Robert Thorne, PhD, has spent more than three decades studying one of the central challenges in neuroscience: how to deliver therapeutics to the brain. After years in academia, including eight years as a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Thorne moved to biotechnology and joined Denali Therapeutics, where he is now a Denali Fellow and Head of the Postdoc Program. He also remains connected to academia as an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota.
Ahead of his September 11 visit to UC Berkeley as a Professional in Residence, I spoke with Thorne about what drew him to neuroscience, how research differs between academia and biotechnology, and the skills that can help graduate students and postdocs thrive in industry.
Yizi Mao: What first drew you to neuroscience and the challenge of delivering therapeutics to the brain?
Robert Thorne: For many of us who study something in science for a long time, there is often some precipitating event that stimulates our interest. That was the case for me.
When I was in college, my father developed non-small cell lung cancer that spread to his brain. He ultimately had multiple brain surgeries and died about a month after I graduated with my bachelor’s degree.
That experience initially stimulated my interest in two things. One was a lifelong interest in neuroscience, and the other, more specifically, was brain cancer. Shortly after my father passed away, I went to graduate school at the University of Minnesota and began studying central nervous system drug delivery in an Alzheimer’s laboratory.
From my earliest graduate work until today, my focus has remained on drug delivery to the brain—particularly proteins, therapeutics, growth factors, antibodies, and gene therapy vectors. After my PhD, I did a postdoc at the NYU School of Medicine studying macromolecule diffusion in brain tissue, which led me to where I am today.
YM: You spent much of your career in academia. What led you to make the move to Denali?
RT: About eight years ago, Denali’s CEO, Ryan Watts—someone I had known for many years—proposed a unique, academic-style role for me as a Denali Fellow. I function like an internal scholar in residence or consultant, using my experience to impact as many programs as possible across the company.
YM: What have you found to be the biggest differences between doing research in academia and doing research in biotech?
RT: Drug delivery to the brain is applied science, though I’ve approached it through basic science questions like understanding anatomical pathways and transport processes. So, there was already overlap for me.
The major difference is focus. Academics can be like “butterfly chasers”—if something fascinating flies through your field of view, you might spend six months exploring it. In industry, the focus is strictly on patients and advancing therapies toward the clinic efficiently. You see the butterfly, but you stay focused on the task at hand.
YM: Does that change the pace of science as well?
RT: Absolutely. Industry aims to generate high-quality data quickly enough to make clear “go/no-go” decisions. Sometimes you are just as happy to reach a well-supported decision to stop a project as you are to keep going. In academia, a five-year grant rarely allows you to pivot completely if a hypothesis runs into problems in year one. In biotech, the ability to pivot based on data is essential.
YM: What skills are important for trainees who want to transition into industry?
RT: Scientific communication is crucial. In an academic lab, people share similar backgrounds. Industry teams are highly multidisciplinary—you might present to protein engineers, toxicologists, pharmacologists, lawyers, and project managers.
You need to communicate clearly so everyone understands the problem and can contribute to decision making. Meetings are decision oriented: you set up the context, present the data, and make a recommendation so the team can align on the next step.
YM: Is that something trainees can begin practicing while they’re still in academia?
RT: Definitely. Use lab meetings to practice setting up problems, giving context, and connecting data to the bigger picture.
In industry, science is team centric. In academia, you often do everything yourself. In biotech, you focus on what you’re great at and collaborate with specialists for the rest—like imaging or single-cell RNA sequencing. You give up some academic freedom to pursue any question, but you gain access to specialized resources and expertise.
YM: What do you hope trainees take away from your upcoming Professional in Residence visit?
RT: First, practical insights on job searching in a competitive environment. I also want them to realize how much “industry” varies—a five-person stealth startup is completely different from a mature commercial biotech or a major pharmaceutical company. Looking at whether a company publishes research or attends conferences reveals a lot about its scientific culture.
Finally, I hope to discuss mentorship and allyship. Identifying people who advise, advocate for, and promote you throughout your career makes a real difference as you navigate your path.
Robert Thorne, PhD, is a Denali Fellow and Head of the Postdoc Program at Denali Therapeutics and an adjunct professor of pharmaceutics at the University of Minnesota. His research focuses on central nervous system barriers and the delivery and distribution of biologic therapeutics in the brain.
Thorne will visit UC Berkeley on September 11, 2026, as part of QB3-Berkeley’s Professional in Residence program. Graduate students and postdocs are invited to participate in his career discussion and mentoring sessions.
Yizi Mao is a postdoctoral researcher in the Streets lab at UC Berkeley, where she works on technology development in bioengineering. She is also a co-organizer of the QB3-Berkeley Postdoc Seminar Series.