TAMEST Member Profile: Lynda Chin, M.D. (NAM), Apricity Health
TAMEST Member Lynda Chin, M.D. (NAM) is a pioneering cancer genomic scientist, visionary entrepreneur and dedicated healthcare innovator whose career bridges medicine, technology and big data. As the Founder and CEO of Apricity Health, she champions the democratization of cutting-edge treatments, ensuring innovation reaches the broadest possible patient populations.
From her early work as a solo dermatologist in New York City, to leading groundbreaking advances in genomic medicine at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, to founding several biotech companies in cancer therapeutics and biomarkers, Dr. Chin’s journey has been driven by a deep commitment to transforming scientific discovery into accessible, equitable healthcare solutions.
Dr. Chin currently serves as the TAMEST Hill Prize in Technology Subcommittee Chair, and aims to help actively shape the future of medicine through strategic investments and fostering collaborations across academia, industry and public policy. TAMEST connected with Dr. Chin to learn more about her career, service to TAMEST and building vibrant ecosystems where diverse ideas and bold innovations thrive.
You are a renowned cancer genomic scientist and a leader in the application of technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning and big data. Tell us a little more about how you found your way to these fields.
Looking back, my journey wasn’t something I mapped out from the start. It evolved naturally from two core motivations. First, as a physician, I was drawn to helping individuals. However, I realized that science and research offer a way to help many people at once as opposed to helping one at a time. This curiosity led me to explore how discovery, particularly through technology and genomics, can have a broader impact. I became fascinated by how technology enables new insights into biology and disease, and how those discoveries can shape personalized medicine, shifting care from reactive to proactive and preventative.
Second, I also recognized that discovery alone isn’t enough. To truly make an impact, insights must be translated into real-world solutions, like products and services, that improve lives. This realization moved me from clinical practice to academic research, and then into the entrepreneurial and industry space, where I could help bridge the gap between innovation and delivery.
Whether it’s through developing new diagnostics, treatments or healthcare delivery models, my focus has always been on translating scientific breakthroughs into tangible outcomes that support healthier individuals and populations.
You’ve consistently focused on democratizing access to cutting-edge care. Talk about your decision to found Apricity Health and how you balance innovation with equity.
I founded Apricity Health to address a critical gap in healthcare: making cutting-edge treatments accessible to more people. Innovation means little if it doesn’t reach the patients who need it. My background in both clinical care and research has shown me that delivering healthcare services – especially equitably – is one of the hardest but most essential parts of the equation.
If the goal is real impact, we can’t settle for only serving a small percentage of the population. Equitable access isn’t optional; it’s fundamental to achieving meaningful outcomes. Equity also drives innovation. By reaching the broader 80–90% of patients who are often left out of research and care, we unlock new insights and opportunities for developing better treatments and technologies.
This isn’t just ethically right – it’s a smart strategy for value creation across the healthcare ecosystem. When more people are included, we not only expand market opportunities, but also gain the data and feedback needed to develop new medicines faster and improve the next generation of care. Equity and innovation are not in opposition; they strengthen each other.
Having founded several biotech companies in cancer therapeutics and biomarkers, what do you see as the current bottlenecks in translating genomic insights into clinically effective therapies?
A major bottleneck in translating genomic insights into effective therapies is our limited ability to learn directly from patients. While we’ve made great strides in building preclinical models and AI-powered systems, these tools do not fully replicate the complexity and diversity of human biology.
The models are only as good as the data they’re built on, which often excludes large portions of the population, especially the 80% underrepresented in research. Real progress depends on studying actual patient outcomes, particularly understanding why some respond to treatment while others do not, even with the same diagnosis and therapy. That level of insight can only come from high-quality, research-grade human data.
The challenge now lies in accessing that data at scale and across diverse populations. We have the technology and analytics to interpret complex genomic and clinical information, but we’re limited by fragmented systems and a lack of integration between healthcare delivery and life sciences research.
To overcome this, we need to build a true learning health system. One that continuously gathers and learns from data across an individual’s entire life, not just during episodes of illness. Connecting these currently siloed systems through the right infrastructure, policies and trust frameworks is both the greatest hurdle and the most promising opportunity ahead.
During your extensive career, you have worked at the intersection of academia, industry and public policy. What is your advice for fostering more effective collaboration across these sectors?
To foster effective collaboration between academia, industry and public policy, it’s essential to understand and respect what each sector needs and values. Collaboration only works when all parties benefit – even if no one gets everything they want.
For example, industry isn’t a charitable organization, and it needs to see value in a collaboration, just as academia operates under different incentives and measures of success. Instead of expecting one side to conform to the other, we must create space for both cultures to coexist and contribute in their own ways. Sustainable collaboration means acknowledging these differences and designing partnerships that work within them.
An example of this is how failure is viewed differently. In industry, quick “go/no-go” decisions are critical, and they will cut losses fast and move on. In academia, failure is part of the learning process, and a failed experiment doesn’t mean abandoning the project.
These perspectives can clash, but they don’t have to. Collaboration thrives when each side brings its strengths without expecting the other to fundamentally change. The goal isn’t to merge cultures but to build bridges between them, enabling innovation that neither could achieve alone.
You immigrated to the United States as a teenager, worked as a solo dermatologist in New York City, and later became a genomic pioneer. How have your personal experiences shaped your vision for healthcare and innovation?
Like most immigrants, I’ve always deeply valued the opportunities the United States offers, especially the chance to take risks, work hard and be rewarded for it. That entrepreneurial spirit is part of what makes America unique, and it shaped my mindset early on.
However, one of the most influential experiences in my journey wasn’t in academia or biotech – it was working as a solo practitioner. Practicing frontline medicine in a non-academic setting gave me firsthand insight into how most healthcare is delivered, far from the controlled environments of major research hospitals.
That experience grounded my perspective on innovation. It taught me that delivering care in the real world is often far more complex than what’s outlined in research or policy papers. If you haven’t lived that reality, it’s hard to design solutions that truly work at scale. Even though my time as a solo dermatologist was brief compared to other parts of my career, it continues to shape how I think about healthcare delivery, equity and practical innovation.
You were elected to the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) in 2012. What does being a NAM and TAMEST member mean to you?
Being elected to the National Academy of Medicine and becoming a member of TAMEST is obviously a huge honor, but more importantly, it carries a deep sense of responsibility to contribute. These organizations give scientists a collective voice and the credibility needed to uphold and protect trust in science. This trust is something especially crucial today. It’s not just about individual recognition, it’s about contributing and banding together to create a community that can help guide public understanding and policy through trusted, evidence-based perspectives.
You currently serve as the TAMEST Hill Prize in Technology Subcommittee Chair. What makes the Hill Prizes so unique and why do you volunteer your valuable time to this mission?
The Hill Prizes represent a rare kind of strategic philanthropic investment. It is one that prioritizes high-risk, high-reward ideas with the potential for outsized impact. In a landscape often dominated by short-term gains and flashy trends, the Hill Prizes stand out by supporting innovators whose work may not yet be popular or even proven but carries real potential to transform lives. These early, catalytic investments are critical for helping important but under-the-radar ideas gain the attention and momentum they need to move forward, especially when traditional funders or investors might shy away due to risk or lack of immediate returns.
I volunteer my time as the TAMEST Hill Prize in Technology Subcommittee Chair because I believe I can offer a broad perspective and help identify and guide these investments toward real-world impact. It’s not just about chasing the next big thing, it’s about recognizing the kinds of innovations that can truly move the needle in healthcare, technology and beyond. By focusing on long-term value rather than short-term flash, the Hill Prizes help ensure we continue fostering bold, meaningful innovation in Texas.
Why do you live and work in Texas?
I moved to Texas initially to build the first Department of Genomic Medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center and to bring drug discovery closer to patient care. I’ve stayed because Texas is incredibly diverse, especially in cities like Houston and Austin, and offers a rich culture that blends art, music, science and innovation.
The state’s pro-business policies and visionary investments from state-funded initiatives like the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) also creates a strong environment for growth, attracting people from all over the country and bringing together a mix of ideas from places like the Silicon Valley to Boston. This diversity isn’t just cultural but intellectual, fostering fresh perspectives by combining different industry and academic approaches.
Texas offers space, opportunity and a thriving ecosystem where both science and business can flourish. For me, it’s the right place to build products and services that make a real impact, and that’s why I live and work here.
