Healthcare analytics, AI solutions for biological big data, providing an AI platform for the biotech, life sciences, medical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as for related technological approaches, i.e., curation and text analysis with machine learning and other activities related to AI applications to these industries.
FDA Moves Forward With Its Guidance Framework for Rare Disease Trials: 2026
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph,D.
In 2025, the Trump Administration had determined it wants to streamline the FDA and clinical trials in order to expedite much needed drugs for various terminal diseases such as cancer and rare childhood diseases. In 2026, under the guidance of the new FDA commissioner, Dr. Makary, the FDA initiated guidance for the proposed changes in February and available for comments at that time. This has been a growing discussion aver the years and the FDA wanted, for many years, to figure out they could speed bringing new therapies to market, especially for terminally ill patients. Given the progress of biomarkers development early in the drug discovery process and new computational technologies, the time seems to be ready for such changes in trial design and even for the long drug development process. In addition the FDA up to this point was focused on other matters so it wasn’t really at the forefront of their to do list.
FDA Launches Framework for Accelerating Development of Individualized Therapies for Ultra-Rare Diseases
For Immediate Release:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued draft guidance for sponsors seeking approval for targeted individualized therapies by generating substantial evidence of effectiveness and safety when randomized controlled trials are not feasible due to small patient populations.
The draft guidance, issued by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, specifically discusses genome editing and RNA-based therapies such as antisense oligonucleotides but leaves open the potential that this framework may apply to additional tailored therapeutics provided they directly address the underlying specific cause of the disease.
“President Trump promised to accelerate cures for American families — and we are delivering, especially for children with ultra-rare diseases who cannot afford to wait,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “We are cutting unnecessary red tape, aligning regulation with modern biology, and clearing a path for breakthrough treatments to reach the patients who need them most.”
“This guidance is a critical step the FDA is taking to tailor our regulatory approach to patients with ultra-rare conditions,” said FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, MD, MPH. “It is our priority to remove barriers and exercise regulatory flexibility to encourage scientific advances and deliver more cures and meaningful treatments for patients suffering from rare diseases.”
The draft guidance focuses on therapies that target a specific genetic, cellular or molecular abnormality and are designed to correct or modify the underlying cause of disease. Key criteria include:
Identifying the disease-causing abnormality.
Demonstrating the therapy targets the root cause or proximate biological pathway.
Relying on well-characterized natural history data in untreated patients.
Confirming successful target drugging or editing.
For traditional approval, therapies should demonstrate improvement in clinical outcomes, disease course, or biomarkers if they are established to predict clinical benefit.
“Designing treatments unique to individual patients has always been the promised goal of personalized medicine,” said Chief Medical and Scientific Officer and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH. “After 25 years the FDA has, for the first time, outlined a framework to facilitate these approvals. The Plausible Mechanism Framework is a revolutionary advance in regulatory science.”
“The Plausible Mechanism draft guidance creates a novel framework through which cutting-edge treatments tailor-made for patients with ultra-rare diseases can be used as a basis for FDA approval,” said Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Acting Director Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, Ph.D. “We anticipate our Plausible Mechanism draft guidance will inspire industry to place increased focus on individualized therapies, thereby driving innovation, improving safety, lowering costs and offering more patients with ultra-rare diseases a unique shot at a life-saving treatment.”
Because genome editing technologies are designed to be highly specific to unique DNA sequences, a product targeting different mutations in a single gene could be included in a single product application and potentially evaluated through the use of master protocols that evaluate these product variations in a single trial. A highly supported “plausible” mechanism of action may then be used to support the addition of other such genome editing product variants, intended to treat patients with mutations that were not included in the clinical trial used to support the original approval.
The FDA recognizes that an adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation in this context will include a small sample size, therefore, investigation results should be sufficiently robust to exclude chance findings. When determining effectiveness, the FDA considers the specific disease, the strength of the evidence and the challenges of conducting clinical investigations for individualized therapies.
In June of 2026, the FDA formalized their discussion into guidelines for discussion so it appears the following are not set into register of regulations as of yet.
Guidance Documents for Rare Disease Drug Development
In general, FDA’s guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe the agency’s current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in agency guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.
Below are selected guidances that are relevant to rare disease drug development, organized by topic. This list does not include all FDA guidances on or relevant to rare disease drug development but represents our most commonly used guidances. This list may be updated periodically.
I have kept the original text in order for reference and to provide the background for these changes “in their words”.
However there are a few themes in these guideline changes and discussions including:
definitions of rare diseases
reduction of complexities and simplification of trial design and requirements (the FDA wants to go to a more ONE trial with very well designed controls than the two trial design for INDs (I will discuss this further in a near future post)
accelerated approval which will entail streamlining both the submission and approval process for rare conditions
heavy reliance on biomarkers during drug development and clinical trials (which is already in frequent use in pharma)
early communication with the FDA
more reliance on plausible mechanism of action to reduce number of studies needed
Rare Diseases: Natural History Studies for Drug Development: Draft Guidance for Industry
FDA is publishing this draft guidance to help inform the design and implementation of natural history studies that can be used to support the development of safe and effective drugs and biological products for rare diseases. A natural history study collects information about the natural history of a disease in the absence of an intervention, from the disease’s onset until either its resolution or the individual’s death. Although knowledge of a disease’s natural history can benefit drug development for many disorders and conditions, natural history information is usually not available or is incomplete for most rare diseases; therefore, natural history information is particularly needed for these diseases.
Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Vouchers
This guidance provides information on the implementation of section 908 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), which added section 529 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). Under section 529, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of certain rare pediatric disease product applications that meet the criteria specified in that section.
Rare Diseases: Early Drug Development and the Role of Pre-IND Meetings : Draft Guidance for Industry
The purpose of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors of drug and biological products for the treatment of rare diseases in planning and conducting more efficient and productive pre-investigational new drug application (pre-IND) meetings. Drug development for rare diseases has many challenges related to the nature of these diseases. This draft guidance is intended to advance and facilitate the development of drugs and biological products for the treatment of rare diseases.
Accelerated Approval and Considerations for Determining Whether a Confirmatory Trial is Underway
For drugs granted accelerated approval, sponsors have been required to conduct confirmatory studies postapproval to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (CAA), Congress amended section 506(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 356(c)), to provide additional authorities to help ensure timely completion of such trials, including that FDA “may require, as appropriate, a study or studies to be underway prior to approval, or within a specified time period after the date of approval, of the applicable product.” This draft guidance, when finalized, will describe FDA’s interpretation of the term “underway” and policies for implementing this requirement, including factors FDA intends to consider when determining whether a confirmatory trial is underway prior to an accelerated approval action.
Accelerated Approval – Expedited Program for Serious Conditions
Accelerated approval is one of FDA’s expedited programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition. The purpose of this guidance is to provide information on FDA’s policies and procedures for accelerated approval as well as threshold criteria generally applicable to concluding that a drug is a candidate for accelerated approval. This guidance also describes the procedures for expedited withdrawal of approval of a product approved under accelerated approval and the revisions Congress made through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Public Law 117-328). Additional programs to expedite product development and review are covered in other guidances.
Benefit-Risk
Benefit-Risk Assessment for New Drug and Biological Products
The intent of this guidance is to clarify for drug sponsors and other stakeholders how considerations about a drug’s benefits, risks, and risk management options factor into certain premarket and postmarket regulatory decisions that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) makes about new drug applications (NDAs) submitted under section 505(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) as well as biologics license applications (BLAs) submitted under section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act).
Biomarker Qualification: Evidentiary Framework
This draft guidance provides recommendations on general considerations to address when developing a biomarker for qualification under the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), enacted on December 13, 2016, that added a new section to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Qualification of a biomarker is a determination that within the stated context of use, the biomarker can be relied on to have a specific interpretation and application in drug development and regulatory review.
Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools
This guidance describes the qualification process for drug development tools (DDTs) intended for potential use, over time, in multiple drug development programs.
Patient-Focused Drug Development: Selecting, Developing, or Modifying Fit-for-Purpose Clinical Outcome Assessments
This guidance (Guidance 3) is the third in a series of four methodological patient-focused drug development (PFDD) guidance documents that describe how stakeholders (patients, caregivers, researchers, medical product developers, and others) can collect and submit patient experience data and other relevant information from patients and caregivers to be used for medical product development and regulatory decision-making.
Patient-Focused Drug Development: Incorporating Clinical Outcome Assessments Into Endpoints for Regulatory Decision-Making
This guidance (Guidance 4) is the fourth in a series of four methodological patient-focused drug development (PFDD) guidance documents that describe how stakeholders (patients, caregivers, researchers, medical product developers, and others) can collect and submit patient experience data and other relevant information from patients and caregivers to be used for medical product development and regulatory decision-making.
Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials Guidance for Industry
This guidance provides sponsors and review staff with the Agency’s thinking about the problems posed by multiple endpoints in the analysis and interpretation of study results and how these problems can be managed in clinical trials for human drugs, including drugs subject to licensing as biological products.
Clinical Pharmacology
Exposure-Response Relationships — Study Design, Data Analysis, and Regulatory Applications
This document provides recommendations for sponsors of investigational new drugs (INDs) and applicants submitting new drug applications (NDAs) or biologics license applications (BLAs) on the use of exposure-response information in the development of drugs, including therapeutic biologics. It can be considered along with the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) E4 guidance on Dose-Response Information to Support Drug Registration and other pertinent guidances (see Appendix A).
Bioavailability Studies Submitted in NDAs or INDs – General Considerations
This guidance provides recommendations to sponsors and applicants submitting bioavailability (BA) information for drug products in investigational new drug applications (INDs), new drug applications (NDAs), and NDA supplements. This guidance contains recommendations on how to meet the BA requirements set forth in 21 CFR part 320 as they apply to dosage forms intended for oral administration.
General Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Pediatric Studies of Drugs, Including Biological Products
This guidance assists sponsors of investigational new drug applications (INDs) and applicants of new drug applications (NDAs) under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), biologics license applications (BLAs) under section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), and supplements to such applications who are planning to conduct clinical studies in pediatric populations.
General Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Neonatal Studies for Drugs and Biological Products Guidance for Industry
This guidance is intended to assist sponsors of investigational new drug applications (INDs) and applicants of new drug applications (NDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), and supplements to such applications who are planning to conduct clinical studies in neonatal populations. This guidance provides recommendations for neonatal clinical pharmacology studies, whether the studies are conducted pursuant to section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), section 505B of the FD&C Act, or neither.
Assessing the Effects of Food on Drugs in INDs and NDAs – Clinical Pharmacology Considerations
This guidance provides recommendations to sponsors planning to conduct food-effect (FE) studies for orally administered drug products under investigational new drug applications (INDs) to support new drug applications (NDAs) and supplements to these applications for drugs being developed under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355).
Population Pharmacokinetics
This guidance is intended to assist sponsors and applicants of new drug applications (NDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), and investigational new drugs (IND) applications in the application of population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis.
Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Antibody-Drug Conjugates Guidance for Industry
This guidance provides recommendations to assist industry and other parties involved in the development of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) with a cytotoxic small molecule drug or payload. Specifically, this guidance addresses the FDA’s current thinking regarding clinical pharmacology considerations and recommendations for ADC development programs, including bioanalytical methods, dosing strategies, dose- and exposure-response analysis, intrinsic factors, QTc assessments, immunogenicity, and drug-drug interactions (DDIs).
Drug-Drug Interaction Assessment for Therapeutic Proteins Guidance for Industry
The purpose of this guidance is to help sponsors of investigational new drug applications (INDs) and applicants of biologic license applications (BLAs) determine the need for drug-drug interaction (DDI) studies for a therapeutic protein (TP) by providing a systematic, risk-based approach.
Developing Targeted Therapies in Low-Frequency Molecular Subsets of a Disease
The pharmacological effect of a targeted therapy is often related to a particular molecular alteration, and many diseases are caused by a range of different molecular alterations (some of which may be rare). Therefore, a targeted therapy may have differential effects among patients with the same disease who have different molecular alterations. The purpose of this guidance is to describe general approaches to evaluating the benefits and risks of targeted therapeutics within a clinically defined disease where some molecular alterations may occur at low frequencies.
Clinical Pharmacogenomics: Premarket Evaluation in Early-Phase Clinical Studies and Recommendations for Labeling
This guidance is intended to assist the pharmaceutical industry and other investigators engaged in new drug development in evaluating how variations in the human genome, specifically DNA sequence variants, could affect a drug’s pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), efficacy, or safety. The guidance provides recommendations on when and how genomic information should be considered to address questions arising during drug development and regulatory review.
Enhancing Participation in Clinical Trials — Eligibility Criteria, Enrollment Practices, and Trial Designs
This guidance recommends approaches that sponsors of clinical trials intended to support a new drug application or a biologics license application can take to increase enrollment of a representative population in their clinical trials. This guidance considers both demographic characteristics of study populations (e.g., sex, race, ethnicity, age, location of residency) and non-demographic characteristics of populations (e.g., patients with organ dysfunction, comorbid conditions, disabilities, those at the extremes of the weight range, and populations with diseases or conditions with low prevalence). Enrolling participants with a wide range of baseline characteristics may create a study population that more accurately reflects the patients likely to take the drug if it is approved and allow assessment of the impact of those characteristics on the safety and effectiveness of the study drug.
E8(R1) General Considerations for Clinical Studies
This guidance describes internationally accepted principles and practices in the design and conduct of clinical studies of drug and biological products. The guidance is intended to assist sponsors and other parties that design clinical studies, and to promote the quality of the studies submitted to regulatory authorities, while allowing for flexibility.
Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials Guidance for Industry
The purpose of this guidance is to describe various strategies for grouping and ordering endpoints for analysis and applying some well-recognized statistical methods for managing multiplicity within a study in order to control the chance of making erroneous conclusions about a drug’s effects. Basing a conclusion on an analysis where the risk of false conclusions has not been appropriately controlled can lead to false or misleading representations regarding a drug’s effects.
E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of Multi-Regional Clinical Trial
With the increasing globalization of drug development, it has become important that data from multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) can be accepted by regulatory authorities across regions and countries as the primary source of evidence to support marketing approval of drugs (medicinal products). The purpose of this guidance is to describe general principles for the planning and design of MRCTs with the aim of increasing the acceptability of MRCTs in global regulatory submissions.
Decentralized Clinical Trials for Drugs, Biological Products, and Devices
This draft guidance provides recommendations for sponsors, investigators, and other stakeholders regarding the implementation of decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) for drugs, biological products, and devices. In this guidance, a DCT refers to a clinical trial where some or all of the trial-related activities occur at locations other than traditional clinical trial sites.
Enrichment Strategies for Clinical Trials to Support Approval of Human Drugs and Biological Products: Guidance for Industry
The purpose of this guidance is to assist industry in developing enrichment strategies that can be used in clinical investigations intended to demonstrate effectiveness (and in some cases safety) of human drugs and biological products. This guidance defines several types of enrichment strategies, provides examples of potential clinical trial designs, and discusses potential regulatory considerations when using enrichment strategies in clinical trials.
Ethical Considerations for Clinical Investigations of Medical Products Involving Children
Clinical investigations in children are essential for obtaining data on the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biological products, and medical devices in children and to protect children from the risks associated with exposure to medical products that may be unsafe or ineffective. Children are a vulnerable population who cannot consent for themselves and who therefore are afforded additional safeguards when participating in a clinical investigation. Such safeguards are an essential requirement for the initiation and conduct of pediatric investigations as part of a medical product development program.
Master Protocols for Drug and Biological Product Development
This guidance document provides recommendations on the design and analysis of trials conducted under a master protocol as well as guidance on the submission of documentation to support regulatory review.
There are some other Guidances which were issued and I will discuss them in another post. These include Guidances on minimizing use of animals for preclinical toxicology, Innovative clinical trial design especially for gene and cell therapies, and use of AI in designing of clinical trials.
Companies Actively Engaging Artificial Intellegence for Drug Design: 2026
Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
Work-in-Progress
This is not an exhaustive list of all AI companies involved in the drug discovery process. Some like Chai Discovery will be featured in separate posts and this will be constantly updated as companies are acquired and formed.
I want to start with a Great interview and white paper by McKinsey where they interview key opinion leaders on the business intelligence on AI firms in the drug discovery world and what to look for in companies that are in this space.
Artificial intelligence could help scientists develop better medicines faster—and thus improve millions of people’s lives. But for that to happen, companies will need to change the way they work.
Below is a Mckinsey report on How AI will Change the Future of Biotech
The AI-driven drug discovery industry continues to grow, fueled by new entrants in the market, significant capital investment, and technology maturation. We’ve identified more than 250 companies working in the industry. More than half of them are based in the United States, but key hubs are emerging in Western Europe and Southeast Asia as well. The best of these companies will fully integrate AI into research workflows, as the exhibit shows. By putting AI at the center of the research engine, companies can transform research at scale—and bring about dramatic improvements in patient outcomes. For the full article, see:
Parts of a high-throughput screening (HTS) process embedded with AI technology
1. High-throughput screen commenced with diverse compound sets Scientist selects diverse compound sets (a set of chemical compounds with a wide range of chemical structures) as first high-throughput screen
In silico/ on-the-chip simulations
In-vitro/ ‘wet lab’ experiments
2. Automated compound selection and transfer Using HTS machinery, individual compounds are transferred to individual wells of cells under experimental conditions
3. Computer-vision-based hit selection Cell response to each compound is measured using microscope analysis (eg, through computer vision techniques); promising compounds are labeled “hits”
4. Automated machine learning (ML) model training from screen outcomes Information from HTS for first few plates is automatically transferred into an ML pipeline, which “learns” how cells respond to each kind of chemical structure
5. Compound library inferencing and prioritization ML algorithm then scans the remainder of the library compounds and predicts which plates should be prioritized to identify the highest number of hits in the next screen
6. Automated compound selection based on ML recommendations ML recommendations are automatically queued and used in the next round of HTS. The cycle continues, with the algorithm continuously learningfrom “real world” outputs. Recommendations trigger scientists to explore new chemical space and begin downstream screening processes more quickly. These recommendations feed into the selection of chemical compounds in step 1
Human bodies are incredibly complex. It takes many years to discover even just one new medicine to successfully treat a disease. Could artificial intelligence help speed up that process? McKinsey experts believe so. (The following transcript has been edited for clarity.)
Lydia The: What excites me about AI and drug discovery is the convergence between technology, drug development, and biology, which is going to lead to better drugs being developed faster—using all of the capabilities that Silicon Valley and the tech ecosystem have developed—to help us have even greater impact on patients.
Christoph Sandler: Today, to discover and develop a drug takes more than ten years.
Alex Devereson: We might be able to have drugs in one-tenth of the time, from being discovered to being able to treat patients. Today, many diseases simply have no treatments whatsoever. I think, and I hope, we’re going to see a world where we can generate therapies that can treat those patients very effectively. Fundamentally, we will have life-changing, game-changing drugs—on a scale and at a pace that we’ve never seen before—getting to the right patient at the right time.
The promise of personalized medicine
Christoph Sandler: In the not-so-distant future, we might collect health data across different inputs: from wearables, from our electronic medical records, or from clinical or academic research. And we will have the opportunity, on a voluntary basis, to upload these data into a central, secure, trusted data storage system.
Lydia The: You could imagine using the data to figure out not just what drug might work for you but exactly what drug would work for you at what time, in what sequence, in what dose—really personalized to you.
Will AI replace scientists?
Lydia The: What we’ve found is that technology doesn’t supplant the people. Rather, it will enable scientists to do things faster and better—and potentially develop insights that humans would not be able to develop at all.
Alex Devereson: Scientists will be able to discover things with machine learning that they could never have thought of by themselves, generate entirely new ideas, and move at a pace at which one person can do what it would have taken 100 to do before.
Lydia The: While in previous generations, scientists would spend a lot of their time—maybe even the majority of their time—on manual efforts such as pipetting from one tray to another tray or manually curating and cleaning data, I think AI will help us do all of those things in a more automated and quick way, and develop hypotheses that can then lead a scientist to think through, “What would the next experiment be? What are the implications of the data?”
What companies should do today
Alex Devereson: I think the challenge a lot of companies have is that they want to explore new ideas but, for good reason, they are reluctant to commit until they’ve seen some results and some tangible impact. So they explore a lot of pilots.
Lydia The: We have a term for that. We call it “pilot purgatory”: companies focus on one pilot, and they see the returns in a single pilot, but they don’t establish that approach and way of operating across their organization.
Define a ‘North Star’
Lydia The: One of the most important things for companies to escape pilot purgatory is a real mindset shift, from the top end all the way through the rest of the organization.
Christoph Sandler: It is important for the organization to define what a North Star for them should be, so that the data and analytics transformation of the R&D function can be targeted toward that North Star.
Identify—and solve—the biggest pain points
Alex Devereson: Truly understand what your biggest scientific and operational pain points are. For the lab scientists, for the patients who are in your clinical trials, for the patients who might get the drug: What is the biggest unsolved problem today?
Embed analytics into decision making
Christoph Sandler: Bring the organization on board and help them understand the potential of data and analytics.
Alex Devereson: You need to really, truly redesign a process that embeds analytics, where it’s not something on the side; it’s truly a part of the decision making.
Christoph Sandler: And you need to establish trust in the data and in these models. Equally important as the technical part is the human part.
Deliver value quickly
Alex Devereson: Don’t set up a project that delivers only after five years. Have a view on how you can deliver value in three months—and on what it takes in terms of analytics, data, and technology—with a relentless laser focus on value for the patient and for the scientific process.
The inventor of some of AI’s technical underpinnings is shifting focus to an RNA startup. Also, Rick Pazdur has some ideas on how to determine whether Revolution Medicines’ pancreatic cancer drug can work in a first-line setting. And an oncologist explains why she believes the failed Grail trial matters.
artificial intelligence
The AI architect taking aim at RNAi
Jakob Uszkoreit helped create the transformer architecture — the “T” in ChatGPT — that sparked the generative AI boom. Now he’s trying to do something just as ambitious in drug development, STAT’s Brittany Trang writes. His startup, Inceptive Nucleics, is building biological foundation models that can be applied across a wide range of sequence-based medicines, from RNA interference therapies to mRNA and antisense drugs.
That vision caught the attention of Alnylam, which yesterday announced that it had struck a three-year partnership worth up to $2 billion in potential milestone payments and royalties, along with a $30 million upfront investment. The idea is that AI could perhaps do more than analyze biological data — and instead design the molecules themselves.
Top 10 Leading AI Drug Discovery Companies Transforming the Market: Trends, Technologies, Growth Outlook & Competitive Landscape (2026-2034)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is redefining the future of pharmaceutical research, making drug development faster, smarter, and more cost-effective than ever before. What once took more than a decade and billions of dollars can now be significantly accelerated through advanced machine learning algorithms, generative AI, predictive analytics, and computational biology.
AI Drug Discovery Market is projected to grow from USD 3.41 billion in 2026 to USD 10.45 billion by 2034, registering a robust 15.7% CAGR. This remarkable expansion reflects the pharmaceutical industry’s increasing reliance on AI-powered platforms to improve research efficiency, reduce clinical failures, and identify breakthrough therapies for complex diseases.
As healthcare systems worldwide demand faster innovation and precision medicine continues to evolve, AI is becoming an essential component of modern drug discovery rather than an experimental technology.
Key Technologies Powering AI Drug Discovery
The industry’s rapid growth is supported by several advanced technologies that work together throughout the drug development pipeline.
Machine Learning helps identify disease targets, recognize biological patterns, and predict therapeutic outcomes using historical datasets.
Deep Learning improves molecular analysis by recognizing highly complex biological relationships that conventional computational methods may overlook.
Generative AI creates entirely new molecular structures designed for specific therapeutic applications, enabling scientists to explore millions of virtual compounds before physical synthesis.
Predictive Modeling estimates toxicity, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety profiles early in development, reducing unnecessary experimentation.
Molecular Docking Simulations evaluate how drug molecules interact with proteins, helping researchers prioritize candidates with the highest therapeutic potential.
AI-Driven Clinical Trial Optimization assists pharmaceutical companies in selecting suitable patient populations, improving trial design, and increasing the probability of successful outcomes.
Top 10 Leading AI Drug Discovery Companies Driving Innovation
The competitive landscape is rapidly evolving, with established technology providers and specialized biotechnology companies competing to develop next-generation AI platforms.
1. Insilico Medicine
Insilico Medicine has become one of the industry’s most recognized innovators through its end-to-end AI drug discovery platform. The company combines generative AI with biological research to accelerate target identification and therapeutic development.
2. Exscientia
Exscientia focuses on AI-designed precision medicines and has established multiple collaborations with leading pharmaceutical organizations to improve drug candidate selection and optimization. Exscientia is a pioneering artificial intelligence-driven pharmatech company that was acquired by Recursion Pharmaceuticals in November 2024
3. Atomwise
Known for its deep learning platform, Atomwise uses artificial intelligence to identify promising small-molecule therapies across oncology, infectious diseases, and rare disorders.
4. Recursion Pharmaceuticals
Recursion Pharmaceuticals integrates high-content imaging, automation, and AI to analyze millions of biological experiments, enabling large-scale phenotypic drug discovery.
5. BERG
BERG (now operating or known as BPGbio) specializes in biology-driven AI by combining multi-omics datasets with artificial intelligence to identify biomarkers and novel therapeutic opportunities.
6. Cyclica
Cyclica’s AI platform focuses on polypharmacology, helping researchers understand complex drug-protein interactions while improving drug design efficiency. , focusing on MatchMaker and POEM technology platforms before being acquired by Recursion for $40 million in May 2023.
7. GNS Healthcare
GNS Healthcare applies causal AI and patient-level analytics to support personalized medicine and identify drug repurposing opportunities.
8. DeepCure
DeepCure develops generative chemistry platforms capable of designing optimized molecules while reducing early-stage research complexity.
9. Schrödinger
Schrödinger combines computational chemistry, molecular simulation, and AI technologies to improve molecular modeling and accelerate pharmaceutical innovation.
10. IBM Watson Health & DeepMind Health
These technology pioneers continue expanding AI capabilities across healthcare by leveraging advanced analytics, large-scale biological data processing, and intelligent research platforms that support drug development initiatives. https://www.ibm.com/products/watsonx
There are many other companies that are using AI in Innovative ways to support drug discovery. Here is another list from
11 Innovative Companies Using AI for Drug Discovery
A look at 11 companies using AI-driven platforms to reshape drug discovery, including generative models, computational chemistry, and data-centric biology.
AI-Native Drug Discovery Landscape 2026 – How LPBI Group Differentiates in the New Era of Foundation Models
Curators: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN with Grok Assistence
As the race to build powerful biology foundation models intensifies, several well-funded AI-native companies have emerged with ambitious platforms for protein design, small-molecule generation, and multimodal drug discovery. While these companies bring strong technical capabilities, LPBI Group occupies a distinct and complementary position in the ecosystem.
Key AI-Native Players (2026)
Competitive Landscape Table for AI-Native in Drug Discovery
Company
Focus
Stage
LPBI Differentiation
Isomorphic Labs (DeepMind)
Protein/small molecule design using AI
Advanced (AlphaFold3 based)
LPBI offers curated multimodal training data + COM methodology (they need high-quality data to train/validate)
EvolutionaryScale
Protein design (ESM models)
Early commercial
LPBI’s strength is in clinical/therapeutic context + mechanism-of-action curation across full disease spectrum
Chai Discovery
Multimodal AI for drug discovery
Early
LPBI provides the upstream high-provenance corpus + ontology they would need for better results
Recursion Pharma
Phenotypic screening + AI
Clinical stage
LPBI’s expert-curated literature + images + COM complements their wet-lab focus
Generative AI for protein design & therapeutic optimization
Early-stage
LPBI supplies the high-provenance, expert-curated multimodal corpus and COM Tool Factory that significantly enhances model accuracy and reduces failure rates in downstream development
How LPBI Group Differentiates
LPBI Group does not compete directly in building foundation models. Instead, we provide the critical upstream layer these companies and hyperscalers urgently need:
A 9 GB private multimodal corpus of expert-curated scientific content (6,290+ articles, 48 e-Books, 7,500+ images, 300+ podcasts)
The 17-part Composition of Methods (COM) Tool Factory, including AJAUS (autonomous 24/7 refresh) and Rosetta Stone Ontology (causal mapping)
15 Subject Matter Small Language Models (SLMs) ready for concatenation into proprietary LLMs and MFMH
Proven track record of 4–5×+ uplift in novel causal relationship extraction when combined with frontier models
Strategic Positioning
While AI-native startups excel at model architecture and computation, they still face the persistent bottleneck of high-quality, causally structured, provenance-rich training data. LPBI Group’s vertically integrated assets and methodology offer a defensible moat and a true “own-both” advantage when partnered with hyperscalers or pharma companies.
This complementary role positions LPBI Group as the ideal upstream partner for the next generation of domain-aware AI in Health.
AlignedHQ.ai as Partner vs. Insilico Medicine
AlignedHQ.ai is a strong potential partner.
Why?
They are AI-native focused on protein design and generative models — directly complementary to LPBI’s strengths in curated biomedical literature, mechanism-of-action, and multimodal data.
They would benefit enormously from access to LPBI’s high-quality training data and COM methodology.
Partnership model: They use LPBI data (licensed) + Grok 5 / SpaceXAI compute and frontier models → Co-develop specific therapeutic pipelines.
Insilico Medicine is also a good candidate but slightly less ideal than AlignedHQ for early partnership because:
Insilico is more advanced clinically (has candidates in trials) and may want more control.
AlignedHQ appears earlier-stage and more open to collaboration.
Recommendation: Start with AlignedHQ.ai as a proof-of-concept partner (easier entry, high complementarity). Use success there to approach Insilico and others from a position of strength.
Where does AlignedHQ.ai’s Domain Knowledge in Medicine Come From?
From public information:
Primarily from public + licensed datasets (PDB, UniProt, scientific literature, clinical trial data, etc.).
They rely heavily on large-scale public biomedical databases and pre-trained models (e.g., AlphaFold derivatives).
Like most AI-native drug discovery companies, they have limited proprietary clinical/therapeutic context compared to LPBI’s expert-curated, mechanism-rich corpus.
Their domain knowledge is model-derived rather than expert-curated at source.
This is LPBI’s Core Delta: AlignedHQ (and similar companies) excel at model architecture and generation but lack the deep, traceable, expert-validated biomedical knowledge that LPBI has built over 14+ years. This is why access to LPBI’s portfolio would be highly valuable to them.
The following remembrances of American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) prominent member who have recently passed in 2026 is given below. Each have contributed seminal research and discovery in the field of cancer biology and cancer risk. In many cases, their discoveries transformed the way we understand and treat cancer. A separate In Memoriam for Nobel Leaureatte Dr. J. Michael Bishop will be given in a separate post.
Joseph F. Fraumeni, Jr., MD, FAACR, a renowned cancer epidemiologist, a Fellow of the AACR Academy, and a former member of the AACR Board of Directors, died June 22, 2026, at the age of 93. A career researcher and leader at the National Cancer Institute, Fraumeni was a co-discoverer of the genetic condition now known as the Li-Fraumeni syndrome and launched the U.S. Atlas of Cancer Mortality, which mapped geographic variations in cancer.Born April 1, 1933, in Boston, Fraumeni earned a bachelor’s degree from Harvard College, a medical degree from Duke University School of Medicine, and a master of science in epidemiology from the Harvard University School of Public Health. He completed medical residencies at Johns Hopkins Hospital and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. A member of the AACR since 1968, Fraumeni served on the AACR’s Board of Directors from 1983 to 1986. He also served the AACR as an assistant editor, senior editor, and editorial board member for Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention and an assistant editor for Cancer Research. The AACR recognized him with the AACR-American Cancer Society Award for Research Excellence in Epidemiology and Prevention in 1993 and the AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research in 2009. He was inducted as a member of the inaugural class of Fellows of the AACR Academy in 2013. Fraumeni was a fellow of the American College of Physicians, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a member of the Institute of Medicine, the Association of American Physicians, and the National Academy of Sciences.
In 1962, Fraumeni joined the Epidemiology Branch of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS). He went on to hold several leadership positions at the NCI, including posts as head of the Ecology Studies Section, chief of the Environmental Epidemiology Branch, director of the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program, and founding director of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and GeneticsHe retired from the USPHS in 1999 with the rank of rear admiral and assistant surgeon general. When he retired from NCI in 2017, he was named Scientist Emeritus. He authored or co-authored more than 900 scientific publications.
His research focused the epidemiology of high cancer risk populations and, in 1969, led him to discover a familial syndrome of early-onset cancers of the breast, brain, and other malignancies known as Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. Li-Fraumeni Sydrome is characterized by inherited mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene.
Li-Fraumeni Syndrome
from Cleveland Clinic: Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a rare genetic disorder that increases the risk you and your family members will develop cancer. Everyone with this condition has a 90% chance of developing one or more types of cancer by age 60. About half develop cancer before they turn 40. Females with Li-Fraumeni syndrome almost always develop breast cancer.
Below is the original reference published with his colleague the late Dr, Federick Li. Thier work together over the years helped develop the discovery of cancer susceptiblitiy genes and the importance of mutations of these genes linked to increased risk of developing cancer.
Li FP, Fraumeni JF Jr. 1969. Soft-tissue sarcomas, breast cancer, and other neoplasms. A familial syndrome? Ann Intern Med 71: 747–752.
Four families were identified in which a pair of children had soft-tissue sarcomas: three sets of sibs and one set of cousins. One parent of each affected child developed cancer; carcinoma of the breast occurred in three mothers under 30 years of age. Other young adults in these families had a high frequency of cancer, with no evidence of underlying genetic disorders known to carry a high risk of neoplasia. The increased familial susceptibility to cancer was manifested not only by the large number of members affected but by a seeming excess of multiple primary neoplasms.
It wasn’t until the 1990’s that Malkin et al. that germline mutations in TP53 were associated with this disease
Malkin D, Li FP, Strong LC, Fraumeni JF Jr, Nelson CE, Kim DH, Kassel J, Gryka MA, Bischoff FZ, Tainsky MA, et al. 1990. Germ line p53 mutations in a familial syndrome of breast cancer, sarcomas, and other neoplasms. Science 250: 1233–1238.
A similar syndrome named Lynch syndrome also gave rise to early increased risk of multiple cancers but due to germline mutations in mismatch repair genes like MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2.
Lynch HT, Mulcahy GM, Harris RE, Guirgis HA, Lynch JF. 1978. Genetic and pathologic findings in a kindred with hereditary sarcoma, breast cancer, brain tumors, leukemia, lung, laryngeal, and adrenal cortical carcinoma. Cancer 41: 2055–2064.
Pierre Chambon, MD, FAACR, a Fellow of the AACR Academy who was a pioneer in the structure and expression of genes, died May 5, 2026, at the age of 95. Chambon’s early work contributed to the discovery of PolyADPribose, the discovery of multiple RNA polymerases, major contributions to the elucidation of chromatin structure, and the discovery of animal split genes. Later work included the discovery of multiple promoter elements and their cognate factors. His research on nuclear receptors has had a marked influence on the understanding of signal transduction and endocrinology in vertebrates.
Born February 7, 1931, in Mulhouse, France, Chambon received his medical degree from the University of Strasbourg in 1958. He joined the university as a research associate, becoming an associate professor in 1962 and professor of biochemistry in 1968. He founded the Institute for Genetics and Cellular and Molecular Biology in 1994 and served as its director until 2002. He then founded the Mouse Clinical Institute and served as director until 2006. He held the chair of molecular genetics at the Collège de France from 1993 to 2003 and served as chair of molecular genetics and biology at the University of Strasbourg Institute for Advanced Study from 2012 to 2021. Chambon was elected to the French Academy of Sciences in1985, the same year in which he was elected a foreign member of both the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Juliet M. Daniel, PhD
Juliet M. Daniel, PhD, a cell biologist who was a distinguished university professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and member of AACR since 2002, died April 28, 2026. She was 61 years of age. Noted for her work on genetic risk factors for breast cancer, Daniel discovered and gave the name “Kaiso” to a gene associated with triple negative breast cancer in women of African descent. Born in Barbados in 1964, Daniel obtained a bachelor’s degree in life sciences from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, in 1987 and a doctorate in microbiology from University of British Columbia in Vancouver in 1993. She conducted postdoctoral research at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis and Vanderbilt University in Nashville. She joined McMaster as an assistant professor in 1999, the first black woman to become a member of the Faculty of Science. She was promoted to associate professor in 2005 and professor in 2012. Daniel was appointed associate dean of research and external relations for the Faculty of Science on an acting basis in 2020 and permanently in 2021. She was named strategic advisor to the university president for the Canada-Caribbean Institute (CCI) at McMaster in 2024. She was named a distinguished university professor, the highest faculty honor, in 2025. Among many other honors, she was elected a fellow of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences in 2025, received the inaugural Canadian Cancer Society Inclusive Excellence Prize in Cancer Research in 2020, and was awarded an honorary doctorate in science by the University of the West Indies in 2021.
Philip S. Low, PhD
Philip S. Low, PhD, the Ralph C. Corley distinguished professor of chemistry at Purdue University, an inventor and entrepreneur with more than 100 patents to his credit, and an emeritus member of AACR, died March 4, 2026, at the age of 78. He also served as Purdue’s Presidential Scholar for Drug Discovery and was for a time as director of the university’s Center for Drug Discovery. Low held more than 100 U.S.-issued patents through Purdue Innovates and is listed on 600 U.S. and international patents and 145 invention disclosures. He founded seven companies based on based on work conducted at Purdue, one of which, Endocyte Inc., was sold to Novartis in 2018. Born in Ames, Iowa, in 1947, Low earned a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Brigham Young University in 1971 and a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of California, San Diego, in 1975. He joined the Purdue University faculty in 1976. An AACR member since 2005, Low received the AACR Award for Outstanding Achievement in Chemistry in Cancer Research in 2015 in recognition of his research on low molecular weight ligand-targeted therapeutic and imaging agents. In the same year, he also received the American Chemical Society (ACS) George & Christine Sosnovsky Award for Cancer Research and was elected to the National Academy of Inventors. In August 2025, Low was named the recipient of the ACS Alfred Burger Award in Medicinal Chemistry for 2026. He also received the Order of the Griffin and the Morrill Award from Purdue.
In Memoriam: Professor Yitzhak Apeloig, President and Distinguised Professor of the Technion
Reporters: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN and Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
From the Technion:
The Technion community mourns the passing of Distinguished Professor Yitzhak Apeloig (1944–2026), president of the Technion from 2001 to 2009 and one of Israel’s most distinguished chemists.
A pioneer in computational chemistry and organosilicon compounds, Prof. Apeloig made groundbreaking scientific contributions while mentoring generations of researchers and helping position the Technion as a global leader in science and technology.
During his presidency, he expanded interdisciplinary research, strengthened international partnerships, increased investment in research infrastructure and scholarships, and advanced collaboration between engineering, medicine, and the humanities.“Prof. Apeloig led the Technion with quiet confidence and steadfast leadership,” said Technion President Prof. Uri Sivan. “His years in office were marked by exceptional academic development and a profound impact on the State of Israel and beyond.”
The Technion was his home and family. He will be deeply missed. May his memory be a blessing.
Distinguished Professor Yitzhak Apeloig (1944–2026), president of the Technion from 2001 to 2009 and one of Israel’s most distinguished chemists
A brief synopsis of Dr. Apeloig’s scientific achievements and contributions toward the field of chemistry:
1. Pioneering Computational Quantum Chemistry
In the 1970s, Apeloig was one of the first experimental chemists in the world to recognize the immense potential of using quantum theory and computational models to predict molecular characteristics.
The “First Calculate, Then Synthesize” Philosophy: He pioneered a paradigm shift in organic chemistry by using quantum-mechanical calculations to predict whether a novel molecule could exist and what its lifespan would be before attempting physical synthesis in the laboratory.
He was unique for his time in requiring his students to master both computational modeling and physical laboratory experimentation rather than separating the disciplines.
2. Breakthroughs in Organosilicon Chemistry
Before Apeloig’s work, much of the scientific community believed that silicon could not easily form stable multiple bonds (such as $Si=Si$ or $Si=C$ double bonds) in the way carbon does. Apeloig revolutionized the field of organosilicon chemistry:
Low-Coordination Silicon Compounds: He successfully used computational tools combined with experimental testing to predict, isolate, and understand highly reactive, low-coordination silicon species. This included landmark research into multiply-bonded silicon compounds, silyl radicals, silyl anions, silylenes, and metallosilane reagents.
Silicone and Materials Science: His structural insights fundamentally advanced the molecular understanding of silicon polymers and siloxanes, which heavily influenced the development of advanced moulding materials, rubbers, and photosensitive materials used in lithography.
3. Discovery of Reactive Intermediates
During his early career and PhD research, he focused heavily on physical organic chemistry and organic reaction mechanisms:
He was the first to experimentally demonstrate that a vinyl cation holds a linear geometry around its carbocationic center.
His extensive work mapping out short-lived, highly reactive intermediates (like carbenium ions and strained molecules) provided the foundational mechanics for how complex organic reactions occur.
Major Recognitions
For these definitive contributions to computational and silicon chemistry, Apeloig was awarded some of the highest honors in the discipline:
The Schrödinger Medal (2021): Awarded by the World Association of Theoretical and Computational Chemists (WATOC) for his seminal contributions to theoretical chemistry.
The ACS Frederic Stanley Kipping Award in Silicon Chemistry (2010): The premier international award recognizing advancements in the study of silicon.
The Wacker Silicone Award (2007) and the Israel Chemical Society Gold Medal (2017).
The seminal publications that define his academic footprint include:
1. Foundational Computational and Structural Chemistry
During the mid-1970s and 1980s, Apeloig co-authored several massive, highly cited studies establishing the rules of computational molecular architecture, specifically challenging traditional rules of carbon and silicon bonding.
“Stabilization of planar tetracoordinate carbon”
Journal of the American Chemical Society (1976)
Co-authors: J. B. Collins, J. D. Dill, E. D. Jemmis, P. v. R. Schleyer, R. Seeger, J. A. Pople
Impact: A true milestone in structural chemistry that theoretically demonstrated how specific substitution patterns could stabilize a planar geometry around a carbon atom, defying the standard tetrahedral configuration.
“A theoretical survey of unsaturated or multiply bonded and divalent silicon compounds. Comparison with carbon analogs”
Journal of the American Chemical Society (1986)
Co-authors: B. T. Luke, J. A. Pople, M. B. Krogh-Jespersen, M. Karni, J. Chandrasekhar, P. v. R. Schleyer
Impact: A definitive ab initio survey that comprehensively mapped out the differences between carbon and silicon multiple bonds, predicting the stability and reaction behaviors of transient silicon chemical species.
2. High-Impact Silicon and Stable Carbene Analogs
In the 1990s and 2000s, Apeloig focused on predicting and identifying highly sought-after reactive intermediates—particularly “impossible” double bonds and carbenes.
“On the Question of Stability, Conjugation, and ‘Aromaticity’ in Imidazol-2-ylidenes and Their Silicon Analogs”
Journal of the American Chemical Society (1996)
Co-authors: C. Heinemann, T. Müller, H. Schwarz
Impact: Heavily cited paper evaluating the electronic properties, structural stability, and aromaticity of N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs) versus their heavier silicon counterparts (silylenes).
“Substituent effects on the geometries and energies of the silicon-silicon double bond”
Journal of the American Chemical Society (1990)
Co-author: M. Karni
Impact: This study mapped how changing the attached chemical groups altered the trans-bending and bond lengths of $Si=Si$ double bonds, establishing a predictive guide for experimentalists trying to isolate stable disilenes.
3. Definitive Academic Reviews and Reference Books
Beyond standalone journal entries, Apeloig is globally recognized for editing the foundational texts that summarized the state of organosilicon chemistry for generations of scientists.
“The Chemistry of Organic Silicon Compounds” (Volumes 1, 2, and 3)
Co-edited with: Zvi Rappoport (Published by John Wiley & Sons, beginning in 1989)
Impact: Apeloig authored critical chapters, such as “Theoretical Aspects of Organosilicon Compounds,” within these volumes. This multi-book compendium serves as the literal “bible” for researchers studying silicon polymers, reactive silicon intermediates, and silicon-based material sciences.
China is Making Large Inroads into Biotech: Is Investment Money Following? Is US Investment Money Following the China Biotech Boom?
Curator:Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
UPDATED: 6/02/2026
From ASCO 2026, a Chinese biotech, Akeso, shows amazing clinical results for lung cancer with its bispecific PD-L1-VEGF bispecific antibody. As more and more US companies are making deals with Chinese biotechs is drug discovery and the biotech world heading far East?
In 2017, a little-known company called Nanjing Legend Biotech walked into the ASCO annual meeting at the 11th hour, dropped a 100% objective response rate for a cell therapy that would become Carvykti, and single-handedly put Chinese biotech on the global map. Nearly a decade later, taking the center stage at ASCO 2026, Akeso’s ivonescimab made history by offering the first-ever Chinese data set to command a coveted spot on the plenary session.
“We see a lot of sophistication and skill in Chinese companies,” Marjorie Green, M.D., head of oncology global clinical development at Merck Research Laboratories, said in an interview.
The maturity of the Chinese biopharma industry is evidenced by the deals it has signed. Through a potential $3.3 billion pact in 2024, Merck secured global rights to a PD-1xVEGF competitor to ivonescimab from China’s LaNova Medicines. The following year, LaNova was acquired by Sino Biopharm in the first full acquisition of an innovative Chinese biotech by a domestic large pharma on record, a milestone widely viewed as evidence of an increasingly mature ecosystem. At ASCO, ivonescimab’s landmark overall survival (OS) win against a PD-1 inhibitor in their respective combinations with chemotherapy in first-line squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was just one of numerous studies of Chinese assets that reshaped the conference’s narrative. In what Natalie Vokes, M.D., of the MD Anderson Cancer Center said “could well be a practice-changing study” if validated in a global trial, Kelun-Biotech’s TROP2 antibody-drug conjugate, sac-TMT, paired with Keytruda, slashed the risk of progression or death by 65% versus Keytruda alone in Chinese patients with previously untreated PD-L1-positive NSCLC. That drug, too, also has been swept into the Merck universe.
Bristol Myers Squibb this week announced a partnership with Hengrui Pharma to develop drugs together.
American and European biopharmaceutical companies are increasingly looking to China for their next blockbusters.
Bristol’s deal is unique because the U.S. drugmaker will send several experimental drugs to China for early testing.
Bristol Myers Squibb on Tuesday announced the potential multibillion-dollar partnership with one of China’s top drugmakers, Hengrui Pharma. The companies will work together to develop about a dozen drugs, including four that Bristol discovered and will send to China for Hengrui to run the early-stage clinical trials. The pair of companies will also collaborate to discover new drugs.
“It’s a huge signal,” said Michael Baran, head of private investments at healthcare-focused hedge fund Affinity Asset Advisors and a former partner at Pfizer Ventures.
He said U.S. drugmakers have partnered with Chinese companies to develop drugs before, including Amgen’s 2019 collaboration with BeOne. But Bristol’s deal is significant because it is more reciprocal, he said. It raises the prospect that more U.S. drugmakers could increasingly carry out early drug development in China as they try to bring treatments to market more quickly, and that Chinese companies could start to become global powerhouses.
By John George – Senior Reporter, Philadelphia Business Journal
Updated
Conshohocken firm enters into potential $4.5B deal to expand drug pipeline
Madrigal Pharmaceuticals broadened its pipeline of drug candidates this week by entering into a global licensing agreement, potentially valued at more than $4 billion, for six experimental therapy programs. Under the terms of the deal, Madrigal (NASDAQ: MDGL) agreed to pay Suzhou Ribo Life Science Co. Ltd. of China and its subsidiary Ribocure Pharmaceuticals AB $60 million upfront. Ribo could also receive up to $4.4 billion in development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments based on the programs achieving a series of unspecified goals. Conshohocken-based Madrigal has one product in the market, Rezdiffra, a treatment for the serious liver disease metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH). A common route for raising capital or exit strategy for many US biotechs has been strategic transfer or sale of intellectual property (IP) or strategic partnership with large pharmaceutical companies looking to acquire new biotechnologies or expand their own pipelines. Most US based biotechs had enjoyed a favorable (although not fully exclusive) deal-making environment with US pharmaceutical companies with some competition from international biotech companies. US government agencies such as FINRA, CFIUS, and the SEC closely monitored such international deals and the regulatory environment for such international deal making in the biotechnology space was tight. The company last July entered into a licensing agreement, valued at up to $2.1 billion, for an MASH drug being developed by CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Ltd of China.
Smaller Chinese biotechs have operated in the United States (at various biotech hubs around the country) and have usually set up as either service entities to the biotech industry as contract research organizations (Wuxi AppTech), developing research reagents for biotech (Sino Biological) or conducting research for purposes of transferring IP to a parent company in China. Most likely Chinese biotechs set up research operations because of the overabundance of biotech hubs in the United States, with a dearth of these innovation hubs in the China mainland.
However, as highlighted in the Next in Health Podcast Series from PriceWaterHouseCoopers (PwC), China has been rapidly been developing innovation hubs as well as biotech hubs. And Chinese biotech companies are staying home in mainly China and exporting their IP to major US pharmaceutical companies. As PwC notes this deal making between Chinese biotech in China and US pharmaceutical companies have rapidly expanded recently.
The following are notes from PriceWaterHouseCoopers (PwC) podcast entitled: Strategic Shifts: Navigating China’s Biotech Boom and Its Impact on US Pharma:
Tune in as Glenn Hunzinger, PwC’s Health Industries Leader and Roel van den Akker, PwC’s Pharma and Life Sciences Deals Leader discuss the rapid rise of China’s biotech industry and what it means for U.S. pharmaceutical companies. They discuss the evolving role of Chinese biotech in the global innovation landscape and share perspectives on how U.S. pharmaceutical companies can thoughtfully assess opportunities, manage cross-border complexities, and build effective partnering and diligence strategies.
Discussion highlights:
China’s biotech industry is growing fast and becoming a global player, with U.S. companies increasingly looking to partner with Chinese firms on cutting-edge science
U.S. pharma leaders are encouraged to move beyond skepticism and stay curious by building relationships, learning from local innovation, and exploring new partnership opportunities
Successfully partnering with Chinese biotech firms requires a careful and well-structured approach that accounts for global complexity, protects data and IP, and uses creative deal structures like new company formations to manage risk and stay flexible
U.S. companies need to be proactive in order to stay competitive by actively exploring global innovation, understanding the risks, and having a clear strategy to bring high-potential science to U.S. patients
In 2019 there were zero in licensing deals from China to US pharma…. Today one in five come from China.
China evolved into a expanding economy because China invested in biotech companies
Lots of skilled people
Built centers that rivaled biotech innovation centers in places like Boston, California Bay Area, and Philadelphia
China has gone from low cost manufacturing country to an innovative economy with great science coming out of it. US pharma boardrooms need to understand this
The analysts at PWC suggest to look at Data integrity, IP protection and risks before bringing China biotech IP in US. It is imperative that companies do ample due diligence.
China’s rise as a biotech innovation hub: 4 key strategic questions for US biopharma executives
May 08, 2025
Roel van den Akker; Partner, Pharmaceutical & Life Science Deals Leader, PwC
China’s biotech sector is evolving at breakneck speed — and the implications for US pharma are too significant to ignore. Over the past five years, China has transitioned from being a nice to watch market to a central pillar of global biopharma innovation. Today, one-third of in-licensed molecules at US pharma multinationals originate from China, up from virtually zero in 2019.
China’s biotech sector, however, is not monolithic or uniform. The ecosystem spans high-quality, globally competitive biotech hubs in cities like Hangzhou and Suzhou — home to companies producing first-in-class and novel innovations in ophthalmology, cardiovascular, and immunology — as well as a long tail of undercapitalized players where execution and capability gaps remain profound.
And now, Washington is paying attention, too. A recent report from the US National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) highlighted China’s ambitions to dominate biotech as a “strategic priority” with dual-use implications across health and security. The report urges the US government and private sector to reassess dependencies and increase scrutiny of biotechnology partnerships abroad. For the US biopharma industry, this isn’t just a supply chain concern — it is a boardroom issue.
With the licensing market still skewed toward buyers, venture funding remaining depressed in China and IPO windows in Hong Kong slowly reopening, there is a compelling window for US companies to secure differentiated assets at relatively attractive terms. Speedy deal execution is increasingly important as the highest quality assets are being quickly scooped up. But navigating this terrain can require more than opportunism. It calls for deliberate strategy, structured governance and a nuanced geopolitical risk framework.
Here are four questions every US biopharma executive should be asking:
1. What is our posture toward preclinical and clinical science from China?
Are we approaching Chinese innovation with a default posture of skepticism or strategic curiosity? Many top-tier Chinese biotechs are now generating US-caliber data at the speed of light, particularly in therapeutic modalities such as mAbs, ADCs and T-cell engagers, but plenty still have execution gaps. Those that elect to lean in will likely need a deliberate eco-system approach geared towards being the partner of choice and local brand building.
2. What does our China diligence playbook look like?
In light of national security concerns, companies need a China-specific diligence framework — one that goes beyond the science. This includes scrutiny around data integrity, IP protection, export controls, and cross border data sharing.
3. What is our plan post-licensing or acquisition?
Ownership is just the start. US companies need a clear strategy for globalizing China-origin assets — from IND transfers to FDA filing to commercial launch. In some cases, that may require reworking the preclinical package or rebuilding the CMC infrastructure entirely. Increasingly, US (or Europe)-based “Newcos” may serve as geopolitical firewalls.
4. How can we preserve agility amid regulatory and political volatility?
With rising US-China tensions and new export control proposals under review, companies must future-proof deal structures. This could include regional carveouts, US-only development rights, or milestone-gated commitments. The NSCEB report makes clear: passive engagement is no longer tenable.
Innovation strategy meets national interest
The trendlines are clear: China is not just a manufacturing hub — it is an increasingly important source of global biotech innovation. But sourcing innovation from China now sits at the intersection of science, strategy and security. US pharma and biopharma companies can no longer afford to treat China engagement as tactical. Those who adopt a deliberate, resilient and agile China strategy — grounded in scientific rigor and geopolitical realism — likely lead in tomorrow’s innovation race.
A researcher prepares medicine at a laboratory in Nanjing University in Nanjing, Jiangsu province, April 29, 2011. REUTERS/Aly Song/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights
U.S. drugmakers turn to Chinese companies as they face patent expirations
Licensing deals accelerate while traditional mergers decline
Chinese biotechs are challenging Western peers, analysts say
June 16 (Reuters) – U.S. drugmakers are licensing molecules from China for potential new medicines at an accelerating pace, according to new data, betting they can turn upfront payments of as little as $80 million into multibillion-dollar treatments.
Through June, U.S. drugmakers have signed 14 deals potentially worth $18.3 billion to license drugs from China-based companies. That compares with just two such deals in the year-earlier period, according to data from GlobalData provided exclusively to Reuters.
How to stop the shift of drug discovery from the U.S. to China. The FDA must make it easier to do such work in the U.S.
Scott GottliebMay 6, 2025
Five years ago, U.S. pharmaceutical companies didn’t license any new drugs from China. By 2024, one-third of their new compounds were coming from Chinese biotechnology firms.
Why are U.S. drugmakers sending their business to China? As in many other industries, it’s so much cheaper to synthesize new compounds inside Chinese biotechnology firms once a novel biological target has been discovered in American laboratories.
Yet the costs of developing new drugs in the U.S. needn’t be so high. They are driven up, in part, by increasing regulatory requirements that burden early-stage drug discovery in America. That’s especially true for Phase I clinical trials, in which drugs are tested in people for the first time.
Newsletter
The smartest thinkers in life sciences on what’s happening — and what’s to come
This shift of discovery work to China is going to accelerate if we don’t take deliberate steps to make it easier to do such work here in America. Yet the imperative to modernize early-stage drug development — to ensure that groundbreaking drug discovery remains in the U.S. rather than migrating to China — is colliding head-on with an impulse to slash the very government workforce capable of spearheading these reforms. These conflicting impulses have created a paradoxical tension: on one hand, the desire to stay competitive with China in biotechnology innovation, and on the other, a parallel campaign to reduce and in some cases dismantle the investments and institutions essential to achieving that goal.
In most cases, Chinese firms are not discovering new biological targets, nor are they crafting genuinely novel compounds to engage these targets through homegrown Chinese research. Instead, they piggyback on Western innovations by scouring U.S. patents, zeroing in on biological targets that are initially uncovered in American labs, and then developing “me too” drugs that replicate American-made compounds with only superficial tweaks, or producing “fast follower” drugs that capitalize on the original breakthroughs while refining key features to try to surpass U.S. innovation. Facing fewer regulations, the Chinese drugmakers can move more quickly than U.S. biotechnology companies — synthesizing copy-cat drugs based on our biological advances and then promptly moving these Chinese-made compounds into early-stage clinical trials, outpacing their American counterparts.
According to the investment bank Jefferies, large American drug companies spent more than $4.2 billion over the past year licensing or acquiring new compounds originally synthesized by Chinese firms. Many comprised advanced compounds such as antibody drugs and cell therapies — underscoring Chinese companies’ growing sophistication in adopting the latest American technologies. The cost of licensing these compounds from China, rather than synthesizing them in American labs, can be significantly lower. At a time when research funding in the U.S. is being cut, and research budgets are becoming painfully stretched, companies are looking to lower the cost of building their pipelines. In a fast-moving field such as oncology, this shift toward Chinese-synthesized compounds is particularly striking: I am told by someone inside the FDA process that nearly three-quarters of new small molecule cancer drugs submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for permission to begin U.S.-based clinical trials are initially made in China.
Usually, only a few months elapse between the moment a U.S. research team publishes a patent identifying a new biological target and when a biotechnology firm in China creates the corresponding drug that capitalizes on these findings. Because Chinese firms can synthesize new molecules at a fraction of the cost incurred by U.S. biotechnology companies — owing to a large and skilled but much cheaper workforce — they find the most intriguing biological targets pursued by Western researchers, rapidly churning out potent yet less expensive copycat molecules that they then market to Western companies.
A major challenge for U.S. firms is the long and costly process of obtaining FDA approval for Phase I studies, in which drugmakers test a new drug’s safety and tolerability in a small group of human volunteers. In China, launching this initial phase of clinical trials is far simpler, giving Chinese biotechnology companies a competitive advantage: By swiftly advancing their molecules into early-stage patient testing, Chinese firms can more readily determine which compounds hit their biological targets and show the greatest therapeutic promise. This allows the Chinese firms to quickly refine their molecules and then leapfrog their American counterparts, who are slowed by more cautious regulatory processes. While China’s regulatory process doesn’t uphold the patient safeguards that Americans rightly insist upon, the U.S. FDA could still streamline its path into early-stage drug development, bolstering America’s competitive edge without compromising patient safety.
In the U.S., one of the costliest early hurdles is the exhaustive animal testing that the FDA requires before a drug can be advanced into Phase I studies. These “pre-clinical” studies help safeguard patients, but the agency also uses this testing to weed out potential failures before a drug requires more intensive FDA scrutiny in later trials.
Over time, this regulatory framework has frontloaded a significant share of costs to the earliest phases of drug development, when biotechnology startups are often running on shoestring budgets, lack clinical data to attract investors, and can least afford delays. One measure of the increasing difficulty in securing the FDA’s permission for Phase I trials is the growing number of U.S. drugmakers who take compounds discovered on American soil and conduct these clinical trials in other Western markets, where they can obtain data more quickly and inexpensively before bringing it back to the FDA. One popular locale is Australia, where costs run about 60% lower than U.S.-based clinical trials, largely because the Australian government offers tax incentives to attract this kind of biomedical investment.
Many animal studies address esoteric questions about a drug’s long-term effects on parameters that may not be relevant to its eventual use — for example, at doses and durations of use that may be far beyond how patients will ultimately use the drug. The FDA’s preclinical testing protocols sometimes require American researchers to administer new compounds to animals at levels up to 500 times higher than any intended dose for patients, aiming for maximum animal exposure before human trials can begin. Where the FDA needs to screen for certain remote risks, many animal studies could be safely deferred until human trials confirm that a drug may benefit patients. At that point, it becomes easier for biotechnology companies to raise capital to fund these pro forma testing efforts.
To modernize the process, the FDA could tap into the wealth of data from existing drugs to establish a more phased approach to these requirements, where the amount of initial animal testing is more closely matched to a drug’s novelty and a better estimation of its perceived risks. It’s a prime opportunity to employ artificial intelligence — mining current data and extrapolating known information to newly discovered molecules. For new molecules that share structural similarities with established drugs, where a robust body of safety information already exists (and the likelihood of uncovering novel risks is judged to be minimal), some animal studies might simply be unnecessary. To establish a graduated approach to the scope of pre-clinical toxicology studies that the FDA requires for new molecules, Congress could revise the agency’s statutory framework, explicitly empowering it to adopt such flexible standards. It would also require targeted investments, enabling the FDA to craft the necessary tools and protocols to implement these refined methodologies.
Mice and even primates are often poor proxies for many of the remote toxicities the FDA is trying to test for, anyway. The agency can also make a more concerted effort to adopt advanced technologies, like pieces of human organs embedded in chips that can be used to test for remote dangers a drug may pose to specific organs like the heart and liver. These tools can reliably screen for risks at a fraction of the time and cost. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary recently announced his intention to pursue a plan that would phase out animal studies in the preclinical evaluation of antibody drugs, shifting instead toward innovative technologies that assess toxicology without relying on live animals. This positive step requires the FDA to invest in new capabilities, and scientific staff that possess expertise in these novel domains.
But right now, that investment seems unlikely. The size and scientific scope of the FDA staff responsible for reviewing early-stage drug development — and evaluating data collected from animal studies — has failed to keep up with the increasing complexity and sheer volume of applications flooding into the agency to launch Phase I clinical trials. Now, the FDA has made deep staffing cuts, prompted by DOGE, that have specifically targeted scientific teams that would lead these essential reforms.
Adding to these woes, morale at the FDA has declined so markedly that many foresee a wave of voluntary resignations among clinical reviewers. By thinning the ranks of experts who tackle novel scientific questions and resolve issues that span across different drug development programs — especially the elimination of the policy office within the FDA’s Office of New Drugs, which adjudicated these kinds of cross-cutting scientific questions — the government has impeded the early dialogue with drug developers that often results in streamlining requirements for Phase I studies. Even more challenging, it weakens the staff’s ability to develop new guidance documents and put better review practices into place — reforms essential for lasting improvements to the preclinical review process.
Instead of strengthening America’s biotechnology ecosystem, such measures risk accelerating the migration of discovery activities to China, undermining innovation at home. When U.S. drugmakers license compounds from China, they divert funds that might otherwise bolster innovation hubs such as Boston’s Kendall Square or North Carolina’s Research Triangle. The U.S. biotechnology industry was the world’s envy, but if we’re not careful, every drug could be made in China.
Scott Gottlieb, M.D., is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and served as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration from 2017 to 2019. He is a partner at the venture capital firm New Enterprise Associates and serves on the boards of directors of Pfizer Inc. and Illumina.
From FierceBiotech: US Biotech Companies are finding that foreign investments may put them in a precarious position for government funding
The Department of Health and Human Services is allegedly denying clinical trial funding for biotechs based on their ties to certain foreign investors, Fierce Biotech has learned.
At the BIO conference in Boston this week, Fierce spoke with a biotech executive who had their grant pulled, as well as an industry thought leader who backed up the claims about a change in the HHS’ funding approach.
“We’re in a situation where some of the companies are confused about their ability to take foreign investment,” said John Stanford, founder and executive director of Incubate, a nonprofit organization of biotech venture capital firms and patient advocacy groups designed to educate policymakers on life science investment and innovation.
“We’ve been hearing about SBIR grants canceled,” Stanford told Fierce in a separate interview at BIO. “Anecdotally, we’ve also heard it’s a lot more than China and it’s countries—Canada, Norway, the EU—that traditionally we think of as allies.”
“Again, that’s anecdotal,” he stressed. “But we would be very concerned [about] the idea that we won’t take Canadian investments or Japanese investments or EU-based investments.”
“We want foreign investors coming to U.S.-based companies to develop drugs for the world,” Stanford said. “That is a win-win-win.”
Back in February, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum titled the “America First Investment Policy” that aims to restrict both inbound and outbound investments related to “foreign adversaries” in certain strategic industries. The document lacks specifics but puts China front and center while mentioning both healthcare and biotech among the sectors it will regulate.
And the investment analysis firm Jeffries noted that
Looking at financial data from FactSet, Jefferies analysts found biotech funding in May 2025 was down 57%, to just over $2.7 billion, compared to the same time last year. That sum was only slightly better than the nearly $2.6 billion raised in April — the worst haul in three years — and was also 44% lower than the average seen across the past 12 months.
Today, total capital remains relatively steady, but it’s flowing differently.
Fewer companies are commanding a greater share of investment, and a new global map of biotech leadership is emerging—one where Israel, Italy, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and NAME are not just participants but strategic innovators and investors in the space.
While some correction was inevitable after the pandemic’s urgency subsided, the sector’s foundation had already changed.
CROs didn’t scale down; they doubled down, offering sponsors the flexibility to develop therapies without taking on the full weight of manufacturing and trials in-house.
This shift underpinned a new era of capital efficiency and strategic outsourcing, which is strongly influenced by new smart technologies that generate code and content at a blink of an eye and refine research protocols.
Selective but Strong: The New Capital Math
After the surge of 2020–2021, a funding correction began in late 2022.
According to Jefferies, biotech funding in May 2025 was down 57 per cent year-over-year, dropping to roughly $2.7 billion.
Public markets also cooled. In 2023, biotech IPOs hit their lowest numbers in a decade, and follow-on offerings became increasingly rare.
This deceleration prompted talk of a “biotech winter.” Yet key indicators suggest a market in transition rather than decline. Private equity and venture capital remain active but are more selective.
While early-stage companies face greater hurdles, late-stage biotechs and those with de-risked clinical programs continue to attract significant funding.
Follow the Late-Stage Money
A recent GlobalData report underscores this trend: late-stage biotech companies now receive nearly double the capital of their earlier-stage counterparts.
Median venture rounds for Phase III companies have climbed to $62.5 million, as investors increasingly prioritise assets with regulatory clarity and near-term commercialisation potential.
The post-COVID period has revealed an important funding shift: fewer biotech companies are securing a larger percentage of available capital.
In an environment of macroeconomic uncertainty, geopolitical risk, and rising interest rates, investors are retreating from speculative bets and doubling down on known quantities.
From Gemini: Is US biotech investment going overseas in 2025? Plot in a bar graph the US biotech investment versus worldwide biotech investment by country
Is US biotech investment going overseas in 2025? Plot in a bar graph the US biotech investment versus worldwide biotech investment by country
Yes the US has many more venture capital firms focused on Biotech investment but it is appearing that investment is not staying in the US.
The global biotech funding landscape in 2023: U.S. leads while Europe and China make strides
In 2023, the U.S. continued to demonstrate its position as the biotech funding leader, commanding over one-third, 35%, of the global investment in the sector. Overall, U.S. biotech firms attracted $56.79 billion in funding, according to a survey of Crunchbase data. Next in line was China, which contributed about 12.7% to the global funding pool, or $20.61 billion. Up next was Europe, which secured more than $11.46 billion and representing more than 7% of the worldwide funding.
While U.S. leads in total biotech funding, Chinese biotech companies, on average, saw larger funding rounds than either Europe or the U.S. The average funding size per company in China was roughly three times larger than that in the U.S. and six times larger than the average in Europe.
But while China-based companies had larger hauls, they were comparatively few. Chinese biotech secured in cumulative $20.61 billion among just 69 firms, with roughly $299 million in funding per company on average. Meanwhile, the 229 European biotech firms that won funding in the past year attracted $11.46 billion in funding, averaging $50 million each. In comparison, the 583 U.S. biotech companies with recent funding attracted $56.79 billion, averaging $97 million per company.
The map below represents the total biotech funding amount in USD across the globe. Funding amounts are shaded based on companies’ cumulative funding totals and density. Darker shades indicate higher funding amounts and density, with the U.S. hubs on the East and West Coasts showing the darkest shade, reflecting the combination of total funding and density.
Size of the US Biotech Market is expected to grow from half a billion in 2023 to 1.7 trillion in 2033. Source novaoneadvisor.com
Biotech investment trends in the US for 2025 present a complex picture. While some reports indicate a general slowdown in venture funding for biotech startups and concerns about tariff impacts, other sources suggest resilience within the sector, with strong revenue growth for public biotech companies in both the US and Europe in 2024, expected to continue into 2025. Additionally, there are calls for significant investment within the US to maintain its leadership in biotechnology. Therefore, it is not definitively clear that US biotech investment is predominantly going overseas in 2025, but rather navigating a challenging and evolving landscape.
Regarding US biotech investment versus worldwide biotech investment by country, here is a bar graph of key biotech investment moves in 2025 based on available data. Please note that this data reflects “key moves” in biotech funding for 2025 as reported by Labiotech, and a comprehensive worldwide investment breakdown for all countries was not available.
From Franklin Templeton: China is Emerging as a Global Biotechnology Player
The combined value of China’s outside licensing deals reached around US$46 billion in 2024, up from US$38 billion in 2023 and US$28 billion in 2022, according to data provider NextPharma. Meanwhile, the number of global companies licensing into China has decreased across the same period. These tailwinds have helped China expand its share of global drug development to nearly 30% compared to 48% for the United States, according to data provider Citeline. Strong IP protection has positioned China to receive global investment, with a 2024 policy encouraging more IP collaboration between global and Chinese companies. US investment bank Stifel projects that molecules licensed by large pharmaceutical firms from China will increase to 37% in 2025. This shift has been largely driven by US companies seeking cheaper drug development alternatives and has led to R&D spending in China outpacing that of the United States.
A Closer Look at the Financials and Comparison between China and US Biotech Investment Trends
This rapid growth of Chinese biopharma was predictable back in 2018 as this article from an investment newsletter suggests:
November 10, 2022Posted by China BriefingWritten by Yi WuReading Time: 5 minutes
Biopharma, short for biopharmaceuticals, are medical products produced using biotechnology (or biotech). Typical biopharma products include pharmaceuticals generated from living organisms, vaccines, gene therapy, etc.
An important subsector of biotech, China’s biopharma industry has much attention home and abroad, especially after Chinese companies developed multiple COVID-19 vaccines now in wide circulation. Market capitalization of Chinese biopharma companies grew to over US$200 billion in 2020 from US$1 billion in 2016.
With China’s rapidly aging population and a growing affluent middle-class, the country’s biopharma industry presents challenging but compelling opportunities to investors.
In this article, we discuss the market size, growth drivers, and global competition facing China’s biopharma industry and suggest potential investment paths.
How big is China’s biopharma market?
Biopharmaceuticals in China is a lucrative business, with significant domestic demand due to an aging population and expanding household budgets for quality products and services as people’s living standards improve.
China’s healthcare market is predicted to expand from around US$900 billion (RMB 6.47 trillion) in 2019 to US$2.3 trillion (RMB 16.53 trillion) in 2030, and its market size is second to only the US. China’s total expenditure on healthcare as a component of its GDP increased to 5.35 percent in 2019 from 4.23 percent in 2010.
What are the growth drivers for China’s biopharma industry?
The broader biotech sector is a main focus of the Chinese government’s “Made in China 2025” strategy. The country needs a steady biopharmaceutical industry to address its healthcare needs and to build an internationally competitive and innovative pharmaceutical industry as part of wider economic restructuring. Under the same momentum, on January 30, 2022, nine agencies jointly issued the “14th Five-year Plan for the Development of the Pharmaceuticals Industry” as a guiding document that clarifies the goals and directions for China’s pharmaceutical industry development in the next five years.
Now let’s compare the size of the US biotech market: You can see the US biotech valuation is now similar to the estimated market capitalization of the China market.
The U.S. biotechnology market size was valued at USD 621.55 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 1,794.11 billion by 2033, registering a CAGR of 12.5% from 2024 to 2033. Ongoing government initiatives are the key factors driving the growth of the market. Also, improving approval processes coupled with the favorable reimbursement policies can fuel market growth further.
Key Takeaways:
DNA sequencing dominated this market and held the highest revenue market share of 18% in 2023
The others’ segment is anticipated to grow at the fastest CAGR of 28.1% during the forecast period.
The health segment dominated the market and accounted for the largest revenue market share of 44.13% in 2023.
Bioinformatics is expected to witness the fastest growth, with a CAGR of 17.2% during the forecast period.
The U.S. biotechnology market is witnessing major growth contributed by the increasing adoption and applications of biotechnology in many industries like pharmaceuticals, agriculture, food production, environmental conservation, and energy. In addition, market players in the industry are increasingly focusing on innovations across many fields such as energy, medicine, and materials science using biological processes to overcome challenges and fuel technological advancements. Also, in recent years there has been a notable surge in the utilization of biotechnological methods including DNA fingerprinting, stem cell technology, and genetic engineering propelling the market expansion soon.
‘The bar has risen’: China’s biotech gains push US companies to adapt
A fast-improving pipeline of drugs invented in China is attracting pharma dealmakers, putting pressure on U.S. biotechs and the VC firms that back them.
Soon after starting a new biotechnology company, David Li realized he needed to rethink his strategy.
Li had been conducting the competitive research biotech entrepreneurs typically undertake before soliciting investment. He drew up a list of drug targets that his startup, Meliora Therapeutics, could pursue and checked them against the potential competition.
Li quickly found that biotechs in China were already working on many of the targets he had on his list. Curious, he visited Shanghai and Suzhou and witnessed a buzzing scene of startups set frenetically to task.
“They’re not really thinking about the U.S. at all. They’re just trying to create more value and stay alive to differentiate themselves from the next guy in China,” he said. “They’re moving quick. There are a lot of them and they’re just quite competitive.”
Li’s experience is illustrative of a trend that could pressure biotech companies in the U.S. and alter their drug development strategies. More and more, large pharmaceutical companies are licensing experimental drugs from China. Venture companies are testing similar tactics by launching new U.S. startups around compounds sourced from China’s laboratories. This shift has been sudden, with licensing deals ramping rapidly over the past two years. And it is occurring even as the shadow of U.S.-China competition within biotech grows longer.
Executives and investors interviewed by BioPharma Dive at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference this week share Li’s outlook. They expect such deals will accelerate and, in the process, force U.S. biotechs to work harder to stand out.
“We’ve been warning people for a while, we’re losing our edge,” said Paul Hastings, CEO of cell therapy maker Nkarta and former chair of the U.S. lobbying group the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. “Innovation is now showing up on our doorstep.”
There’s perhaps no clearer example of this than ivonescimab, a drug developed by China-based Akeso Therapeutics and licensed by U.S.-based Summit Therapeutics. Recent results from a lung cancer study run in China showed ivonescimab outperformed Keytruda, Merck’s dominant immunotherapy and currently the pharmaceutical industry’s most lucrative single product.
The finding “put a huge focus on what’s happening in China,” said Boris Zaïtra, head of business development at Roche, which sells a rival to Keytruda.
Fast-moving research
Today’s deal boom has roots in efforts by the Chinese government to upgrade the country’s biotech capabilities by upping investment in technological innovation. In the life sciences, the initiative provided funding, discounted or even free laboratory space and grants to support what Li described as a “robust ecosystem” of biotechs.
The results are clear. Places like Shanghai and Suzhou are home to a skilled workforce of scientists and hundreds of homegrown companies that employ them. Science parks akin to the U.S. biotech hubs of Cambridge, Massachusetts and San Francisco have sprouted up.
Chinese companies generally can move faster, and at a lower cost, than their U.S. counterparts. Startups can go from launch to clinical trials in 18 months or less, compared to a few years in the U.S., Li estimated. Clinical trial enrollment is speedy, while staffing and supply chain costs are lower, helping companies move drugs along more cost effectively.
“If you’re a national company within China running a trial, just by virtue of the networks that you work within, you pay a fraction of what we pay, and the access to patients is enough that you can go really fast,” said Andy Plump, head of research at Takeda Pharmaceutical. “All of those are enablers.”
And what they’ve enabled is a large and growing stockpile of drug prospects, many of which are designed as “me too better” versions of existing medicines, analysts at the investment bank Jefferies wrote in a December report. Initially focused in oncology, China-based companies are now churning out high-quality compounds across multiple therapeutic areas, including autoimmune conditions and obesity.
“There was a huge boom of investment in China, cost of capital was very low, and all these companies blew out huge pipelines,” said Alexis Borisy, a biotech investor and founder of venture capital firm Curie.Bio. ”Anything that anybody was doing in the biotech and pharmaceutical industry, you could probably find 10 to 50 versions of it across the China ecosystem.”
Me-toos become me-betters
For years now, Western biopharma executives have scouted the pipelines of China’s biotech laboratories — exploration that yielded a smattering of licensing deals and research collaborations. Borisy was among them, starting in 2020 a company called EQRx that sought to bring Chinese versions of already-approved drugs to the U.S. and sell them for less. EQRx’s plan backfired amid scrutiny by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of medicines tested only in people from a single country.
Now, however, the pace of deals has accelerated rapidly. There are a few reasons for this. According to Plump, one is the improving quality of the drug compounds being developed. The “me toos” are becoming “me betters” that could surpass available therapies and earn significant revenue for companies — like BeiGene’s blood cancer drug Brukinsa, which, in new prescriptions for the treatment of leukemia, overtook two established medicines of the same type last year.
Another reason, Plump said, is that China-based companies are becoming more innovative, studying drug targets that might not have yet yielded marketed medicines, or for which the most advanced competition is in early testing. Li notes how Chinese companies are going after harder “engineering problems,” like making complex, multifunctional antibody drugs, or antibody-drug conjugates.
“There are so many [companies] that the new assets are going to keep coming,” Li said.
Much as in the U.S., China-based biotechs are also fighting for funding, pushing them to consider licensing deals with multinational pharma companies. At the same time, these pharmas are hunting for cheap medicines they can plug into their pipelines ahead of looming patent cliffs. The two trends are “colliding,” said Kristina Burow, a managing director with Arch Venture Partners. “I don’t see an end to that.”
The statistics bear Burow’s view out. According to Jefferies, the number and average value of deals for China-developed drugs reached record levels last year. Another report, from Stifel’s Tim Opler, showed that pharma companies now source about one-third of their in-licensed molecules from China, up from around 10% to 12% between 2020 and 2022.
“I see huge opportunities for us to partner and work together with Chinese companies,” said Plump, of Takeda.
“There’s been a lot of really good, high quality molecules and data that have emerged from China over the last couple of years,” said Robert Plenge, the head of research at Bristol Myers Squibb. “It’s also no longer just simply repeating what’s been done with the exact same type of molecule.”
Geopolitical risks
These deals are happening against an uncertain backdrop. The U.S. Congress has spent the last year or so kicking around iterations of the Biosecure Act, a bill that would restrict U.S. biotechs from working with certain China-based drug contractors. A committee in the House of Representatives is calling for new limits on clinical trials that involve Chinese military hospitals. And the incoming Trump administration has threatened tariffs that could ripple across industrial sectors.
“We don’t know what this new administration is going to do,” said Jon Norris, a managing director at HSBC Innovation Banking.
The Biosecure Act “keeps going sideways,” added Hastings, who believes that any impact from the legislation, if passed, would be minimal. Instead, Hastings wonders if future tariffs may be more problematic. “There will be tariffs on other goods coming from China. Does that include raw materials and innovation? It’s hard to imagine that it won’t,” he said.
But executives and investors expect deals to continue, meaning U.S. biotechs will have to do more to compete.
“U.S. companies will need to figure out what it is they’re able to bring to the table that others can’t,” said Burow, of Arch.
Borisy said startups working on first-of-their-kind drugs need to be more secretive than ever. “Do not publish. Do not present at a scientific meeting. Do not put out a poster. Try to make your initial patent filing as obtuse as possible,” he cautioned.
“The second that paper comes out, or poster at any scientific meeting, or talk or patent, assume it has launched a thousand ships.”
Those that are further along should assume companies in China will be quick on their heels with potentially superior drugs. “The day when you could come out with a bad molecule and open up a field is over,” he said.
Greater competition isn’t necessarily a bad thing, according to Neil Kumar, CEO of BridgeBio Pharma. Drug development could become more efficient as pharmas acquire medicines from a “cheaper” starting point and advance them more quickly.
Venture dollars could be directed towards newer ideas, rather than standing up a host of similar companies.“If all of a sudden this makes us less ‘lemming-like,’” Kumar said, “I have no problem with that.”
Li similarly argues that, going forward, U.S. companies need to focus on “novelty and innovation.” At his own company, Li is now working on things “we felt others were not able to access.”
“The game has always been the same. Bring something super differentiated to market,” he said. But “the bar has risen.”
Gwendolyn Wu and Jacob Bell contributed reporting.
Is Chinese Biotechs just Producing Me-Too Drugs or are they Innovating New Molecular Entities?
The following articles explain the areas in which Chinese Biotech is expanding and focused on.
However the sort answer and summary to the aforementioned question is: Definately Chinese Biotechs are innovating at a rapid pace, and new molecular entities and new classes of drugs are outpacing any copycat or mee-too generic drug development.
This article by Joe Renny on LinkedIn focuses on the degree of innovation in Chinese biotech companies. I put the article in mostly its entirety because Joe did an excellent analysis of China’s biotech industry.
Joe Renny: Strategic Growth Leader | Driving M&A, Pharma Partnerships & Innovation | Unlocking the Commercial Potential of Science | Biotech & Pharmaceuticals
China’s biotech sector is in the midst of a stunning surge – its stocks have skyrocketed over 60% this year (outpacing even China’s high-flying tech sector), and the country now has over 1,250 innovative drugs in development, nearly catching up with the U.S. pipeline of ~1,440. Once known mainly for generic manufacturing, China is rapidly emerging as a source of differentiated innovation. Global pharma giants have taken notice: major licensing deals are proliferating as Western drugmakers snap up Chinese-born therapies in fields like oncology, metabolic diseases (obesity/diabetes), and immunology. The excitement is palpable – but a critical question looms beneath the optimism: Can this wave of innovation meaningfully improve the pharmaceutical industry’s return on investment (ROI)? In other words, will China’s biotech boom fix the underlying economics of drug development, or are the same old ROI challenges here to stay?
From Copycats to Cutting-Edge: China’s Rapid Ascent in Biotech
In the past decade, China’s pharma landscape has transformed from copycat chemistry to cutting-edge biotech. The sheer scale of innovation is unprecedented. A recent analysis found China had over 1,250 novel drug candidates enter development in 2024, far surpassing the EU and nearly reaching U.S. levels. This is a remarkable jump from just a few years ago – back in 2015, China contributed only ~160 compounds globally. Reforms to streamline drug approvals and massive R&D investments (spurred by initiatives like Made in China 2025) have unleashed a boom led by returnee scientists and ambitious startups.
Importantly, the quality of Chinese innovation has leapt upward alongside quantity. Drugs originating in China are increasingly clearing high bars of efficacy and safety. The world’s strictest regulators, including the U.S. FDA and European EMA, have begun fast-tracking more Chinese-developed drugs with priority reviews and “breakthrough” designations. For example, a cell therapy for blood cancer developed by China’s Legend Biotech won FDA approval (marketed by Johnson & Johnson) and is considered superior to a rival U.S. therapy. Another China-origin drug – Akeso Inc.’s novel cancer antibody that outperformed Merck’s Keytruda in trials – triggered a global wave of interest and a $500 million licensing deal in 2022. In short, China is no longer just a low-cost manufacturing base; it’s producing world-class treatments that Big Pharma is eager to get its hands on.
This trend is also evident in the stock markets. After a four-year slump, Chinese biotech stocks have roared back, becoming one of Asia’s best-performing sectors in 2025. The Hang Seng Biotech Index in Hong Kong is up over 60% since January, vastly outperforming broader tech indices. Investors are excited by signals that China is becoming a true global hub for biopharma innovation. According to one analyst, “China biotech is now a disruptive force reshaping global drug innovation… The science is real, the economics are compelling, and the pipeline is starting to deliver”. All of this represents a fundamental shift in the industry’s centre of gravity – and perhaps a new source of competitive pressure on Western incumbents.
Western Pharma’s Response: Licensing Deals and Partnerships Accelerate
Global pharmaceutical companies aren’t standing on the sidelines – they’re rushing to collaborate with and invest in Chinese biotechs. In fact, U.S. and European drugmakers have dramatically stepped up licensing deals to tap China’s innovations. Through the first half of 2025 alone, U.S. companies signed 14 licensing agreements worth up to $18.3 billion for Chinese-origin drugs, a huge jump from just 2 such deals in the same period a year earlier. Many of these partnerships involve potential blockbusters in cancer, metabolic disorders, and other areas where Chinese R&D is making leaps.
Oncology: China has become a hotbed for cancer drug innovation, especially with advanced biologics like bispecific antibodies. In May 2025, Pfizer paid a record $1.25 billion upfront to license a PD-1/VEGF bispecific antibody from China’s 3SBio (a deal worth up to $6 billion with milestones). Weeks later, Bristol Myers Squibb struck an $11.5 billion alliance for a similar immunotherapy developed in China. Virtually every active clinical trial for certain cutting-edge cancer combos (like PD-1/VEGF drugs) now originates in China, making it a goldmine for Western firms seeking the next breakthrough. AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and others have all scooped up Chinese cancer therapies in recent years as they cast their nets wider for innovation.
Metabolic & Obesity Drugs: Western pharma is also eyeing China’s contributions in metabolic diseases. Notably, Merck licensed a Chinese-developed GLP-1 oral drug (for diabetes/obesity) from Hansoh Pharma in late 2022 for up to $1.7 billion. And in 2025, Regeneron paid $80 million upfront (in a deal worth up to $2 billion) for rights to an experimental obesity drug from Hansoh. These deals underscore that Chinese labs are producing competitive candidates in the red-hot obesity/diabetes arena – an area of huge global market potential.
Autoimmune & Other Areas: While oncology leads, Chinese biotechs are also advancing novel therapies in immunology and autoimmune diseases. For example, multiple deals in 2024–25 have focused on inflammatory conditions and neurology, indicating breadth in China’s pipeline. As one industry banker observed, roughly one-third of all new assets licensed by large pharmas in 2024 originated from China, and this could rise to 40–50% in coming years. In other words, nearly half of Big Pharma’s in-licensed pipeline may soon be sourced from China – a radical change from a decade ago.
Underpinning this deal frenzy is a stark reversal of roles: China has shifted from mostly importing therapies to now exporting its homegrown innovations. Back in 2015, Chinese companies mainly signed “license-in” deals to bring foreign drugs to China. But by 2024, nearly half of China’s transactions were license-out deals, with Chinese firms granting global rights to their own drugs. In 2024 alone, Chinese biotechs out-licensed 94 novel projects to overseas partners, often at early clinical stages. This boom in outbound deals – especially for high-value cancer therapies (like ADCs and bispecific antibodies) – highlights China’s maturation as an innovation engine.
In a scientific paper published by Yan et al, the authors provided a comparative analysis between the US, EU, and China of new approved drugs from the years 2019- 2023.
Yan Y, Guo X, Li Z, Shi W, Long M, Yue X, Kong F, Zhao Z. New Drug Approvals in China: An International Comparative Analysis, 2019-2023. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2025 Apr 3;19:2629-2639. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S514132.
In the paper, the authors retrieved approval data from from the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), including information on the generic name, trade name, applicants, target, approval date, drug type, approved indications, therapeutic area, the highest R&D status in China, and special approval status. The approval time gaps between China and other regions were calculated.
Results: Interestingly, China led with 256 new drug approvals, followed by the US (243 approvals), the EU (191 approvals), and Japan (187 approvals). Oncology, hematology, and infectiology were identified as the leading therapeutic areas globally and in China. Notably, PD-1 and EGFR inhibitors saw substantial approval, with 8 drugs each approved by the NMPA. China significantly reduced the approval timeline gap with the US and the EU since 2021, approving 15 first-in-class drugs during the study period.
The authors concluded, that despite the COVID-19 years, Chinese biotech has rapidly innovated in the biotech space and made up for the time gaps with increased research productivity.
Number of drug approvals by regulatory agency. Source: Yan Y, Guo X, Li Z, Shi W, Long M, Yue X, Kong F, Zhao Z. New Drug Approvals in China: An International Comparative Analysis, 2019-2023. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2025 Apr 3;19:2629-2639. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S514132.
A comparison of drug approvals in US and China, as percentage of clinical use in various disease states. Source: Yan Y, Guo X, Li Z, Shi W, Long M, Yue X, Kong F, Zhao Z. New Drug Approvals in China: An International Comparative Analysis, 2019-2023. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2025 Apr 3;19:2629-2639. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S514132.
China Biotech Innovation Hubs
The following was generated by Google AI
China has several prominent biotech innovation hubs, with the Yangtze River Delta region (including Shanghai, Suzhou, and Hangzhou) and Beijing being particularly strong. These regions leverage strong academic and research institutions, high R&D expenditures, and significant investment to foster a vibrant biotech ecosystem.
Here’s a closer look at some key hubs:
Yangtze River Delta:
Shanghai: A major hub with a focus on oncology, cell and gene therapy, and a strong track record of biotech IPOs. It’s home to the Zhangjiang Biotech and Pharmaceutical Base, known as China’s “Medicine Valley”.
Suzhou: Known for the BioBay industrial park, which houses numerous biotechnology and technology companies.
Hangzhou: Features a growing biotech sector, with companies like Hangzhou DAC Biotech.
Wuhan: Wuhan Biolake is a key player in areas like biomedicine, bio-agriculture, and bio-manufacturing.
Shenzhen: Features an innovation hub that supports synthetic biology startups and accelerates the commercialization of new biotech materials.
Key Factors Driving Growth:
Strong government support and investment: China has been actively promoting the growth of its biotech sector through various initiatives and funding programs.
High R&D expenditures: China is investing heavily in research and development, particularly in the tech, manufacturing, and biotech sectors.
Increasingly strong talent pool: China is producing a growing number of STEM graduates and globally recognized researchers.
AI and technology integration: AI is being applied to drug design and discovery, accelerating innovation.
Focus on specific areas: Different hubs are specializing in areas like oncology, regenerative medicine, and medical devices.
Overall, China’s biotech sector is experiencing rapid growth and is becoming a significant player in the global landscape, with these hubs leading the way.
Articles of Interest on International Biotech Venture Investment on the Open Access Scientific Journal Include:
Nearly half of the global population—and 80 percent of patients in therapeutic areas such as immunology—are women. Yet, treatments are frequently developed without tailored insights for female patients, often ignoring critical biological differences such as hormonal impacts, genetic factors, and cellular sex. Historically, women’s health has been narrowly defined through the lens of reproductive organs, while for non-reproductive conditions, women were treated as “small men.” This lack of focus on sex-specific biology has contributed to significant gaps in healthcare.
A recent analysis found that women spend 25 percent more of their lives in poor health compared with men due to the absence of sex-based treatments. Addressing this disparity could not only improve women’s quality of life but also unlock over $1 trillion in annual global GDP by 2040.
Four key factors contribute to the women’s health gap: limited understanding of sex-based biological differences, healthcare systems designed around male physiology, incomplete data that underestimates women’s disease burden, and chronic underfunding of female-focused research. For instance, despite women representing 78 percent of U.S. rheumatoid arthritis patients, only 7 percent of related NIH funding in 2019 targeted female-specific studies.
However, change is happening. Companies have demonstrated how targeted R&D can drive better outcomes for women. These therapies achieved expanded FDA approvals after clinical trials revealed their unique benefits for female patients. Similarly, addressing sex-based treatment gaps in asthma, atrial fibrillation, and tuberculosis could prevent millions of disability-adjusted life years.
By closing the women’s health gap, biopharma companies can drive innovation, improve therapeutic outcomes, and build high-growth markets while addressing long-standing inequities. This untapped opportunity holds the potential to transform global health outcomes for women and create a more equitable future.
Clarivate was formed in 2016, following the acquisition of Thomson Reuters‘ Intellectual Property and Science business by Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia. Clarivate has acquired various companies since then, including, notably, ProQuest in 2021.
Clarivate (formerly CPA Global) was formerly the Intellectual Property and Science division of Thomson Reuters. Before 2008, it was known as Thomson Scientific. In 2016, Thomson Reuters struck a $3.55 billion deal in which they spun it off as an independent company, and sold it to private-equity firms Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia.
June 1, 2017: Publons, a platform for researchers to share recognition for peer review.
April 10, 2018: Kopernio, AI-tech startup providing ability to search for full-text versions of selected scientific journal articles.
October 30, 2018: TrademarkVision, provider of Artificial Intelligence (AI) trademark research applications.
September 9, 2019: SequenceBase, provider of patent sequence information and search technology to the biotech, pharmaceutical and chemical industries.
December 2, 2019: Darts-ip, provider of case law data and analytics for intellectual property (IP) professionals.
January 17, 2020: Decision Resources Group (DRG), a leading healthcare research and consulting company, providing high-value healthcare industry analysis and insights.
June 22, 2020: CustomersFirst Now, in intellectual property (“IP”) software and tech-enabled services.
October 1, 2020: CPA Global, intellectual property (“IP”) software and tech-enabled services.
December 1, 2021: ProQuest, software, data and analytics provider to academic, research and national institutions.[27]It was acquired for $5.3 billion from Cambridge Information Group in what was described as a “huge deal in the library and information publishing world”. The company said that the operational concept behind the acquisition was integrating ProQuest’s products and applications with Web of Science. Chairman of ProQuest Andy Snyder became the vice chairman of Clarivate. The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, an advocacy group for open access to scholarship, voiced antitrust concerns. The acquisition had been delayed mid-year due to a Federal Trade Commission antitrust probe.
We are a leading global information services and analytics company serving the scientific research, intellectual property and life sciences end-markets. We provide structured information and analytics to facilitate the discovery, protection and commercialization of scientific research, innovations and brands. Our product porfolio includes well-established market-leading brands such as Web of Science, Derwent Innovation, Life Sciences, CompuMark and MarkMonitor (which they later divested). We believe that the stron balue proposition of our content, user interfaces, visualization and analytical tools, combined with the integration of our products and services into customers’ daily workflows, leads to our substantial customer loyalty as evidenced by their willingness to renew subscriptions with us.
Our structure, enabling a sharp focus on cross-selling opportunities within markets, is comprised of two product groups:
Science Group: consists of Web of Science and Life Science Product Lines
Intellectual Property Group: consists of Derwent, CompuMark and MarkMonitor
Corporations, government agencies, universities, law firms depend on our high-value curated content, analytics and services. Unstructured data has grown exponentially over the last decade. The trend has resulted in a critical need for unstructured data to be meaningfully filtered, analyzed and curated into relvent information that facilitates key operational and strategic decision making. Our highly curated, proprietary information created through our sourcing, aggregation, verification, translation, and categorization (ONTOLOGY) of data has resulted in our solutions being embedded in our customers’ workflow and decision-making processes.
Overview of Clarivate PLC five year strategy in 2019. Note that in 2019 the Science Group accounted for 56.2% of revenue! This was driven by their product Cortellis!
Figure. Overview of Clarivate PLC five year strategy in 2019. Note that in 2019 the Science Group accounted for 56.2% of revenue! This was driven by their product Cortellis!
Also Note nowhere in the M&A Discussion in years before 2023 was anything mentioned concerning AI or Large Language Models.
The Clarivate of Today: Built for Life Sciences with Cortellis
Clarivate PLC has integrated multiple platforms into their offering Cortellis, which integrated AI and LLM into the structured knowledge bases (see more at https://clarivate.com/products/cortellis-family/)
“Life sciences organizations are tasked, now more than ever, to discover and develop treatments that challenge the status quo, increase ROI, and improve patient lives. However, its become increasingly difficult to find, integrate and analyze the key data your teams need to make critical decisions and get your Cortellis products to patients faster.
Cortellis Competitive Intelligence: maximize ROI and improve patient outcomes
Cortellis Deals Intelligence: Portfolio Strategy and Business Development (find best deal)
Cortellis Clinical Intelligence: Clinical Trial Support and Regulatory
Cortellis Digital Health Intelligence: understand digital health ecosystem
Cortellis Drug Discovery: improve drug development speed and efficiency
MetaBase and MetaCore: integrated omics knowledge bases for drug discovery
Cortellis Regulatory: help with filings
Cortellis HTA: health tech compliance (HIPAA)
CMC Intelligence: new drug marketing
Generics Intelligence
Drug Safety Intelligence: both preclinical safety and post marketing pharmacovigilence
Watch Videos on Cortellis for Drug Discovery
Watch Video on Qiagen Site to see how Cortellis Integrates with Qiagen Omics Platform IPA with Clarivate Meta Core to gain more insights into genomic and proteomic data
Understand complex ‘omics data to accelerate your research
Discover why QIAGEN Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) is the leading pathway analysis application among the life science research community and is cited in tens of thousands of articles for the analysis, integration and interpretation of data derived from ‘omics experiments. Such experiments include:
RNA-seq
Small RNA-seq
Metabolomics
Proteomics
Microarrays including miRNA and SNP
Small-scale experiments
With QIAGEN IPA you can predict downstream effects and identify new targets or candidate biomarkers. QIAGEN Ingenuity Pathway Analysis helps you perform insightful data analysis and interpretation to understand your experimental results within the context of various biological systems.
Articles Relevant to Drug Development, Natural Language Processing in Drug Development, and Clarivate on this Open Access Scientific Journal Include:
Live Notes from JP Morgan Healthcare Conference Virtual Endpoints Preview: January 8-9 2024
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
Endpoints at #JPM24 | Primed to unlock biopharma’s next dealmaking wave
Endpoints at JP Morgan Healthcare Conference
January 8-9 | San Francisco, CA80 Mission St, San Francisco, CA
An oasis has emerged in the biopharma money desert as backers look to replenish capital — still, uncertainty remains on whether it’s a mirage or the much needed dealmaking bump the industry needs. Yet spirits run high as JPM24 marks the triumphant return of inking strategic alliances and peering into the industry crystal ball — while keeping an eye out for some major M&A.
We’re back live from San Francisco for JPM Monday and Tuesday — our calendar of can’t-miss panels and fireside chats will feature prominent biopharma leaders to watch. The Endpoints Hub provides the ultimate coworking space with everything you need — 1:1 and group meeting spots plus guest pass capabilities and more. Join us in-person at the Endpoints Hub or watch online to stay plugged into all the action.
8 JAN
Welcome remarks
8:05 AM – 8:25 AM PST
Pfizer vet Mikael Dolsten has some thoughts on Big Pharma R&D
Endpoints News founding editor John Carroll will sit down with longtime Pfizer CSO Mikael Dolsten to talk about Pfizer’s pipeline, what he’s learned on the job about preclinical research and development and what’s ahead for the pharma giant in drug development and deals.
Mikael Dolsten
Chief Scientific Officer, President, Pfizer Research & Development
Pfizer
Pfizer Mikael Dolsten: Pfizer produced a series of AI generated molecules with new properties. Sees rapid adoption of AI in the area of drug discovery and molecular design.
8:25 AM – 9:05 AM PST
What pharma wants: The industry’s dealmakers look ahead at 2024
The drug industry’s appetite for new assets hasn’t slowed down. Top business development execs will give their outlook on the year, what they’re looking for and how they see the market.
Glenn Hunzinger
Pharmaceutical & Life Sciences Consulting Solutions Leader
PwC US
Rachna Khosla
SVP, Head of Business Development
Amgen
James Sabry
Global Head of Pharma Partnering
Roche
Devang Bhuva
SVP, Corporate Development
Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Endpoints News
Dealmaking panel
Glenn Hunzinger: if you do not have a GLP1 will have a tough time getting a good market price for your company; capital markets are not where they want to be; sees a tough deal making climate like last year. The problem with many biotech companies are they are coming earlier to the venture capital because of greater funding needs and so it is imperative that they articulate the potential of their company in scientific detail
Rachna Khosla: Make sure your investors are not just CAPITAL PARTNERS but use their expertise and involve them in development issues you may have, especially ones that a young firm will face. The problem is most investments assume what the future looks like (for example how antibody drug conjugates, once a field left for dead, has been rejuvenated because of advances in chemistry).
James Sabry: noted that cardiac and metabolic drugs are now at the focus of many investors, especially with the new anti-obesity drugs on market
Devang Bhuva: Most deals we see start as collaborations or partnerships. You want to involve an alliance management team early in the deal making process. This process could take years.
9:05 AM – 9:20 AM PST
The IPO: How Apogee Therapeutics went public in the most challenging market in years
Not many biotechs went public in 2023. And of those that did, not many have had a great time of it. Apogee is the exception and our panel will offer a behind-the-scenes look at their decision to enter the market and what life is like as a young public company.
Michael Henderson
CEO
Apogee Therapeutics
Kyle LaHucik
MODERATOR
Senior Reporter
Endpoints News
Michael Henderson: Not many biotech IPOs deals happened in 2023. Michael feels it is because too many biotechs focused on building platforms, which was a hard sell in 2023. He felt not many biotechs had clear milestones and investors wanted a clear primary validated target. He said many biotech startups are in a funding crunch and most need at least $440M on their balance sheet to get to 2026.
9:50 AM – 10:10 AM PST
Top predictions for biotech in 2024
Catalent CEO Alessandro Maselli will be back at the big JPM healthcare confab to talk with Endpoints News founder John Carroll about their top predictions of what’s coming up for the biotech industry in 2024. The stakes couldn’t be higher as the industry grapples with headwinds and new opportunities in a gale of market forces. Two top observers share their thoughts on the year ahead.
Alessandro Maselli
President & CEO
Catalent
10:15 AM – 10:35 AM PST
Innovation at a crossroads: Keys to unlocking the value of science and technology
The industry has long discussed the promise of technology and the acceleration it provides in scientific advancement and across the industry value chain. However, the promise of its impact has yet to fully be realized. This discussion will outline the keys to unleashing this promise and the implications and actions to be taken by the biopharmaceutical companies across the industry.
Ray Pressburger
North America Life Sciences Industry Lead & Global Life Sciences Strategy Lead
Accenture
SPONSORED BY
10:35 AM – 11:05 AM PST
Activism and Investing: In conversation with Elliott Investment Management’s Marc Steinberg
Elliott has been behind many of 2023’s highest-profile healthcare investments, including multiple activist engagements and taking Syneos Health private. What has made large healthcare companies such interesting investment opportunities for firms like Elliott? What’s Elliott’s investing strategy in healthcare? And what should companies expect when an activist calls?
Marc Steinberg
Senior Portfolio Manager
Elliott Investment Management
Andrew Dunn
MODERATOR
Biopharma Correspondent
Endpoints News
11:05 AM – 11:35 AM PST
Creating ROI from AI
AI is predicted to transform the way drugs are made, from discovery to clinical trials to market. But beyond the initial hype and early adoption, where has AI made meaningful contributions to R&D? How does it help drug developers advance science? Endpoints publisher Arsalan Arif is convening a panel of leading experts to discuss the state of AI in the pharmaceutical landscape and the outlook for 2024. How does AI impact the drug pipeline, from the early steps of discovery to reducing trial failure rate?
Thomas Clozel
Co-Founder & CEO
Owkin
Venkat Sethuraman
SVP, Global Biometrics & Data Sciences
Bristol Myers Squibb
Frank O. Nestle
Global Head of Research & Chief Scientific Officer
Sanofi
Matthias Evers
Chief Business Officer
Evotec
Arsalan Arif
MODERATOR
Founder & Publisher
Endpoints News
SPONSORED BY
11:35 AM – 12:00 PM PST
Biopharma’s dealmaker: Behind the scenes with Centerview Partners co-president Eric Tokat
Almost every major biopharma deal in 2023 had Centerview’s name attached to it. And much of the time, Eric Tokat was the banker making those deals happen. Hear his outlook for 2024, how transactions are getting done and what’s placed his firm at the center of so much action.
E. Eric Tokat
Co-President, Investment Banking
Centerview Partners
CenterView Partners Eric Tokat feels dealmaking will improve in 2024, given the recent flurry of dealmaking at end of last year and right before main JPM Healthcare Conference. He says Centerview wants to help the biotechs they invest in on their strategic path. This may translate into buyers more actively involved (more than startups want) and buyers now are in the drivers seat as far as the timeline of deals and development.
Is the megamerger dead for this year? He says it is very hard to see two major mergers happening but there will be many smaller and mid size biotech deals happening, but these deals will be more speculative in nature.. The focus for large pharma is top line growth. Most of the buyers have an infrastructure and value is more of buying and dropping it in their business so there is now a huge emphasis on due diligence on whether synergies exist or not
12:00 PM – 12:30 PM PST
Founder, legend, leader: In conversation with Nobel laureate Carolyn Bertozzi
Carolyn Bertozzi’s discoveries around bioorthogonal chemistry won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2022 and are at the heart of new therapies being tested in patients. Join us as we discuss what inspires her and where she sees the next big advances.
Carolyn Bertozzi
Prof. of Chemistry, Stanford University and Baker Family Director of Sarafan ChEM-H
Stanford University
Nicole DeFeudis
MODERATOR
Editor
Endpoints News
Bioorthogonal chemistry: class of high yielding chemical reactions that proceed rapidly and selectively in biological environments without side reactions toward endogenous functions. This is also a type of ‘click chemistry’ in biological system where only specifically alter the biomolecule of interest.
Orthogonal: two chemicals not interacting with each other
Dr. Bertozzi noted she has started a new Antibody-Drug-Conjugate (ADC) company which involves designing with biorthogonal chemistry to make new functional molecules with varying properties
She noted hardly any biologists knew anything about glycobiology when she first started. However now she feels pharma and academia are working very well with each other
Bioorthogonal and Click Chemistry Curated by Prof. Carolyn R. Bertozzi, 2022 winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry
The 2022 Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded jointly to ACS Central Science Editor-in-Chief, Carolyn R. Bertozzi of Stanford University, Morten Meldal of the University of Copenhagen, and K. Barry Sharpless of Scripps Research, for the development of click chemistry and bioorthogonal chemistry.
To celebrate this remarkable achievement, 2022 Nobel Prize winner Professor Carolyn R. Bertozzi has curated this Bioorthogonal and Click Chemistry Virtual Issue, highlighting papers published across ACS journals that have built upon the foundational work in this exciting area of chemistry.
Bioorthogonal reactions are chemical reactions that neither interact with nor interfere with a biological system. The participating functional groups must be inert to biological moieties, must selectively reactive with each other under biocompatible conditions, and, for in vivo applications, must be nontoxic to cells and organisms. Additionally, it is helpful if one reactive group is small and therefore minimally perturbing of a biomolecule into which it has been introduced either chemically or biosynthetically. Examples from the past decade suggest that a promising strategy for bioorthogonal reaction development begins with an analysis of functional group and reactivity space outside those defined by nature. Issues such as stability of reactants and products (particularly in water), kinetics, and unwanted side reactivity with biofunctionalities must be addressed, ideally guided by detailed mechanistic studies. Finally, the reaction must be tested in a variety of environments, escalating from aqueous media to biomolecule solutions to cultured cells and, for the most optimized transformations, to live organisms.
9 JAN
9:40 AM – 10:10 AM PST
Biotech downturn survival school
Our panelists have seen the worst, and made it through to the other side. Join us for downturn survival school as our panelists talk about what sets apart the ones who make it through tough times.
These panalists think it will be specialist capital year to shine while the general capital is still sitting on the sidelines
JJ Kang
CEO
Appia Bio
“2023 was a tough year while 2020 was a boon year to start a company. We will continue to see these cycles; many of these new CEOs have never seen a biotech downturn yet and may not know how to preserve capital for the downturn”.
“Doing a partnership with Kite Pharmaceuticals early in our startp allowed us to get work done without risking a lot of capital, even if it means equity and asset dilution. That makes sense. However even if you are small insist on being an equal partner.”
“There are many investors we talk to who do not want to invest in cell therapy. Too risky now”
Carl Gordon
Managing Partner
OrbiMed Advisors
There are many macroeconomic factors affecting investment and capital today which will carry on through 2024. Not raising money when you do not need money is a bad philosophy. Always bbe raising captial. This is especially true when you have to rely on hedge funds. Parnerships howeve are sometimes the only way for small biotechs to leverage their strengths.
Joshua Boger
Executive Chair
Alkeus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Boger: Expect volatility for 2024. This environment feels very different than past downturns.
Even in downturns there is still lots of capital; remember access to human capital is better in a downturn and is easier to access; however it has become harder to get drug approvals
The panelists agree that access to capital and funding will be as tricky in 2024 than 2023. They did
suggest that a new funding avenue, private credit, may be a source of capital. This is discussed below:
When thinking about a private alternative investment asset class, the first thing that springs to mind is private equity. But there’s one more asset class with the word private in its name that has recently gained much attention. We’re talking about private credit.
Indeed, this once little-known investment strategy is now growing rapidly in popularity, offering private investors worldwide an exciting opportunity to diversify their portfolio with, in theory, less risky investments that yield significant returns.
Private credit investments refer to investors lending money to companies who then repay the loan at a given interest rate within the predetermined period.
The private credit market has grown significantly over the past years, rising from $875 million in 2020 to $1.4 trillion at the beginning of 2023.
Please WATCH VIDEO BY GOLDMAN SACHS ON PRIVATE CREDIT
The New Molecule: How breakthrough technologies are actually changing pharma R&D
Join us for a look at how AI, machine learning and generative technologies are actually being applied inside drugmakers’ labs. We’ll explore how new technologies are being used, their implications, how they intersect with regulatory and IP issues and how this fast-changing field is likely to evolve.
Kailash Swarna
Managing Director & Global Life Sciences Clinical Development Lead
Accenture
Artificial Intelligence is making impact in a grand way on biology in three aspects:
Speeding up target validation: now we can get through 300 molecules a day
Predicition like AlphaFold is doing; molecular simulations
Document submission especially with regulatory and IND submissions
Pamela Carroll
COO
Isomorphic Labs formerly of AlphaFold
We were first with Novartis at last year JPM and was one year old but parnering with them in that initial year was very important for sealing the deal.
They are looking now at neurologic diseases like ALS. She wondered whether ALS is actually multiple diseases and we need to stratify patients like we do in oncology trials. Their main competion is the whole tech world like Amazon, Google and other Machine Learning companies so being a tech player in the biotech world means you are not just competing with other biotechs but large tech companies as well.
Jorge Conde
General Partner
Andreessen Horowitz
Need is still great for drug discovery; early adopters show AI tools can be used in big pharma. There are lots of applications of AI in managing care; a lot of back office applications including patient triaging. He does not see big AI mergers with pharma companies – this will be mainly partnerships not M&A deals
Alicyn Campbell
Chief Scientific Officer
Evinova, a Healthtech Subsidiary of the AstraZeneca Group
There is a need to turn AI for real world example. For example AI tools were used in clinical trials to determine patient cohorts with pneumonitis. At Evinova they are determining how AI can hel[p show clinical benefit with respect to efficacy and safety
Joshua Boger at #JPM24 (Brian Benton Photography)
January 12, 2024 09:06 AM ESTUpdated 10:00 AM PeopleStartups
Vertex founder Joshua Boger on surviving downturns, ‘painful’ partnerships, and the importance of culture: #JPM24
While the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference was full of voices of measured optimism, rooting for the market to bounce back in 2024, one longtime biotech leader warned against setting any firm expectations.
Instead of predicting when the downturn may end, Vertex Pharmaceuticals founder Joshua Boger said he advises biotech leaders to expect — and plan for — volatility. Speaking Tuesday on an Endpoints News panel alongside OrbiMed’s Carl Gordon and Appia Bio CEO JJ Kang, Boger shared lessons learned on surviving downturns, striking pharma deals, and the importance of keeping a company’s culture based on his two decades of founding and leading Vertex as CEO from 1989 to 2009. The 72-year-old is now serving as executive chairman of Alkeus Pharmaceuticals, a startup developing a rare disease drug.
“I never experienced a straight line up,” Boger said. “Everything had its cycles, and it was how you respond to the cycle, not by predicting when the end is going to be, but just by responding to the present situation.”
At Boger’s first appearance at the JP Morgan conference in 1991, he said the conference’s theme was the end of biotech financing. Just a few months later, Regeneron successfully went public, rapidly changing the outlook for the whole field.
“We had no idea we were ever going to take public money,” he said. “When Regeneron did their IPO, we went, ‘Whoa, there’s something happening here,’ and we pivoted quickly.”
Vertex went public later that year. Throughout his 20-year tenure, Boger said no pharma company ever made an acquisition offer for Vertex, which now commands a market value of $110 billion and recently won the first FDA approval for a CRISPR gene editing therapy.
“We had an uber corporate policy to always make ourselves more expensive than anyone would stomach,” Boger said.
However, Vertex did strike a range of partnerships with Big Pharmas, which Boger described as a painful but necessary part of running a biotech startup.
“It’s impossible for a partnership not to slow you down,” he said. “You can and should try as hard as you can not to do that, but just count on it. They’ll slow you down.”
Boger said startups should insist on being equal partners in pharma deals, at least making sure they have a seat at a partner’s development meetings.
“Realize they’re going to be painful, it’s going to be horrible, and you need to do it,” Boger said.
While Vertex suffered through layoffs, stock price plunges, and trial failures, Boger credited a focus on culture as key to its long-term success.
“It’s the most important ingredient for a successful company,” he said. “Technology is acquirable. Culture is not acquirable. There are 10 companies that will fail because of culture for every one that succeeds, and the successful companies in retrospect will almost always have special cultural aspects that kept them through those downtimes.”
JPM24 opens with ADCs the hottest ticket in San Francisco
The overall deal flow in biopharma tapered off in 2023 but the big companies sure know what they want (what they really, really want), according to a new report from J.P. Morgan.
And that’s antibody-drug conjugates, which drove a fourth-quarter spike in licensing deal proceeds and provided a glimmer of hope to an industry battered by outside forces and grim financing prospects.
J.P. Morgan’s annual 2023 Biopharma Licensing and Venture Report arrived on the eve of the firm’s famous conference, which is set to welcome thousands of attendees in San Francisco today—East Coast weather permitting.
2023 was tough, but clinical biotechs still had a lot of opportunities to wheel and deal, according to J.P. Morgan. While licensing deals, venture investments, M&A and IPOs were down overall in the fourth quarter, deal values stayed fairly high thanks to a flurry of late-stage tie ups.
Follow the Fierce team’s coverage of the 2024 J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference here.
Biopharma licensing partnerships accounted for $63 billion in total value during the fourth quarter from 108 deals. Just one deal—Merck’s ADC partnership with Daiichi Sankyo—accounted for $22 billion of that. Another huge one was another ADC bet, with Bristol Myers Squibb signing on to work with SystImmune for a total value of $8.4 billion. If you exclude the Merck deal, the total value of these partnerships is still higher than the previous quarter, which ended with $32.1 billion.
The total number of licensing deals compares to 149 in the same quarter a year earlier, 195 for Q4 2021 and 223 for Q4 2022.
As for venture investments, the year closed out with $17 billion total across 250 rounds, thanks to $3.5 billion earned through 79 rounds in the last quarter. Aiolos Bio snagged the title of largest venture round of the quarter with $245 million, which also proved to be the largest series A, too.
There was just one IPO in all of the fourth quarter—Cargo Therapeutics making the plunge for $300 million—and 13 overall for the year. It’s a far cry from the heyday of 2021 and experts are still unsure what 2024 will hold. J.P. Morgan reported $2.5 billion raised from 12 completed biopharma IPOs for the year on Nasdaq and NYSE. Nine out of the 12 companies had clinical programs when they took the leap to the public markets. As of December 13, five of the companies were trading above their IPO price.
As for M&A, December saw a rush of Big Pharmas snapping up companies around Christmas. J.P. Morgan tallied the fourth quarter at $37.6 billion and $128.8 billion across 112 total acquisitions for all of 2023.
AbbVie was the top buyer of the quarter with the two largest acquisitions thanks to the $10 billion outlay for ImmunoGen and $8.7 billion buy of Cerevel Therapeutics.
All of this adds up to 270 total deals in the fourth quarter total, which is lower than the third quarter which exceeded 300.
J.P. Morgan sees some big potential for smaller biopharmas looking for licensing partners, as Big Pharmas have been handing out larger upfront payments for the deals they really want.
Cancer was once again the most in-demand therapeutic areas, reaching a new height of $86.1 billion in 2023. Followed by $21.1 billion for neurological disorders.
For More Articles on Real Time Conference Coverage in this Open Access Scientific Journal see:
2012pharmaceutical
sjwilliamspa
A pioneer in computational chemistry and organosilicon compounds, Prof. Apeloig made groundbreaking scientific contributions while mentoring generations of researchers and helping position the Technion as a global leader in science and technology.
During his presidency, he expanded interdisciplinary research, strengthened international partnerships, increased investment in research infrastructure and scholarships, and advanced collaboration between engineering, medicine, and the humanities.“Prof. Apeloig led the Technion with quiet confidence and steadfast leadership,” said Technion President Prof. Uri Sivan. “His years in office were marked by exceptional academic development and a profound impact on the State of Israel and beyond.”
The Technion was his home and family. He will be deeply missed. May his memory be a blessing.