Selective Capital, Stronger Science: The Emerging Biotech Funding Model

Key Takeaways

• Biotech financing is resetting, not collapsing — total funding has declined across venture, public, and M&A markets, but capital is consolidating around companies with late-stage assets, stronger data, and credible commercialization paths.

• Venture investment shows a sharp divide between winners and strugglers — biopharma first-financing dollars fell steeply, mega-rounds dominate, and only a small fraction of companies are attracting new investor-led funding.

• IPO and follow-on markets remain highly selective — only a handful of life sciences companies are going public, with follow-on proceeds concentrated among later-stage firms that offer near-term value inflection and commercial visibility.

• Royalty financing and structured alternatives are becoming essential tools — royalty transactions have surged, offering non-dilutive capital as traditional equity markets remain difficult to access.

• Operational discipline and milestone-driven planning now define biotech success — companies with tight cost control, focused portfolios, and well-timed catalysts are far better positioned to compete in a more selective capital environment.

The current biopharma investment environment reflects a structural reset rather than an industry in decline. After several years marked by rapid capital deployment, elevated valuations, and unusually open funding windows, the sector is transitioning into a period defined by discipline and selectivity. Venture investors, public-market participants, and strategic acquirers are tightening their criteria, rewarding companies with strong fundamentals, differentiated science, and clear paths to value creation while stepping back from broad, momentum-driven investing.

This recalibration is reshaping how capital flows across the industry. Funding is increasingly concentrated in later-stage programs, exits are more constrained, and companies are being judged more rigorously on operational efficiency and milestone execution. The result is a widening divide between organizations capable of demonstrating durable value and those whose prospects depended on a more permissive financial climate.

This shift toward capital discipline is influencing every aspect of biopharma, from the types of science that attract funding, to the structures of partnership deals, to the expectations placed on management teams. The emerging market environment is more cautious, more strategic, and ultimately more demanding, setting new benchmarks for what successful innovation must look like in the years ahead.

The funding environment in 2025 reflects a clear retrenchment from the exuberance of the early 2020s, but it is best understood as a selective reset rather than an indiscriminate collapse. Overall biotech financing declined by about 10% in 2024 to roughly $73 billion, then fell a further 17% year-over-year in the first quarter of 2025, underscoring a tougher backdrop for raising capital across venture, IPO, follow-on and debt markets.¹ At the same time, the structure of funding has shifted: early-stage funding value rose 10% in 2024 even as the number of early-stage deals fell around 20%, and the average round size increased from about $21 million in 2019 to $36 million in 2024, indicating that investors are concentrating larger checks into a smaller pool of companies.^1,2

Venture capital trends highlight this bifurcation. In the United States, biopharma venture financing in the first quarter of 2025 was estimated at about $6.5 billion, roughly 20% below the ~$8.1 billion recorded in the same period a year earlier.3 By mid-year, U.S. life sciences venture (including biotech) had reached only about 42.7% of 2024’s full-year total, reflecting both a slower pace of deployment and more stringent deal selection.³ Mid-year data from healthcare venture reports show that mega-rounds increasingly dominate the landscape: a surge in very large financings has driven overall healthcare venture funding, even as deal volumes declined and fewer startups secured new investor-led rounds, with biopharma first-financing dollars dropping about 60% from the first to the second quarter of 2025 and Q2 marking the weakest first-financing quarter since late 2023.^4,5 Together, these patterns describe a market where capital is still available but skewed toward later-stage or de-risked stories, while many younger or less differentiated companies face a much more difficult path to funding.

Public markets tell a complementary story of constraint and selectivity. In the first quarter of 2025, there were just four life sciences IPOs, down from seven in the same quarter of 2024, with aggregate gross proceeds of roughly $700 million versus $1.3 billion a year earlier.⁶ Subsequent quarters have seen public equity activity rely heavily on follow-on offerings rather than new listings: by the third quarter of 2025, follow-on issuance in life sciences climbed to 34 offerings, up from 23 in the third quarter of 2024, even as IPO activity remained subdued; across the 2022–2025 window, the average IPO has raised around $214 million, reinforcing the notion that when deals do occur, they are larger and more selective.⁷ Other analyses similarly characterize biotech IPOs as “few and far between,” with venture funding slow — particularly for early-stage start-ups — and M&A skewing toward smaller, targeted transactions rather than transformative deals.⁸ In practical terms, companies with compelling pipelines or revenue visibility can still tap public capital, but many others are extending runway through private rounds, partnerships, or alternative financing instead of pursuing listings in a fragile market.

The global and cross-sector context adds further nuance. While U.S. and European biotech face macroeconomic headwinds, regional differences in policy, pricing expectations, and domestic capital pools shape local funding conditions, contributing to an uneven recovery trajectory.^1,2 At the same time, technology and artificial intelligence (AI) are capturing a growing share of investor attention within healthcare. Capital markets observers expect continued incursion of tech-oriented venture funds into healthcare, particularly around AI-driven applications, and venture healthcare reports note that top diagnostics and tools first-financing deals are increasingly clustered around AI-enabled drug discovery and clinical decision support.^3,4 This cross-current means that while life sciences remains an attractive long-term theme, biopharma discovery platforms and preclinical asset creators must now compete not only with each other but also with adjacent AI-heavy opportunities for a finite pool of risk capital, raising the bar for differentiation, strategy, and scientific clarity.

The contraction in biopharma financing in 2025 reflects the interaction of macroeconomic caution, structural pressures within the drug development model, and a cyclical correction after years of unusually strong capital inflows. Across healthcare, investors have become markedly more selective, and this conservatism is showing up in both private and public markets. Data from the first half of the year show that even as overall healthcare venture investment increased, deal volume declined and capital flowed to a narrower subset of companies, with only roughly the top 15% of deals able to attract new investor-led financing while many others relied on insider rounds, consolidation, or shutdowns.⁴ Within biopharma, this selectivity is especially evident in the steep reduction in first-time financings. First-financing dollars dropped about 60% from the first to the second quarter of 2025,⁴ and external analyses show this pattern reflected more broadly, with biotech first-financings falling from approximately $2.6 billion in Q1 to about $900 million in Q2.⁵

Early-stage companies have been most affected. Venture data indicate that seed and Series A funding experienced deep declines during the second quarter, while later-stage rounds held steadier, reinforcing a tilt toward more mature or clinically validated programs.⁹ At the same time, total biopharma funding fell from roughly $7 billion across 110 rounds in Q1 to about $4.8 billion across 93 rounds in Q2, with lower average round sizes and a notable reduction in deal volume.⁹ These patterns reflect broad investor preference for platforms with clearer paths to value creation and a reduced willingness to underwrite the risk inherent in early discovery or company formation.

Public markets mirror this tightening. The number of life-sciences IPOs has declined sharply compared with the prior year, with only a small set of companies accessing the market and raising significantly less capital than in 2024.⁷ Follow-on offerings have also contracted, with the total number of transactions and aggregate proceeds declining substantially.⁷ This reduced liquidity has constrained exit opportunities and placed additional pressure on private companies to demonstrate capital efficiency and milestone progress before pursuing public financing.

Overlaying these immediate pressures is the aftermath of the sector’s unusually strong funding cycle earlier in the decade. The surge in company creation and valuation expansion during that period encouraged aggressive capital deployment and elevated expectations for rapid value inflection. The current environment represents a correction in which investors are scrutinizing scientific rigor, development efficiency, and operational discipline more closely. Companies unable to demonstrate clear differentiation or steady progress toward clinical validation are finding it significantly more difficult to compete for capital than during the years of abundant liquidity.

The current phase of capital discipline is most visible in how selectively new money is being deployed. Across healthcare, only a small minority of companies are attracting fresh investor-led rounds, while many others are relying on insider funding or facing difficult structural decisions. Mid-year data indicate that in the first half of 2025, investment levels rose even as deal volumes fell, producing a landscape dominated by large financings at the top end and a growing number of shutdowns and consolidations at the bottom. Only roughly the top 15% of deals were able to secure new capital, while many companies dependent on insider rounds have been pushed toward strategic combinations or wind-downs.⁴

In biopharma specifically, this discipline has translated into a sharp pullback in first-time financings and a tilt toward larger, more concentrated rounds. First-financing dollars in the sector fell by about 60% from the first to the second quarter of 2025, even as larger transactions absorbed most of the capital invested.⁴ Deal-level data show that in Q2 2025, biopharma therapeutics and platform companies raised about $4.5 billion across 93 rounds, down from approximately $6.7 billion across 110 rounds in Q1, with deal volume slipping around 15%, total funding falling by about one-third and average round size dropping from roughly $69 million to $53 million.⁹ Much of this adjustment reflects steep declines at the earliest stages: seed funding fell by about 80% to $100 million, and Series A funding dropped by roughly 63% to $1.2 billion, while Series B and later rounds held steady or increased, signaling a clear preference for more advanced companies.⁹

Analysts have described this pattern as a “flight to quality,” with capital concentrating on clinically validated platforms and de-risked science. Early-stage financing remains constrained, while top investments are flowing to mid- and late-stage companies with focused pipelines and near-term clinical milestones.⁹ In practical terms, that means fewer first-financing rounds, a higher bar for new company formation, and a funding environment in which proof of concept, differentiation, and capital efficiency are prerequisites rather than nice-to-have attributes.

At the same time, the composition of the investor base is changing. Corporate venture funds associated with large pharmaceutical organizations have become some of the most active backers of private drug startups, stepping in as traditional capital has pulled back. Data compiled on 2025 deal activity show that corporate funds linked to Novo Holdings, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi Ventures rank among the busiest startup investors, with Novo involved in 18 private rounds and Lilly and Sanofi Ventures in 13 each.¹⁰ Corporate venture participation is also deeply embedded in exit pathways: recent analyses suggest that at least 70% of biopharma IPOs since 2022 have included a corporate investor and that corporate funds have backed at least 60% of acquired biotechs over the same period, reinforcing their role as both capital providers and validators.¹⁰ In a market where IPOs are harder to execute and many startups struggle to raise follow-on funding — leading to layoffs, program cuts, and shutdowns — corporate venture capital has become a particularly attractive source of runway extension and strategic alignment.¹⁰

Together, these dynamics define what capital discipline now looks like on the ground: fewer but larger rounds, a pronounced focus on later-stage and de-risked assets, growing influence of corporate investors, and a harsher environment for undifferentiated or capital-inefficient programs. Companies that can navigate this landscape effectively are doing so by tightening portfolios, sharpening value propositions, and aligning closely with investors whose time horizons and strategic priorities match the realities of modern biopharma development.

The public markets remain open, but only selectively, creating a narrow and demanding path to liquidity for most biopharma companies. In the first nine months of 2025, just six life sciences companies managed to go public, a 60% decline from the 15 IPOs completed over the same period in 2024. Those six offerings raised about $1.5 billion in aggregate, roughly half the $3.1 billion raised a year earlier, yet the average transaction size climbed to about $318 million, indicating that only larger, more mature stories are clearing the bar for listing.⁶ The IPO window is not closed, but it is effectively reserved for companies with later-stage assets, strong data, and investor familiarity.

Follow-on markets tell a similar story of scarcity coupled with selectivity. Life sciences issuers completed 72 follow-on offerings in the first nine months of 2025, down from 110 in the comparable period of 2024, and gross proceeds dropped from roughly $22.5 billion to about $11.1 billion.⁶ Despite this contraction, follow-ons are skewing toward larger, more substantial raises by companies with advanced pipelines: later-stage firms with phase II or phase III lead programs accounted for nearly three-quarters of follow-on issuers, underscoring investors’ preference for clear clinical validation and nearer-term value inflection.⁶ For many small and mid-cap biotechs, this means that even being public no longer guarantees practical access to equity capital.

Mergers and acquisitions, traditionally a critical release valve for investors and management teams, have also shifted toward a more cautious mode. In 2024, there were 54 pharma and biotech M&A deals worth a combined $77 billion, down from 61 transactions totaling $153.5 billion the prior year, reflecting a sharp drop in average deal size even as deal counts remained relatively stable.¹¹ Ernst & Young’s Firepower analysis similarly characterizes 2024 as a “reset” year in which aggregate life-sciences M&A value fell by about 41%, from $222 billion to $130 billion, with activity focused on smaller, targeted acquisitions rather than megamergers.¹² At the same time, alliance activity has surged, with around 220 deals carrying $144 billion in potential milestone value, the highest alliance total in a decade — evidence that large pharma prefers option-rich, milestone-weighted collaborations over paying full price upfront.¹¹

Taken together, these trends describe a market in which the traditional routes to liquidity IPOs, follow-ons, and trade sales — are functioning, but on more demanding terms. Companies that cannot show late-stage data, clear strategic fit, or a compelling role in a partner’s pipeline are finding it far harder to translate scientific progress into durable capital access.

The funding reset of the past two years has forced biopharma companies to operate differently. Capital is available, but it is costlier and more selective, and a growing share of companies are confronting short runways and limited access to traditional equity markets. Analysts tracking the sector describe a widening divide between “haves and have-nots,” with many firms under pressure to cut costs, refocus portfolios, and find new ways to finance development without over-diluting shareholders.¹ Against that backdrop, a new corporate playbook is emerging that centers on operational discipline, milestone-tied capital raises, creative use of alternative financing, and a sharper emphasis on commercial readiness.

Operational discipline has become a precondition for survival rather than a talking point. The latest Biotech Beyond Borders findings show that more than one-third of biotechs have less than a year of cash on hand, prompting advisors to call for a “return to basics” focused on tightening costs, streamlining organizations, and improving capital efficiency.¹ Ernst & Young also points to an environment shaped by high interest rates, inflation, shifting regulatory policies, and tariff uncertainty, arguing that companies must concentrate on fundamentals now so they are positioned to rebound when conditions improve.¹

In practical terms, that means more rigorous portfolio reviews, deprioritization of non-core assets, and sharper internal hurdle rates for new programs. Firms with limited runway are increasingly forced to narrow their focus to the few assets most likely to attract partners or late-stage capital, while larger players are reallocating budgets toward programs with clearer strategic or commercial fit. The theme is consistent across analyses: in a market defined by constrained financing, operational discipline is not optional; it is the primary lever companies control.

Fundraising strategies are also becoming more explicitly tied to value-inflection milestones. Financing data from the Biotech Beyond Borders work highlight that while overall biotech funding fell 10% in 2024 and declined a further 17% year-over-year in the first quarter of 2025, early-stage funding dollars actually rose even as the number of early-stage deals dropped by about 20%, indicating larger bets on a smaller pool of assets.¹ This pattern reinforces what investors themselves describe: a willingness to fund companies that can point to specific, near-term catalysts, such as phase II readouts, registrational trial starts, or clear partnering opportunities, rather than broad platform promises.

Public-market data echo this milestone focus. In the follow-on market, the majority of issuers are now later-stage: in the first nine months of 2025, companies with phase II or III lead candidates accounted for roughly 74.6% of all life-sciences follow-on issuers.⁷ That skew illustrates how both public and private investors are prioritizing stories with near-term clinical or commercial visibility. As a result, management teams are increasingly structuring development plans and cash needs around crisp milestone “chapters,” raising enough to reach the next proof point rather than pursuing more speculative multi-year capital.

One of the clearest adaptations to today’s market is the rapid uptake of alternative, often non-dilutive, financing mechanisms, especially royalty-based structures. Global IPO analysis notes that geopolitical instability and volatile equity markets have made public listings a less reliable exit route and that some biotech firms are turning to royalty transactions to monetize future product revenues without going public.¹ A separate review of sector dynamics estimates that royalty deals are now generating around $14 billion per year, providing non-dilutive funding that is less sensitive to swings in equity markets and particularly attractive as the IPO window remains tight.²

Industry-wide data show how quickly this channel has scaled. Between 2020 and 2024, biopharma royalty financings totaled about $29.4 billion — more than double the amount raised between 2015 and 2019 — and commentators note that momentum has continued into 2025 with several high-profile transactions.¹⁴ Royalty structures themselves are evolving: synthetic royalties grew at an average annual rate of roughly 33% over 2020–2024, and there is a growing preference for milestone-heavy arrangements that link payments to performance and help both sides manage risk.¹⁵ Tracking data for the first half of 2025 indicate that royalty financings remain robust, with an annualized run-rate of about 24 deals, an aggregate value near $5.42 billion, and an average transaction size of roughly $226 million — all higher than 2024 levels.

Institutional capital is following this shift. One Wall Street Journal report describes how OrbiMed closed a $1.86 billion royalty and credit fund aimed at providing non-dilutive financing to healthcare companies at a time when equity capital has become more expensive and venture investment has tumbled.¹⁶ Another highlights KKR’s acquisition of a majority stake in HealthCare Royalty Partners as a bet that demand for royalty-based financing will keep growing in a tough fundraising climate and quiet IPO market.¹⁷ Together, these moves point to a structural broadening of the financing toolbox: royalty deals, structured credit, and other alternative mechanisms are no longer niche options but central components of many companies’ capital strategies.

Finally, the new playbook places greater emphasis on commercial readiness and revenue visibility. Follow-on market data show that later-stage companies — with lead assets in phase II or phase III — dominate public equity issuance, reflecting investors’ focus on programs that are closer to regulatory decisions or launch.⁷ Parallel M&A and partnership analyses from EY describe large pharmaceutical buyers concentrating on smaller, more strategic acquisitions and alliance deals that bring in de-risked, late-stage assets rather than broad early-stage platforms.^1,18

In this environment, companies that can articulate a clear path from late-stage development to market access — supported by differentiation data, payer engagement, and realistic launch plans — are better positioned to attract both equity and non-dilutive capital. Scientific innovation remains essential, but on its own it is no longer sufficient. The firms that thrive under the 2025 playbook are those that pair strong science with disciplined operations, milestone-aligned funding, creative structuring, and a credible story about how and when their assets will generate sustainable revenue.

The tightening in capital markets and evolving financing dynamics are reshaping the competitive landscape for biotech, and for many early-stage innovators, the gap between winners and strugglers is widening rapidly.

One of the most striking indicators of stress comes from liquidity metrics. According to Ernst & Young, roughly 39% of biotechs analyzed in 2024 were estimated to have less than a year of cash runway — up sharply from 18% in 2021.20 This cash-runway crisis underscores how many companies are vulnerable, particularly when equity markets, venture capital (VC), and traditional public-market exits remain constrained. In such an environment, strong science, experienced management, and efficient operations increasingly separate those who survive from those who don’t.

In this context, the value of diversified financing strategies has become more apparent. Faced with volatile equity valuations, costly or limited access to debt, and waning public enthusiasm, many companies are turning to royalty monetization — selling a stake in future drug revenues in exchange for upfront capital — as an alternative to traditional equity raises. As detailed by industry-legal advisors, royalty deals have become mainstream: from 2020 to 2024, biopharma royalty financings more than doubled compared to the preceding five-year period, and the trend continues into 2025.¹⁴

Data from the first half of 2025 indicate this channel remains robust. On an annualized basis, royalty transactions are running at approximately $5.42 billion, with average deal sizes around $225.9 million — slightly higher than 2024 levels.21 For many firms, particularly those with late-stage or near-commercial assets, these structured financings provide non-dilutive capital at a time when other sources are unreliable. As such, royalty deals and structured financings are fast becoming a core component of the new capital toolbox.¹⁴

This shift is reshaping incentives and strategies for early-stage biotech. Instead of pursuing broad, discovery-heavy pipelines that rely on multiple rounds of dilutive financing, companies are increasingly focusing on demonstrating near-term value inflection points defined by clinical milestones, regulatory clarity, or promising asset portfolios. With public and private capital markets offering fewer paths to liquidity, biotech firms that can pivot toward realistic, milestone-driven plans and align toward royalty or structured-finance readiness stand a better chance of enduring.

Yet this environment also poses risks to scientific diversity and long-term innovation. Projects that require long lead times, substantial upfront investment, or carry high failure risk become harder to justify under tight capital discipline. Exploratory research, early-discovery platforms, and high-risk/high-reward modalities may find it especially difficult to secure funding, particularly if they lack near-term commercial or partnership potential. As a result, the industry may drift toward safer, more incremental science, potentially leaving underexplored but biologically or clinically important areas without support.

In parallel, partnerships — including licensing deals, alliances, and royalty-backed financings — are becoming more central not only for capital but for validation. For early-stage companies, bringing in a strategic partner via licensing or revenue-sharing deals provides both financial runway and commercial credibility. And because royalty financings do not dilute equity, they retain long-term value for founders and early investors. For firms with promising assets approaching key inflection points, these partnerships can represent a lifeline or even the difference between survival and shutdown.

In short, 2025 is shaping up as a year in which capital discipline — not exuberance — will dictate which biotech companies thrive. The “haves” will be those with strong science, clear milestones, disciplined operations, and strategic financial structures. The “have-nots” — companies lacking focus, cash runway, or a path to de-risked value — may struggle to maintain momentum. For early-stage biotech, success will increasingly depend on adaptability: on the ability to pare back ambitions, sharpen value propositions, and use every tool in the evolving financing toolkit, from royalty deals to strategic partnerships, to survive and advance.

For investors, the current market is accelerating a shift away from momentum-driven growth stories and toward a renewed focus on fundamentals. In an environment characterized by higher capital costs and fewer liquidity pathways, attributes, such as cash-flow discipline, careful runway management, credible governance, and the strength of the scientific and operational leadership teams, matter more than they have at any point in the past decade. Investors are increasingly evaluating companies not only on the promise of their science but on their ability to convert resources into tangible, milestone-driven progress.

The tightening of capital across venture and public markets also offers a counterintuitive advantage: with less speculative capital inflating valuations, the signal-to-noise ratio improves. Companies that demonstrate real value creation — whether through clinical advancement, commercial readiness, or a diversified financing strategy — stand out more clearly. This environment can reward disciplined investors who are willing to differentiate between sustainable innovation and unproven narratives, enabling more informed portfolio construction.

As a result, portfolio strategies are evolving. Many investors are gravitating toward later-stage programs or platforms with validated mechanisms, clearer regulatory paths, and nearer-term value inflection points. Early-stage opportunities remain attractive, but investors are more selective, often favoring modular or platform approaches that can spread risk across multiple assets. Milestone-based value creation has become a defining lens for capital allocation, with investors concentrating resources in companies that can demonstrate scientific rigor, operational focus, and a credible route to partnership or commercialization.

The shape of the biotech and biopharma sector over the next 18 months will depend on how several key developments play out. The coming period could either confirm that 2025 marks a durable shift toward disciplined capital markets or reveal that the contraction was a cyclical reset with opportunity still for bold investors. Here are the main factors to watch.

Whether Q3’s partial rebound persists

• The small upticks in venture funding and increased interest in alternative financing (e.g. royalties, structured deals) hint at a potential stabilization or even rebound. If this trend continues, it could signal renewed confidence in late-stage assets and platform companies. But if the rebound fades, it may confirm that capital remains highly selective, tightening the window for early-stage innovators.

Interest-rate trajectory and macroeconomic environment

• Global monetary policy, inflation trends, and macroeconomic stability will heavily influence capital availability across all risk assets, including biotech. A move toward lower rates and stable macro conditions may facilitate broader investor risk-appetite; continued rate pressure or economic uncertainty could keep capital locked to the safest assets.

Momentum of alternative financing structures

• Royalty financings, structured deals, milestone-based contracts, and other non-dilutive or hybrid-financing mechanisms have surged in 2024–2025 and may continue to gain traction. Their growth could reshape how biotech companies approach capital raising, offering flexibility, reducing dilution, and possibly insulating firms from public-market volatility. Sustained uptake of these structures could become a defining feature of the next generation of biotech firms.

Potential re-acceleration of M&A as patent cliffs and unmet medical needs loom

• As large pharma and biotech confront upcoming patent expirations and increasing pressure to refresh pipelines, 2025–2026 could bring renewed interest in acquisition of de-risked, late-stage assets. If macro conditions and financing markets improve, M&A may once again emerge as a viable — even preferred — path to liquidity and growth, particularly for companies with differentiated assets but limited public-market access.

Whether AI-driven biotech investments continue to outpace traditional modalities

• As AI-enabled discovery platforms, computational biology, and data-driven drug development mature, they may attract a disproportionate share of limited venture capital and strategic investment, particularly if traditional discovery and early-stage modalities remain de-prioritized. A surge of AI-led biotech funding could reshape sector dynamics, risk profiles, and competitive advantage in ways that favor platform-driven, computationally efficient development.

Conditions required for a sustained IPO reopening

• For IPOs to become a reliable exit again, several factors must align: stable equity markets, investor willingness to allocate to risk assets, clear clinical or commercial readouts, and demonstrated corporate discipline from issuers. If those conditions emerge, especially supported by a return of biotech-friendly market sentiment, the IPO window may reopen, albeit likely for a narrower and more mature set of companies.

Taken together, these variables frame a landscape defined as much by possibility as by caution. The companies and investors that succeed over the next 18–24 months will likely be those that balance scientific ambition with operational discipline, seize alternative financing opportunities, and remain agile as macro, regulatory, and financial conditions shift. For the broader sector, the outcome could determine whether biotech re-enters a growth cycle under new, more mature expectations or settles into a lower-noise, more selective equilibrium for years ahead.

The current downturn may ultimately serve as a stabilizing force for the biopharma sector rather than a sign of structural weakness. Capital discipline is pushing companies to elevate scientific rigor, strengthen governance, and map development strategies to tangible and defensible milestones. Investors are demanding clearer evidence of value creation, and companies that respond with operational focus and sound capital management are emerging stronger for it. What is taking shape is not a retreat from innovation but a shift toward a more durable, sustainability-oriented market cycle—one in which quality, clarity, and execution matter more than momentum.

1. EY Biotech Beyond Borders Report 2025. Ernst & Young. 2025.

2. Ural, Arda. “The Biotech Landscape in 2025 and Beyond: Is a Rebound in the Making or Not?” DCAT Value Chain Insights. 16 Oct. 2025.

3. McIntosh, David M, et al. “Life Sciences Under the Microscope: Key 2024 Takeaways and What’s Ahead for 2025.” Ropes & Gray. 27 Feb. 2025.

4. 2025 mid-year venture healthcare report. HSBC. 16 Jul. 2025.

5. Wu, Gwendolyn. “Biotech startup funding dried up in second quarter, HSBC finds.” Biopharma Dive. 17 Jul. 2025.

6. Healthcare and Life Sciences Capital Markets Quarterly Report. Ropes & Gray. Apr. 2025. h

7. Healthcare and Life Sciences Capital Markets Review. Ropes & Gray. Oct. 2025.

8. Walrath, Rowan. “Biotech markets aren’t picking up just yet.” Chemical & Engineering News. 7 Nov. 2025.

9. Harutyunyan, Ani. “Biopharma Therapeutics and Platforms Venture Funding — Q2 2025 Review.” DealForma. 4 Aug. 2025.

10. Wu, Gwendolyn. “Corporate venture firms stepped in for drug startups during biotech funding pullback.” Biopharma Dive. 31 Oct. 2025.

11. Dunleavy, Kevin. “Taxes, tariffs and interest rates hold key to biotech’s future amid uncertain outlook: EY.” Fierce Biotech. 18 Jun. 2025.

12. Dunleavy, Kevin. “After a ‘reset’ year for M&A, expect bigger deals in 2025: reports.” Fierce Pharma. 13 Jan. 2025.

13. How can you shape uncertainty into opportunity for your IPO? EY Global IPO Trends Q2 2025. Ernst & Young. 2025.

14. Mercier, Jacqueline. “The Continued Ries of Royalty Deals in Life Sciences.” Goodwin Law. 6 Oct. 2025.

15. “Royalty Finance: Structures and Trends.” Gibson Dunn. Apr. 2025.

16. Gormley, Brian. “Healthcare Investor OrbiMed Raises $1.86 Billion for Royalty and Credit Fund.” The Wall Street Journal. 4 Aug. 2025.

17. Glickman, Ben. “KKR Pushes Further Into Healthcare With Deal for Pharma Royalty Business.” The Wall Street Journal. 30 Jul. 2025.

18. “Key findings of EY’s annual Biotech Beyond Borders Report 2025.” The Pharma Letter. 18 Jun. 2025.

19. Mulero, Ana. “More Than One-Third of Biotechs Have Under a Year of Cash Left, EY Finds.” Biospace. 18 Jun. 2025.

20. Trattner, Todd J and Ryan A Murr. “Life Sciences Royalty Finance Trends – H1 2025.” Gibson Dunn. 4 Aug. 2025.