program in on the basis of the work that we had done. So we remain excited about the molecule. I think obviously that molecule that they acquired through their acquisition is more advanced than ours. And so we have obviously work ahead of us as an industry actually to see how all these SOS1 compounds compare. So, yes, I think it’s too early obviously to say how they stack up against each other in the clinic.
Steven Mah: Okay. Got it. And how long do you think the evaluation will take, the internal evaluation, and what they proceed with it? Thank you.
Karen Akinsanya: It’s a little hard to determine. We obviously are very early in the process of getting data back from BMS, from the IMD-enabling studies they have been conducting. So I can’t say exactly, but I think obviously we’re in a hurry to understand the opportunity here. And again, we’re excited about the profile and what we’ve seen so far. So hopefully it won’t take too long.
Steven Mah: Okay. Great. Thanks for the questions.
Operator: We’ll move next to Michael Ryskin with Bank of America. Your line is open.
Michael Ryskin: Great. Thanks for the questions, guys. First, I want to just follow up on exactly that last point, the BMS discontinuation. In the past, I think when you’ve had some programs sent back, there might be a milestone fee or some sort of financials associated with it. I’m just curious, was anything like that recognized in the first quarter, or do you expect it in the second quarter? Just any other details around the process of reverting those rights?
Ramy Farid: Okay. Hi, Mike. I’m sure the answer is no. So because this program had transitioned to their portfolio, and we had a milestone from it previously associated with that transition, there isn’t any additional milestone or fee payable being returned to us, nor do we have any prior revenue that we accelerate. So it wasn’t a contributing factor in Q1.
Michael Ryskin: Okay. Easy answer. Thanks. And then for my follow-up, it’s been, I think, a couple quarters since you guys really talked about the material science part of the portfolio, so I thought I’d ask on that. Just any updates there, anything interesting to keep us to a priceless of? I know it’s always sort of in the background and doesn’t get a ton of light, but I just figured we’d see if there’s anything new going on there. Thanks.
Ramy Farid: Sure. Yes. So the thing that we’re most excited about on the material science side, as we talked about before, is we have this collaboration with Gates. The initial project was a three-year project. It went so well that it was actually renewed. And that was on the basis of really progress on the science. This is a really, really hard problem. And as with all really hard problems, we think success in the problem will have significant rewards. So we’re really pleased with the progress on the basic science. But that’s really the stage that we’re at. And that’s what we’re really excited about. We think if we’re successful in the project, as I said, it has the potential to have a really big impact. As far as the core business and the revenue for the business, as we said before, we don’t really break that down.
We’re pleased with the progress. We continue to add new customers. There continues to be scale-up of other customers. But we’re not really disclosing, we’re not breaking down the revenue into the different components. I hope that answers the question.
Michael Ryskin: Yes. Thank you.
Operator: We’ll take our next question from Matt Hewitt with Craig-Hallam Capital. Your line is open.
Matthew Hewitt: Good afternoon. Thank you for taking the questions. Maybe first up, and this kind of goes back to Geoffrey, some of your comments about the R&D expense kind of leveling off a little bit. As we look out over this year and maybe into next year, you’ve got a couple of Phase 1 trials that’ll be wrapping up, and then you’ve got Wee1, obviously, kind of kicking off. Is that part of the flattening of the R&D expense over the next, call it year, year and a half? Or is it more a function of kind of looking at those programs and trying to figure out where do we go next and which one do you want to kind of move on to Phase 2? Just help us out there.
Geoff Porges: Okay. Yes, I understand the question about the R&D trajectory. And in fact, the flattening is due to a different phenomenon, which is that we think that we are at scale with respect to our R&D investment in our platform. As I previously indicated, it’s a substantial portion of our R&D investment and where we think that this is such an exciting space and a dynamic industry environment, with still a lot of opportunity in terms of new discoveries, new research that we can then translate into capabilities in the platform. So we’re not dialing that back, but we don’t think that needs to get a lot larger. The second component of our R&D is our drug discovery organization. Not so much the development portion, but the investment that we’re making to come up with the next wave of molecules and the next wave after that.
Same general comment there. We can’t sort of manage 10 new programs a year or 15 new programs a year. And if we keep scaling up, that’s where we would head. So again, we think that we’re at scale in terms of the ability to discover the next wave of programs and the wave after that. So both of those pieces, we don’t see a lot of need to increase. Now, you correctly identified that there has been an increase in the investment on the clinical programs, but that total clinical spend is a relatively small portion of that overall R&D. We do expect that piece to go up, but the rest of the R&D space is likely to be pretty stable from here. And so that’s where you get that, we just don’t see a large other leg up from here. Is that clear?
Matthew Hewitt: Yes, no, that’s super helpful. Thank you. And then I guess separately on the software side. So last fall, obviously, and in particular, very challenging from a funding perspective. You’ve commented on how that likely weighed on some of your smaller customers kind of paring back or not renewing. As that funding environment is improving, and as more recently as China has announced new stimulus package there, are you starting, like how quickly will that turn around where you start to get those customers that maybe didn’t renew previously, they start coming back saying, okay, now we’re ready to re-engage. Is it pretty quickly or does it take quarters or how should we be thinking about the timing on as the environment improves, you’ll start to see that as well.
