CEO of Mywebtechcare │ Social media trainer and premium ghostwriter for life sciences founders │ I help them become remarkable and generate more opportunities 💶

If you're a CEO or founder in the life sciences, here's a question worth asking: Is LinkedIn working for you, or are you still trying to make it work?

You're not alone.
Even brilliant biotech founders struggle to make LinkedIn a growth lever.
World-class science, but lacking visibility, positioning, and clear messaging?
That’s where I come in.

I’m Sébastien Simoncelli.
I’ve spent the last 3+ years helping life science leaders (CEOs, scientists, marketers) turn LinkedIn into a source of visibility, positioning, and opportunity.
Over 250 professionals have participated in my programs, coaching, training, and ghostwriting. I help them get results.
Let me show you how 👇

1️⃣ BiologIn is your launchpad for building a credible, magnetic LinkedIn presence.
It’s more than just theory. It’s a complete system.
Here’s what you get:
✅ Strategic training tailored for life science companies
✅ 3 to 6 months of personalised follow-up
✅ Time-saving tools and resources
✅ Access to a growing, supportive community
✅ One-on-one guidance from someone who lives and breathes LinkedIn for biotech

2️⃣ Coaching
Don’t want a complete program?
Need precision help on a specific issue?
That’s where coaching comes in.
I work directly with CEOs, marketers, and scientists to tackle concrete problems like:
➡ Optimising your LinkedIn profile
➡ Building a content machine
➡ Finding your editorial voice
➡ Structuring a smart networking strategy

3️⃣ Ghostwriting
Too busy to post?
Let me do it for you without losing your voice.
I write LinkedIn posts for CEOs in life sciences who want:
🧠 To build personal credibility
🔬 To explain complex science with clarity
🚀 To create opportunities without spending hours writing
Each post sounds like you because I capture how you speak, think, and lead.

👇 𝐅𝐀𝐐
1️⃣ Do I need a big following for this to work?
No. My methods work even if you're starting from scratch. What matters is clarity and consistency.

2️⃣ How much time do I need to invest?
It depends on the service. Training takes a few hours weekly, coaching is tailored, and ghostwriting saves you time.

3️⃣ Will the content sound like me?
Yes. My speciality is capturing your voice so the posts feel 100% authentic.

4️⃣ Is this for sales or visibility?
Both. Visibility is step one. But everything I do is geared toward creating real-world business opportunities.

If you’re ready to turn your LinkedIn presence into a strategic asset:
↳ Let's connect.
↳ Send me a message at ssimoncelli@mywebtechcare.com
↳ Call me on WhatsApp: +337.67.23.26.78

Sébastien Simoncelli

8,000 of you showed up. That still feels unreal.
Here's 8,000 lessons ... No.
This post is a thank-you. 🩶

1. To every single one of you who read, like, comment, and share. You are the reason for my success.
2. To my close network, who picked me up during the moments of doubt.
3. To every client and founder who trusts me and works with me.
4. To everyone who sent me a message to tell me how my content helped them.
5. To everyone who abandoned me last year.

I always tell my customers, "Give first, receive later."
Today, I'm the one receiving.

I'm so blessed to have built a career where simple interactions turn into relationships.
Grateful.

I hope this kind of career finds you too.

Four years ago, I almost quit LinkedIn. No clients. No traction. Posts that disappeared into the feed.
I persisted anyway.
That was the difference.

So if you're in the middle of that doubt right now, dear friends, keep going.

Sébastien Simoncelli

Founder of Mywebtechcare │ Helping biotech founders build credibility and generate opportunities online through clear and compelling content

Four years ago, I almost quit LinkedIn.

No clients.
No traction.
My posts disappeared into the feed.

At the time, I was helping life science companies. 
Complex science. 
Long sales cycles. 
Niche audience. 

It felt easier to blame the platform.

“This doesn’t work for biotech.”
“My audience isn’t here.”
“Founders don’t buy this way.”

I was wrong.
It was:
❌ No clear positioning.
❌ Messaging that sounded like everyone else.
❌ Content that informed, but didn’t move anyone.

In life sciences, results take time.
Clinical trials take years.
Regulatory approvals take patience.

But somehow, we expect visibility within 30 days.

Then I changed my strategy.
I stopped chasing engagement.

I focused on clarity:
→ Who exactly do I help?
→ What painful problem do they have?
→ What outcome do they care about?

One year later, the customers were there:
✅ 50+ in 2023.
✅ 70+ in 2024.
✅ 100+ in 2025.
All from LinkedIn only.

If you're a life science founder thinking LinkedIn "doesn't work":
Posting more won't help.
The solution? Clarity and relevance.

I persisted.
That was the key difference.

→ What's something in your founder journey you almost quit?

Nobody cares about my English level.
It took me years to realise this.

English is not my first language.
It was a struggle when I started my business.

I hesitated a long time.
I thought I needed to get more fluent before posting.

Then I started anyway, in January 2022.
My level wasn't great.

But my mentor pushed me.
How could I help people on LinkedIn if I wasn't willing to do it myself?

When I started, nobody cared about my English.

What people actually care about:
✅ How I help them solve their problem on LinkedIn.
✅ How I make them feel about their struggles.
✅ The clarity of what I share.

And it works. I get customers, and I speak English with all of them.

If you struggle to write your posts in English, here are my tips:
1️⃣ Don't try to look smart, just be clear.
2️⃣ Think about your audience and how to help them, not how to look good.
3️⃣ Use tools to correct you, but don't let them replace you. Your imperfection is what makes you remarkable.
4️⃣ You will make mistakes. Laugh about it. Nobody died. 😉

→ What is stopping you from posting in English right now?

Life sciences founders
Writing great content is not enough.
The signals you send to investors make the difference.

I learned that from one of my customers.
Her content was amazing and generated significant engagement.
But after a few months ... zero investor discussions.

Why?
❌ She wasn't showing decision-making.
❌ She avoided positioning.
❌ She didn't tie insights to business impact.
❌ She had no narratives over time.
❌ She wasn't visible in the right rooms.

I gave her 6 tips:
1️⃣ Stop explaining, start taking a stance.
2️⃣ Show decisions, not just insights.
3️⃣ Translate everything into risk.
4️⃣ Build a visible narrative over time.
5️⃣ Write for one specific reader: the investor you want.
6️⃣ Make your thinking legible in 10 seconds.

Her shift: "Explain the science clearly" → "Signal how I think, decide, and build."

The results?
✅ Two investors reached out within 3 months.
✅ In their first calls, they referenced specific posts.
✅ Their questions were sharper because they already understood her thinking.

She didn't just write more content or better content.
She started sending better signals.

→ Which of these 6 tips is hardest for you to implement?

The founder needs strategic signals to get investor attention. But instead of grabbing that lifeline, they high-five their engagement metrics and keep drowning.

“I don't have time to study other content creators."
I hear this from life sciences founders every week.
So I do it for them.

Every week, I spend an afternoon looking for content that generated high engagement and try to learn from it. Because of that:
✅ I learned more than I could in books about copywriting.
✅ I use these techniques in my posts and improve them.
✅ I can teach my customers these techniques.

In this week's newsletter edition, I shared 3 great examples I saw last month:
1️⃣ Kambis Kohansal Vajargah shared a personal example.
2️⃣ Hanna Larsson explained an issue she observed.
3️⃣ Hristo Butchvarov highlighted lessons from an experience.

All of them will teach you:
→ Why the most-shared posts aren't the most polished.
→ How specific details build more trust than broad claims.
→ Simple structures you can copy for your next post.
→ Why advice only lands when you've earned the right to give it.
→ How to write endings that invite real comments.

If you want to learn more about these lessons and see how you can use them, read the full edition here: https://lnkd.in/eC5hW5nm

→ Which of these 3 approaches will you try first?

Apparently, I spend my days scrolling LinkedIn and making memes.
If only.

💻 My family: "He is always on his computer."
🧑🏻‍🔬 My friends: "You just post memes for scientists."
📝 My customers: "You just write posts, right?"
💶 Reality: I help life sciences founders stop being invisible.

Sound familiar? My customers get the same looks.

From the outside, their LinkedIn looks active and inspiring.
But when we dig deeper, we realise they're missing opportunities because their message doesn't align with their goals and audience.

That's the gap I help close.
Not content production.
We build familiarity, credibility and trust through LinkedIn.

It’s what generates opportunities.

→ What's the funniest misconception about your work?

A CFO told me he needed to post more.
I told him he was wrong.

He thought posting was the only solution to his problem.
I get it. But there's more to the picture.

Imagine you regularly get headaches.
The simplest solution: take medication to stop the effects.

But doing only that won't solve the problem.
You need to look at other aspects of your life:
- Are you getting enough sleep?
- Do you exercise?
- Do you eat healthily?
- Do you spend too much time in front of screens?

You need to analyse different factors to prevent headaches and adjust your lifestyle.

It’s the same for LinkedIn:
Posting alone won't generate opportunities if you ignore the rest:
- Is your profile optimised?
- Are your comments noteworthy?
- Is your network qualified?
- How do you collaborate with others?
- Do you use AI?

In the last edition of my newsletter, I broke down all 6 factors with specific actions you can take this week.
To find out more, read them here: https://lnkd.in/euvsSBjT

→ Which one have you been ignoring the longest?

Most life science founders I met underestimate LinkedIn.
When they realise it, their competitors have already won the platform.

Six mistakes that will hurt in five years:

1️⃣ Waiting until you "have time"

"I'll start after the next round."
"I'll post once the program launches."

Visibility compounds.

Founders who start early build years of credibility.
Those who wait realise their competitors already own the conversation.

2️⃣ Thinking the company page is enough

It isn't.
People follow people.

When a CEO posts:
↳ investors read the perspective
↳ partners notice the thinking
↳ candidates evaluate the leader

3️⃣ Using LinkedIn like a press release

You know the posts.

❌ "We are pleased to announce…"
❌ "Excited to share our latest milestone…"

Those posts rarely travel.

What works better:
↳ lessons from development
↳ decisions behind partnerships
↳ challenges in scaling science

4️⃣ Letting others shape the industry conversation

Every field has public debates.

Delivery.
Manufacturing.
Clinical trials.
Regulation.

If founders stay silent, others shape the narrative.

5️⃣ Relying only on conferences

Today, many relationships start earlier.

Someone reads your post.
Follows you for a few weeks.
Then, sends a message before the conference.

6️⃣ Posting without a system

Random posts lead to random results.

No capture process for insights from meetings.
No way to turn decisions into stories.
No rhythm to stay consistent.

Six months later, the founder wonders why nothing happened.

LinkedIn becomes extra work instead of a by-product of running the company.

→ Which one did you fall into? Or are you still postponing?

She hadn't posted in months.
Three weeks later, she had 3 leads.

She is a founder of a service provider working mainly with medtech companies.
She has strong expertise and many great ideas.
But no time to post.
She was inactive for months because of her work.

Our action plan:
→ We define an editorial line of 3 pillars (One of them: the mistakes she sees medtech companies make. Founders love that kind of honesty.)
→ We use voice notes to share ideas (5 minutes of her talking gives me more gold than an hour of writing ever could).
→ I mapped and defined her voice tone and writing style (Her natural voice was direct, confident, with a lot of humour, exactly what her audience needed.)
→ 1 post per week.

She saw the impact quickly after 3 posts:
- 1k+ impressions per post
- 200+ reactions
- 20 comments
- 3 leads
And it’s just the beginning.
I didn’t believe it would be so quick.
But the results are there.

Many founders have the same challenge:
❌ No time for writing.
❌ Low engagement.
❌ Missed opportunities.

Hiring a ghostwriter is:
✅ Saving time.
✅ Becoming visible to your target audience.
✅ Translating your expertise for them.
✅ Generating opportunities.

→ What's one thing you kept doing yourself for too long?

My mentor gave me the best advice ever:
"Build something useful you can scale with your customer."
I ignored it.
And wasted 3 years.

During 3 years, I was chasing every:
- customer,
- opportunity,
- short win.

The outcome?
→ a lot of small jobs,
→ small incomes,
→ exhaustion.

I was building a business on the wrong basis.
In the long-term game, it was a disaster.

The shift came when I stopped chasing and started building.
I spoke with my customers and prospects.
I asked for a lot of feedback about what I should improve.

That’s when things changed:
✅ 2 clear offers: BiologIn & ghostwriting.
✅ Better customers.
✅ Less noise, more focus.

→ It saved my business and my mental health.

My feedback for life sciences founders:
1️⃣ Exhaustion is a signal, not a badge of honour.
2️⃣ One focused offer beats ten scattered ones.
3️⃣ Feedback ﹥assumptions

If you are running after every shiny thing right now, pause.
Ask your customers what they really need.

These conversations are worth more than any trend.

→ What advice did you ignore that you wish you'd listened to?

57,500 impressions in February 2026. → Only 2 new clients.
Here's why that's a win.

My monthly routine was:
- 28 posts,
- 7 hours for writing them,
- 28 hours for commenting,
- 28 hours for connecting and messaging.

My performances on LinkedIn:
- 57,500 impressions (-5.7% vs. January).
- 21,598 members reached (+12.9%).
- 1,800 engagements (+6,6%).
- 210 new followers (1,8%).
These aren't viral numbers.
But they're business numbers:
✅ 23 leads,
✅ 21 calls with potential customers,
✅ 5 DMs about my services,
✅ 2 new customers (1 for BiologIn & 1 for ghostwriting)

What did I learn?
1) The case studies and their results generated the best leads (30% of them).
2) Personal stories bring me more followers and open around 20% of leads.
3) Time to connect and discuss is worth it (40% of leads)

For virality, things get harder.
But for business, things get better.
→ Less reach, but better quality of leads.

My feedback for life sciences founders:
1️⃣ You don’t need to post a lot to generate opportunities.
2️⃣ Focus on relevance and value, not virality.
3️⃣ Take time to connect and discuss, because just posting is not enough.
4️⃣ Be personal and build trust.

→ What matters more to you right now: reach or leads?

Too many life sciences founders track the wrong metrics.
They misread LinkedIn because of the wrong mental model.
And they miss so many opportunities.

Here is what many of them think:
❌ High impressions = success.
❌ Viral post = strong positioning.
❌ More followers = influence.
❌ Activity = outcomes.

But here's the problem: none of these tells you if you're actually building trust.

Six months later, they wonder why their content isn't opening doors.

I once had a post hit 140K impressions.
0 conversations came from it.
Another post got 800 views and led to 2 calls with biotech founders.

That's when I stopped chasing vanity metrics.
Now I treat metrics as diagnostic tools, not success indicators.

Metrics are here to answer these questions:
✅ Is my positioning clear?
✅ Am I attracting the right people?
✅ Is this turning into real opportunities?

If you can’t answer these questions, you are focusing on the wrong metrics.

What should you track?
In the PDF below, you’ll find the 8 metrics I track weekly and what each of them teaches me.

→ Which of these 4 myths have you fallen for?

LinkedIn performance

A biotech CEO was posting about his science. No one was responding.

He was trying to compress science into content.
That's the mistake.

The real approach: extract one useful idea from the science.

I taught him 5 ways to do it:

1️⃣ Start with the problem, not the experiment.
Nobody cares about the setup first.
Lead with the industry pain point.

2️⃣ Extract one insight from the dataset.
A dataset can produce ten conclusions.
A LinkedIn post needs one.
Ask: what surprised us?

3️⃣ Translate the insight into a real-world implication.
Scientists state the result.
Industry readers want the consequence.

4️⃣ Show a moment from the lab.
The moment a 1-micron shift changed the dose. 
The dataset contradicted assumptions. 
That makes science feel real.

5️⃣ End with a question that invites peers.
Not a conclusion. An open door.
That's where real conversations start.

This doesn't dilute the science.

It forces you to ask: what part of this experiment actually matters to the industry?

Once that's clear, the post almost writes itself.

→ When was the last time your science got polite likes but no conversations?

Last month, I analysed 754 posts from 103 life science founders.

Here's what I found:
→ 302 company announcements
→ 211 conference announcements or summaries
→ 108 generic industry commentaries
→ 44 press releases
→ 89 about actual science

The 89 science posts came from only 13 founders.

That's 12% of founders producing 100% of the science content.

The other 88%?
They look active.
They don't build authority.

Announcements show you exist.
Science content shows you think.

One gets polite likes.
The other gets conversations, partnerships, and trust.

So how do you start writing posts that actually build authority?

In today's newsletter, I share 7 ways to turn your scientific expertise into compelling LinkedIn posts.

Inside: the templates I use with customers to build their authority on LinkedIn.

Five of them already see the difference:
✅ More inbound leads from content.
✅ More events and podcast invitations.
✅ More DMs from industry leaders.

Let’s make you the next one.

→ What does your content mix look like right now?

PS: You can read today’s edition here: https://lnkd.in/e7zjxJmw

A life science founder learned this the hard way.

He thought "science content" had to sound like a research paper.
So he wrote posts like abstracts.

The result?
→ Scientists skimmed and said "accurate."
→ Everyone else left after a few seconds.
→ No one messaged him to continue the conversation.

Being correct ≠ being clear.

3 things were wrong:

1️⃣ He was translating words, not meaning.
He replaced jargon with slightly simpler jargon.
The posts were still dense. Still hard work to read.

2️⃣ He was hiding behind complexity.
Sounding technical felt safer.
If people didn't engage, he blamed the audience, not the post.

3️⃣ He forgot the real goal.
The goal wasn't to teach mechanisms to strangers.
It was to attract partners, clients, and talent who recognise a real problem worth solving.

That requires clarity, not density.

At first, it was frustrating and humiliating.
45 minutes writing a post. Polite likes. No conversations. No "let's talk."

Then doubt crept in.
Maybe he wasn't made for this.
Maybe LinkedIn was just noise.
Maybe he should stick to conferences and private discussions.

Sound familiar?

→ Have you ever felt like your expertise was working against you online?

She had great science. A strong team. A solid pipeline.
But online? Invisible.

A biotech CEO came to me last year.
Her competitors were louder.
Not better. Just louder.

So we focused on one thing:
→ Her unique point of view.

Not copying what others did.
Not chasing trends.
Not posting generic company updates.

Instead:
✅ She shared why she rejected a licensing deal others would take.
✅ She explained her unconventional hiring criteria.
✅ She talked about a regulatory setback and what it taught her.

Within 6 months:
→ 3 investor conversations started from her posts.
→ 2 partnership inquiries from people who read her content.
→ Her team started receiving inbound talent applications.

For the first time, she felt like the company's story was in her hands, not defined by silence.

The crowded field didn't change.
Her visibility did.

Louder < Clearer about what makes you different.

→ What's one thing that makes your approach different that you're not sharing publicly?

5 LinkedIn mistakes that cost me biotech clients.
I learned these the hard way.

1️⃣ Not optimising my profile first.
My message was confusing, and my positioning unclear.
When people visited my profile, they had no idea what I did or whom I helped.
Between my post and my profile, things didn't connect.
Your first impression matters. Make it clear.

2️⃣ Spending hours posting but not talking to anyone.
I thought content alone would bring clients, but I was so wrong.
LinkedIn is a conversation, not a broadcast.
When I started building relationships with comments and DMs, I generated more business opportunities than any post.

3️⃣ Using AI to comment on other posts just to look smart.
I’m not a scientist, and there are many topics I’m ignorant about.
I thought using AI would help me impress people with my knowledge and insights.
But people can tell, they are not stupid.
When I started asking questions and showing curiosity, everything changed.
People were happy to answer and help, and my honesty built trust and authenticity.

4️⃣ Not expanding my network every day.
I waited for people to find me because of my content.
That's not how it works, especially when you start.
5-10 connection requests per day to relevant people changed everything.
They saw my content more often, generating more discussions and opportunities.

5️⃣ Selling my services too quickly.
I pitched before I earned trust, and it annoyed a lot of people.
Nobody wants a sales message from a stranger.
I changed my strategy after one year:
Value → Relationships → Business opportunities.

These mistakes cost me months of progress and real opportunities.

→ Which of these mistakes have you made?

I made this mistake during my customer’s raise.
It cost us months.

While preparing for the round, I spoke with CEOs who had just closed strong financings.

They all said the same thing:
"Investors didn't discover us during the raise. They had been watching us for months."

That changed how I saw LinkedIn.

Most biotech founders go quiet for months.
Focused on data, deck, and investor list.

Then suddenly:
→ "We're raising…"
→ "Excited to announce…"

It's too late because you're asking for attention from people who don't know you or how you think.

What works is the opposite.

You document your thinking long before you need capital.
Not confidential data, but how you think about a therapeutic area.
Trade-offs you're making in development.
Lessons from failed experiments.

Over time, investors build familiarity.
They see how you think, which is what they really evaluate.

When you finally open the round, some already follow you, read your posts, have context.

The first call isn't an introduction. 
It's a continuation.

LinkedIn doesn't close your round. 
But it reduces the distance to the right investors.

→ Are you building visibility now, or waiting until you need it?

3 life sciences founders were posting on LinkedIn.
0 conversations, leads and opportunities.
6 months later, they're generating 10-18 leads per month.

This is why I created BiologIn: to empower them to implement an effective strategy and generate more opportunities.

Before BiologIn (monthly average):
→ 3 posts (events, hiring, publications)
→ 5% network growth
→ 5k impressions
→ 0 leads

6 months after BiologIn:
→ 8-10 posts
→ 47% network growth
→ 15k-40k impressions
→ 10-18 new leads
→ 1-3 new customers
→ 1 partnership

Why did it work?
They stopped writing for everyone and started writing for decision-makers.

✅ A better understanding of their audiences.
✅ Optimisation of their personal and company profile.
✅ A comment strategy to attract the right audience.
✅ An editorial line to generate more leads.
✅ Resources and processes to save time.
✅ A networking strategy adapted to their goals.

Do you post but don't generate enough opportunities?

→ What's the biggest obstacle stopping you from turning LinkedIn into a lead source?
👉 Send me a DM to see if BiologIn is for you.

6 months. 3 founders. Real results.

Before BiologIn:
- 0 leads	
- 5% network growth	
- 5k impressions	

After BiologIn:
- 10-18 leads
- 47% network growth
- 15k-40k impressions

Speed is killing life sciences founders.
Not the lack of it. The obsession with it.

Instant meals. Instant matches. Instant answers.
We expect the same from business: faster results, more hacks, less patience.

And with AI, the pressure is even worse.
Produce more. Post more. Be everywhere, all the time.

I see it with founders I work with.
They feel behind before they've even started.

But here's what I keep telling them:
❌ You can't fast-track reputation.
❌ You can't automate trust.
❌ You can't hack experience.

These take time.
They're what make people come back.
Refer you.
Choose you.

A founder I worked with spent 18 months building her presence.
No shortcuts. Just consistent thinking, shared openly.
When she finally needed investors, they already knew how she thought.

That's not slow.
That's strategic.

So if you're building something real in life sciences, take your time.
The founders who rush get forgotten.
Those who build trust are chosen.

→ What's one thing you're rushing that deserves more time?

Gene maker • CEO and Co-Founder of Camena Bio • Follow me for daily updates on the future of DNA synthesis

We're on a mission to build the world's leading DNA synthesis company. 

Would you like to be part of the journey?



When I was at the bench, I was lucky to live through two major technological advancements. 

1. Almost overnight, next-generation DNA sequencing technology changed our ability to read DNA.

"Don't think, just sequence" became our new lab phrase.


2. I also worked with several different genome editing tools. First, zinc finger nucleases, then TALENs, and then (BOOM) CRISPR. 

Suddenly, CRISPR had made genome editing easy. 

---

But one thing stayed the same during that time: DNA synthesis. 

The more high-throughput our ability to sequence and edit DNA became, the more problems we noticed with the synthetic DNA we were buying. 

And that's because that DNA synthesis tech was stuck. 

➟ We couldn't order many synthetic genes.
➟ The DNA we ordered was very error-prone.
➟ Phosphoramidite synthesis generates vast amounts of solvent waste.

---

So, as frustrated scientists, we set out to develop a new DNA synthesis technology and a great place to work. 

I have shared (and keep sharing) the ups and downs of building the business here, on Linedkin. 

If you'd like to join us, follow me.

Steve Harvey

AAV (adeno-associated virus) gene therapy requires three plasmids. Only one DNA fragment is meant to reach the patient. A new paper found all three in a patient.

To manufacture an AAV, you transfect HEK293 cells with three plasmids:

➟ One carrying the therapeutic gene
➟ One encoding the AAV rep/cap proteins
➟ One providing adenoviral helper functions

The cells produce AAV particles. You purify them out, leaving the plasmid DNA behind.

Or it should stay behind.

In the paper (UCL, Great Ormond Street Hospital), liver tissue was taken from a patient who developed hepatitis. Using long-read DNA sequencing, they found sequences from all three manufacturing plasmids in the liver.

The DNA was in bits and bobs (recombined and rearranged).

The paper doesn't claim these sequences caused the hepatitis. But it identifies a manufacturing challenge, and a new area for innovation.

Synthesising these plasmids and manufacturing AAVs is hard. But it's patient-worthy work.

p.s. I'll add the paper to the comments.

Gene maker • CEO and Co-Founder of Camena Bio • Follow me for updates on the future of DNA synthesis

taplio

The Battle

Sébastien Simoncelli

Steve Harvey

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreSébastien Simoncelli's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSteve Harvey's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Sébastien Simoncelli

Steve Harvey

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Sébastien Simoncelli's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSteve Harvey's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreSébastien Simoncelli's LinkedIn Performance