Biotech Growth Opportunities

Everyone keeps asking if biotech is back. It is. Just not in the way people think. At the start of this year, a handful of companies raised over a billion dollars in a matter of weeks. Aktis. Eikon. Generate. There was no celebration, no signal that the IPO window had swung open again. The money just…showed up. But only for a certain kind of company. That’s the part people are missing. For the better part of a decade, biotech was funded on possibility. If the science was interesting enough, the rest could be figured out later. Manufacturing, reimbursement, regulatory strategy those were downstream problems. Now they’re the only problems that matter. The question has quietly changed from “does this work?” to “can you actually build a company around it before you run out of money?” Most can’t. And the market has started to reflect that in ways that don’t look like a comeback at all. IPOs are happening, but only for companies that already look inevitable. M&A is doing the heavy lifting. Partnerships have stopped being strategic and started being structural. Even AI, which for a while could carry a story on its own, is being judged the same way everything else is. Not on what it promises, but on whether it shortens timelines, improves trials, or makes something cheaper. What looked like a downturn over the last two years was really something else entirely. A filtering process. About forty thousand people lost their jobs, capital pulled back, and a lot of companies quietly disappeared. That wasn’t contraction. It was selection. The tourists left. The operators stayed. Biotech didn’t lose its ambition. It just lost its tolerance for things that don’t translate into real patient impact. That’s a very different industry than the one we were all operating in a few years ago. I wrote about this shift and where it goes next in my latest piece for The Medicine Maker: https://lnkd.in/gRKjYCZ3 #biotech #lifesciences #venturecapital #healthcare #drugdevelopment #ai

In August, biotech and pharma companies laid off 19,000 people, a 142% increase vs. August 2024 and the highest of any sector. Biotech just had one of its most damaging months in years. This excellent article by Boston Globe Media's Kara Miller illustrates the human and strategic cost. Take NextRNA: A Boston startup advancing non-coding RNA, backed by Bayer: When financing tightened and a July data package slipped, all 27 employees, including the founder-CEO, were let go. They are not alone. Kojin Therapeutics, Abata Therapeutics, iTeos, and others have shut down or cut deeply. Entire pipelines in oncology, neuro, immunology, and rare disease may never reach patients, not because the science failed, but because the environment did. Industry leaders quoted in the article highlight what’s at stake: • Founders who spent 5–7 years advancing programs can no longer finish the R&D cycle. • Thousands of experienced scientists are now navigating one of the toughest job markets in biotech’s history. • The knowledge embedded inside early teams, the hardest thing to rebuild disappears instantly. • Universities face financial strain and tighter immigration pathways, limiting the next generation of scientific talent. • The US downturn coincides with a rapidly strengthening biotech ecosystem in China, shifting where discovery and development are happening. For hubs like Boston, this is not abstract. Biotech is a major economic engine. Persistent shutdowns mean fewer high-paying jobs, less lab demand, and a potential outflow of talent. The long-term implication is clear: If early-stage biotech weakens, the entire innovation pipeline weakens. Large pharma depends on these companies to refill portfolios, especially heading into the 2028–2030 patent cliff. Signals for leadership teams: 1. Protect the core program: Prioritize assets with the strongest regulatory logic and payer rationale. 2. Build optionality early: Regional licensing, structured partnerships, and royalty-based capital extend runway without relying solely on equity markets. 3. Treat knowledge as a strategic asset: Codify scientific decisions, CMC logic, & development frameworks so progress is not lost during downturns. 4. Stay BD-ready: Clean IP, validated CMC, & a coherent value story shorten diligence and materially improve deal outcomes. 5. Track geopolitical shifts: If early US innovation contracts while China accelerates, the center of gravity for drug discovery may shift faster than expected. There are signs that the "biotech winter" is ending. That is good news. However, the US biotech sector needs to quickly become more efficient if it is to compete globally. Time to market remains long, costs high, and risks high. Driving efficiency in the system is essential to its survival in the long term. Unless companies protect their scientific core and stay transaction-ready, this cycle could define the next decade of medicines.

VCs want Phase I data before they write cheques. But companies often need funding to get to Phase I. It's a Catch-22 that's killing brilliant science. I’ve been doing a lot of Executive Searches lately, and I’m seeing this everywhere… Companies with compelling preclinical data often struggle to raise Series A. VCs are demanding de-risked investments. Big pharma has become more selective. And breakthrough therapies are dying in the lab. The irony is that this "cautious" approach is creating MORE risk, not less. When you starve early-stage innovation, you get less diversification and fewer breakthrough therapies in the pipeline. (The VCs sitting on capital today will have fewer quality opportunities tomorrow.) So here’s what I’m telling the biotech leaders I work with… Stop chasing the VCs who want certainty. Focus on finding the rare investors who recognise that breakthrough innovation requires taking on breakthrough risk. (They exist. They're just harder to find.) The companies that survive this funding winter won't just be the ones with the best science. They’ll be the ones who dared to keep building when everyone else was paralysed by fear. Innovation doesn't wait for perfect conditions. Neither should you.

Switzerland attracted CHF 2.95B in VC funding in 2025 (+23.9% YoY)... so why do so many biotech and HealthTech startups still struggle to scale globally? Because Switzerland rarely has an innovation problem. It has a capital sequencing problem. I’ve been mapping the Switzerland Biotech Funding Stack, and one pattern keeps showing up: Many founders optimize for: - scientific prestige - grants - patents - seed rounds But later-stage investors are underwriting something different: - commercialization readiness - strategic buyer fit - regulatory timing - global expansion logic - capital efficiency That gap is where momentum gets lost. So I structured the Swiss ecosystem into 4 practical layers: 1️⃣ Research Engines: Where defensibility gets built. - Think: ETH Zürich, EPFL, University of Zurich, CHUV, PSI, SIB, CSEM. - Switzerland remains one of Europe’s strongest deeptech ecosystems because world-class IP keeps getting created. - But IP alone does not create venture returns. 2️⃣ Startup Builders: Where science becomes fundable. - Think: venturelab, BaseLaunch, FONGIT, DayOne, EPFL Innovation Park, Biopôle. - This layer is underrated. - It’s often the difference between: “great research project” vs “real company investors can back.” 3️⃣ Seed Catalysts: Where early momentum gets financed. - Think: Innosuisse, Venture Kick, redalpine, Verve, Wingman, SICTIC. - Strong early capital helps. - But many teams get trapped optimizing for seed validation, instead of building proof for the next round. 4️⃣ Growth Syndicates: Where scale pressure begins. - Think: HBM, EQT Life Sciences, Forbion, Medicxi, Pureos, Sofinnova, RA Capital, Novo Holdings. - This capital does not fund science alone. It funds: - market timing - strategic leverage - repeatable growth - credible exit pathways That’s the real Swiss bottleneck. Switzerland has deep capital pools — but later-stage leverage is concentrated among startups that can translate science into commercial scale narratives. Practical Founder Question: Are you building something impressive inside one layer of the Swiss system... Or building a company that fits the entire funding stack? Because the ROI of getting this right is massive: ✔ lower fundraising friction ✔ stronger investor fit ✔ better pharma partnership readiness ✔ higher valuation leverage ✔ faster path from lab story → scale story That’s why I created: • the full Switzerland Funding Stack visual • a deeper blog breaking down the ecosystem • a free Swiss Scale Readiness Diagnostic Tool for founders + investors Comment SWISS STACK and I’ll send it. If you're a biotech / HealthTech founder raising in Europe, this could save you months of avoidable friction.

Europe has an investment gap - and a very specific one at that: in biotechnology. This is despite the fact that Europe is a world leader when it comes to basic research and scientific excellence. Ground-breaking ideas are generated in universities and research institutes here, but only a fraction of them make their way into marketable products. The figures speak for themselves: in Germany, just 0.01% of GDP is invested in biotechnology. Europe averages 0.02 %. The USA? 0.05 %. This means that while billions are invested in biotech in the USA every year, start-ups and scale-ups in Europe are struggling to survive right from the start. ➡️ Why is this problematic? At a time when biotechnology is providing answers to global challenges (from mRNA vaccines and cancer therapies to sustainable food production), we cannot afford this investment gap. Europe has the talent. But it lacks the capital to turn it into products. And it is no coincidence that many technologies that are invented in Europe are made successful in the USA. Why? 3 reasons: 1/ Better funding opportunities. The USA has a deep capital market that is willing to take risks. In 2023 alone, over 14 billion US dollars flowed into biotech start-ups there - many times more than what is available in Europe. 2/ Greater risk appetite among investors. While European investors often focus on security, US investors consciously invest in high-risk/high-reward projects. 3/ Faster regulatory processes. Anyone who founds a biotech start-up in the USA not only has more capital at their disposal, but also gets through the approval process more quickly. So what needs to happen? ✅ Massively increase public funding programs for biotech projects ✅ Create tax incentives for investors who invest in venture capital ✅ Reduce bureaucracy to make investments less complicated A look at successful locations shows that it is not enough to have outstanding researchers. You also need a functioning innovation ecosystem - and that starts with the right political decisions. If Europe wants to survive in the global biotech competition, this investment gap must be closed.

The biotechs that raised money in 2025 weren't the ones with the best data. I had 445 in-person meetings this year with life science CEOs, CFOs, and investors. The pattern was clear... Investors stopped funding the "best science." They started funding teams most likely to survive: - Regulatory chaos - Program failures - Capital scarcity Here's what separated survival from struggle... 1. They Expanded Capital Geography When $3.8B in NIH grants froze, three of my clients secured funding from European family offices and Asian biotech programs. The move: US capital sources remain selective. European family offices, sovereign funds, and overseas strategic investors are actively deploying. If your only fundraising conversations are domestic, you're ignoring available capital. 2. They Built a Regulatory Buffer A CFO told me their FDA contact's email bounced mid-approval. Three weeks later, it reactivated with no explanation. The FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research lost 385 employees in the first half of 2025, more than triple the prior year. Extended timelines became standard. The move: Budget 18-24 months of runway, not 12. Companies that used delays to strengthen data packages were ready when agencies responded. 3. Community Became Competitive Advantage San Diego's life science ecosystem shares real-time intel on active investors, CRO performance, and which advisors overpromise. Isolated founders scrambled while connected ones had solutions before problems became existential. The move: Your peer network is better due diligence than any consultant. 4. Storytelling Closed Deals Great science alone didn't close deals. Teams that combined data with tight investment narratives, partnership paths, and de-risking milestones dramatically outperformed those who assumed science would speak for itself. The move: Investors need your de-risking roadmap first. Teams that answered up front closed deals while science-only pitches struggled. 5. They Moved Before Risk Compounded A client faced a European trial launch with significant USD/EUR exposure. They hedged early. When the dollar weakened 13% against the euro in 2025, that hedge prevented cost overruns. The move: Lean on specialized expertise early. Model risks and act before problems compound. What's Ahead? Multiple clients are exploring M&A, partnerships, and IPOs. With interest rates declining and capital markets thawing, the window is opening. 2025 rewarded teams that diversified capital, built regulatory buffers, invested in narrative alongside science, and made hard calls early. 2026 is shaping up to be the year of superior execution. Join Me in February If you're a life science founder or CFO preparing for 2026, I'm hosting a happy hour in San Diego on February 4th, limited to biotech operators. Reach out if interested, and I'll add you to the waitlist.

FDA funding cuts have perhaps created the biggest M&A opportunity in biotech history. Here’s what’s actually happening: Regulatory delays are forcing biotechs to burn through cash reserves they never planned to spend. Companies that budgeted 18 months for FDA review are now staring at 30+ month timelines with no additional runway. The math is brutal. Over 30% of public biotechs are trading below their cash value. These aren’t failed companies - they’re promising assets trapped in regulatory limbo. Smart buyers will see the opportunity. Big pharma and private equity firms are circling with $2.1 trillion in dry powder, able to scoop up innovation at fire-sale prices. What used to cost $500M in a competitive auction now goes for $200M in a distressed sale. This is a fundamental shift. Biotechs can no longer afford to go it alone through extended regulatory processes. M&A isn’t Plan B anymore - it’s Plan A for survival. The consolidation in 2025 won’t be driven by strategic vision. It’ll be driven by cash runway reality. Every biotech CEO should be stress-testing their burn rate against worst-case regulatory scenarios. Because the companies that wait too long won’t have buyers - they’ll have liquidators.

🔬 Biotech Funding Isn’t Cooling. It’s Concentrating. 🧠 I analysed every biotech deal >$10M from the past 180 days. $16.89B raised. 140 biopharma companies funded. But the capital isn’t spreading out - it’s narrowing in. Here’s what really happened: 💰 More than 40% of all funding went to just 10 companies. It’s not about early bets anymore - it’s moreso now about doubling down on the companies closest to inflection points. 📈 Therapeutic focus? The capital was loud and clear. • Oncology pulled in $4.83B across 38 companies (including Caris Life Sciences, Xilio Therapeutics, Inc., Nuvation Bio, Callio Therapeutics) • Immunology & Inflammation drew over $2.2B (including Jade Biosciences, Abcuro, Inc, Attovia Therapeutics) • Neurology & CNS saw another $2.19B (including Lundbeck, Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., Latigo Biotherapeutics, Inc., SiteOne Therapeutics, Inc.) • Rare diseases remained a high-interest niche: (including AZAFAROS B.V., Taysha Gene Therapies, Solid Biosciences) • Platform & Diversified Biotechs attracted $1.71B (including Eikon Therapeutics, Absci, AIRNA, Beam Therapeutics) 🧬 Modality trends? The big bets are clear: Gene & Cell Therapy: Major rounds into Solid Biosciences, Tune Therapeutics, and Taysha Gene Therapies show that belief in curative platforms is still strong. RNA & Oligo: Significant traction in programmable therapeutics - with Sirius Therapeutics, Inc., HAYA Therapeutics, and AIRNA all securing growth-stage capital. Antibody Platforms: ADCs and bispecifics are surging. Think Callio Therapeutics, Attovia Therapeutics. Small Molecules: Not dead - just targeted. Latigo Biotherapeutics, Inc. and SiteOne Therapeutics, Inc. are two clear signals that CNS/pain assets still matter when the mechanism is right. 💸 But the real shift? Capital structure. • 62% of all funding came from public companies via post-IPO equity or debt - including Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Insmed Incorporated, Ipsen, and Beam Therapeutics • Venture rounds (Series A - C) still accounted for $4.5B across 52 companies The bar is higher - but venture isn’t gone. • Debt financing alone accounted for $7.9B A strong strategic growth lever. 📍 Geographic capital flow is still skewed: • 84% of funding went to U.S. companies • Boston/Cambridge alone took $4.68B • The Bay Area and San Diego: $3.61B The capital stack is global in theory - but still very local in reality. 📌 What to Do with This • Investors → Concentrate bets. Platforms and pipelines are winning - not single-asset science. • Founders → Capital is flowing to companies with scale, infrastructure, and exit velocity. • Early-stage teams → Series A isn’t dead, but it’s selective. Show de-risked biology or stay lean. • Outside Boston/SF? → You’ll need sharper visibility. 85% of capital stayed in the U.S. It's not a market slowdown, but it is a shift - and one that's favouring the companies with real velocity. #Biotech #Funding #Oncology #VentureCapital

***Is this the pivot point for biotech financing?*** Two recent developments suggest the funding landscape is shifting—and that shift brings real opportunity. 1. Biogen’s “New Ventures” team launches Biogen is taking a strategic leap: instead of rebuilding in‑house early drug discovery, it’s investing in external research with the option to bring promising assets into its pipeline later. This lean, flexible model lets them scout globally! . 2. OrbiMed closes $1.86 billion fund On August 4, 2025, OrbiMed closed its largest-ever Royalty & Credit Opportunities Fund V, raising $1.86 b — significantly over its $1.75 b target. 🧬 What this means for biotech: 🔍 1. Optimism for early-stage science Biotech ventures now have more routes to validation beyond traditional VC. Deals with pharma or royalty funds like OrbiMed offer financial runway without equity dilution. 🤝 2. New forms of strategic partnership Biogen’s build‑to‑buy, option agreements or equity stakes model opens doors for structured collaborations. Sourcing globally aligns with high‑impact innovation, as Biogen focuses on immunology, rare disease—and beyond. 💰 3. De‑risked capital models are gaining momentum OrbiMed’s $1.86 B fund isn’t just capital—it’s a reflection of the premium on flexible, revenue‑linked financing. Pharma companies increasingly seek to externalize early risk and maintain optionality over promising assets. 📈 The bigger picture: Early-stage biotech is entering a strategic renaissance, with pharma and capital firms acting as ecosystem enablers rather than just acquirers. Non‑dilutive capital is growing up, matching earlier-stage deals by supporting clinical or pre‑commercial growth without sacrificing ownership. This dual front approach—early external scouting (Biogen) plus structured capital deployment (OrbiMed)—signals renewed confidence in biotech, even amid equity wobble. The message is clear: strategic capital is still flowing, and the smartest innovation will find its backers—even in turbulent markets. Would love to hear how others see this shaping deal flow and early-stage opportunity in the coming 12 months. 👉 As biotech leaders and founders, we should ask: How can tailored transaction structures generate strategic flexibility for both sides? https://lnkd.in/ea5h2dEz

AMERICA'S BIOTECH INNOVATION ENGINE IS STALLING What I found should alarm every founder, investor, and advocate in our ecosystem. Following up on the "what we need to do" to get biotech functional again. SBIR/STTR programs—America's largest source of non-dilutive startup funding—have been completely frozen since October 1, 2025. Zero new awards. Zero funding opportunities for hundreds of biotech companies. The Numbers: Biden Admin (2021-2024): SBIR/STTR grew 31% to $6.24B annually NIH budget increased 13% to $48.6B Federal R&D funding up 25% Trump Admin (2025-2026): SBIR/STTR authorization EXPIRED Oct 1, 2025 Proposed NIH cuts: -44% ($48B → $27B) Proposed NSF cuts: -56% ($9.1B → $3.9B) $3B+ in grants frozen Every month without reauthorization = $520M in frozen innovation funding. Congress has stalled competing proposals. Senator Ernst blocks the clean extension. Markey's expansion proposal is dead. Meanwhile, biotech startups are running out of runway. While some of this has been restored through court action, the uncertainty it creates is driving interest away from Biotech. The Devastation: VC isn't "backfilling" these reductions, it is following them, with Biotech VC funding down 40-57% in 2025. 92% of early-stage biotech executives say investors are fleeing. Biotech now represents just 8% of U.S. startup funding—a 20-year low. Phase IIB bridge awards that provided $2.25-4.5M for commercialization? Frozen. University partnerships? On hold indefinitely. This isn't just about federal grants. It's about the entire risk capital ecosystem that depends on SBIR/STTR to de-risk technologies. 110 biotech CEOs sent an open letter warning these cuts would have "catastrophic effects" on U.S. biomedical capabilities and our technological edge. Congress hasn't acted. We're watching American leadership in life sciences unravel in real-time. While we fight over bureaucracy, China continues investing billions. Europe, Canada and the world recruits our talent. The biotech pipeline in the US doesn't pause—it breaks. What We Need Now: Immediate reauthorization—even a 6-month clean extension would restart the engine. Congressional pressure—contact your senators and representatives TODAY! Industry unity—BIO, MassBio, Biocom, and regional orgs must escalate advocacy Alternative strategies—corporate partnerships, international funding, state programs I've worked in biotech incubation long enough to know: this funding environment is unprecedented. If you're a founder navigating this chaos, you're not alone. If you're a policymaker who can influence reauthorization—the time to act was three months ago. The second-best time is today. #Biotech #SBIR #STTR #StartupFunding #Innovation #LifeSciences #Entrepreneurship