Next Phase Newsletter

By Sougato Das, President and COO, Life Science Nation (LSN)

The buzz among biotech execs and investors gathered at RESI JPM 2025 was if the last year of pharma deals falling to a decade-low was reversing with a rapid-fire source of new lower-risk drug candidates: China. With one-third of the therapeutic molecules bought by pharma coming from China last year, including the better-than-Pembro hopeful of Summit Therapeutics licensed from Chinese Akeso, US investors including Atlas, Bain, Forbion, General Atlantic and RTW are making major investments in Chinese biotech. Merck, Novartis, GSK, Gilead and other large pharmas have inked a slew of Chinese deals and have indicated they will do more, mainly in the areas of obesity, cardiovascular, immunology, liver diseases and oncology, many with novel MoAs. With relatively dry organic venture funding in China, Chinese companies are aggressively seeking Western suitors. China’s out-licensing is accelerating, with $46B in 2024, $38B in 2023 and $28B in 2022.  

Of course, the first question is how is Summit’s drug candidate going to get FDA approval with Chinese-only studies? The strategy here is to reduce risk by licensing ‘biobetters’ that have shown clinical success in China and then running late-stage clinical studies in the US for approval. Chen Yu, formerly of Vivo Capital, was quoted as saying. “Why would we do any early-stage development in the U.S. anymore? Why wouldn’t we just get clinical PoC in China and then bring it over to the U.S. for the expensive clinical development when we actually know the drug works? …that could be a revolutionary new way for our industry to become more efficient.” 

Not to be outdone, Merck announced it would license a competitive asset to Summit’s – and it was also from China. 

Clinical trials in China can recruit faster than US-based trials with less cost, allowing a startup to go from formation to clinical trials in less than 18 months due to: 

• Large populations that have not taken drugs for their disease are available at a multitude of regional hospitals 

• Obtaining experimental drugs for free is a strong incentive for patients to enroll 

• Less tightly regulated investigator-initiated trials are rapidly proliferating 

• Regulatory flexibility and lesser fees/overhead 

Investment and licensing is not the only Western-Chinese deal types being made. M&A has been on the rise. Examples include Genmab’s acquisition of ProfundBio ($1.8B) and BioNTech’s of Biotheus at ($950M). 

With the speed of early-stage development in China, US startups may face new challenges. Alex Borisy, founder of Curie.Bio, cautioned that the usual process of publishing or presenting/postering at scientific meetings could “launch a thousand ships” in China, and advised early-stage biotechs to author patents in such a manner as to make it difficult to do so. 

What could all this mean with a pro-tariff Trump presidency? That is TBD. However, Paul Hastings, CEO of Nkarta and former BIO Board Chair, remarked that it would be hard to imagine that raw materials and innovation would be exempted from future tariffs. 

One of the best places to meet with early-stage Chinese companies is RESI. With Life Science Nation’s copious reach into the Chinese market, RESI conferences feature a multitude of attractive Chinese firms, eager to partner and pitch their technologies. 

This article is a summary/digest of various general and biotech news articles; it is not original journalism. 

By Sougato Das, President and COO, Life Science Nation (LSN)

The hot topic is that government grants are fundamentally broken in Life Science. RFK Jr. is calling out NIH-funded studies as problematic and seeks to fix them by having Senate committees review proposals, restructuring and/or laying off NIH staff, and reducing infectious disease research while increasing chronic disease funding.

A 2023 study showed that nearly all FDA New Drug Applications from 2010 to 2019 relied on NIH funding in the early stages. Yet the biotech startup failure rate is 90%, according to Health Tech World and CBI Insights. So what is the disconnect, and what are the lessons Life Science Nation has learned from 12 years of helping startups get funded? One of the factors that can contribute to this failure rate: scientists and academics control the selection and evaluation process, and they often remain in the mix long after their expertise is most relevant. While they play a crucial role in assessing technical feasibility, when should they step aside when plotting the journey to commercialization?

The problem isn’t just that academic scientists struggle with translating discoveries into commercial products – such as navigating the FDA, clinical trials, and regulatory approvals – but that grant programs themselves fail to address the fundamentals essential for success. Instead of equipping grantees with the real-world skills needed for sales, business development, and strategic partnering, the “commercialization training” typically amounts to little more than teaching them how to prepare for a partnering event and deliver a 30-minute pitch deck.

This is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight. Securing funding and forming industry partnerships requires far more than a polished presentation. It demands a deep understanding of market positioning, deal structuring, sales strategy, and long-term capital planning – areas where most scientific founders are left unprepared. Until grant programs integrate commercialization expertise and ensure leadership transitions to business professionals at the right stage, billions in non-dilutive funding will continue to be wasted on technologies that never reach patients.

Innovative funding strategies that bridge the gap between academic research and commercial viability should be explored. Additionally, creating a supportive ecosystem that connects scientists with investors, industry partners, and mentors with funding and partnering expertise is crucial to guiding them through the commercialization process.