CMO 360 covers a wide swath of the drug development ecosystem, and this year’s discussions reflected just how interconnected and globally distributed that ecosystem has become. Across panels, speakers moved fluidly between topics that once felt more siloed: how pharma BD teams evaluate emerging biotechs, what it looks like to operationalize trials in China, and how academic institutions are evolving to meet the needs of industry.
Taken together, these conversations pointed to a common theme: the traditional boundaries between academia, biotech, and pharma are becoming less rigid, and in their place, a more integrated and interdependent model is starting to take shape. Against that backdrop, three areas stood out in particular: the evolution of biotech–academia partnerships, China’s growing role in drug development, and the shifting lens on how pharma evaluates biotech innovation.
New Paradigm in Biotech-Academia Partnerships
The academic partnerships panel, moderated by Giovanni Abbadessa, CMO at ModeX, was one of the more clear-eyed discussions of the event. Rather than focusing on individual success stories, the conversation centered on structural changes reshaping how academia and industry work together.
Kenneth Lutchen, VP for Research and Dean of Engineering Emeritus at Boston University, framed the issue at a systems level. The U.S. innovation engine has long depended on a meritocratic federal funding model that produces the scientists and infrastructure industry relies on. That model is now under pressure, with downstream effects that are already visible in the form of a thinner talent pipeline and fewer research programs coming online.
Against that backdrop, Lutchen argued that episodic collaboration models are no longer sufficient. In their place, he pointed to more durable, relationship-driven approaches: master agreements, multi-year sponsored research, standardized IP terms, and co-mentored PhD programs. Workforce development, in this view, becomes a shared responsibility rather than a byproduct.
Leena Gandhi, CMO of NextPoint Therapeutics, reinforced this shift from an operational perspective. She highlighted academic centers that have built infrastructure to work within biotech timelines, with standardized agreements and clear execution frameworks. In some cases, these groups are not just complementary to CROs, but viable alternatives. Her experience running translational work through both commercial vendors and academic labs underscored the reliability and flexibility that well-structured academic partnerships can offer.
Steven Katz, CMO of Shinobi Therapeutics, described a more integrated model in early-phase development. He engages investigators before protocols are finalized, selects sites based on execution rather than prestige, and works closely with collaborators on dosing strategy and biomarker readouts. Academic partners, in this context, function less like vendors and more like extensions of the core team.
The broader shift is clear. Academic institutions are building the scaffolding to operate as true industry partners, while biotech companies are engaging earlier and more deliberately. The result is a model defined less by transactions and more by long-term alignment.
China’s Growing Center of Gravity in Drug Development
China surfaced repeatedly across conversations at CMO 360, but the dedicated panel, “Partnering with Chinese Biotechs,” made the shift unmistakable. Moderated by Lisa Mahnke, CEO of Nerviano Medical Sciences, the discussion moved quickly from anecdote to scale. Panelists cited that roughly 30% of current licensing deals now originate in China, with approximately $16 billion in China-related deals closed last year. The Chinese pharma market is growing at around 8% annually, more than double the global rate. More striking, estimates suggest that up to 40% of global pharma BD spend is already directed toward Chinese-originated assets, with projections that a meaningful share of FDA approvals by 2030 will trace back to China.
Beyond capital flows, the panel highlighted a clear operational advantage. Andrea Wang-Gillam, Co-CEO of JacoBio, pointed to significantly faster regulatory timelines, with CDE IND approvals running on roughly a 30-working day clock. That speed is complemented by execution of intensity. Yaping Shou, CEO of Wells Therapeutics, described a near continuous operating cadence across time zones, enabling rapid iteration and decision-making.
Panelists also emphasized structural differences in how early clinical work can be conducted. The investigator-initiated trial pathway in China can offer a faster and more cost-effective route to early human data, particularly in gene and cell therapy, in some cases running in parallel to formal regulatory pathways rather than sequentially.
At the same time, the discussion did not ignore the friction points. Biological samples cannot be exported, data consistency across sites can vary, and navigating regulatory and cultural norms requires local expertise. For smaller biotechs in particular, having an established in-country partner is often essential.
Even with these challenges, the tone of the panel was consistent. China is no longer a future consideration or a peripheral strategy. It is already embedded in how companies think about sourcing innovation, designing trials, and building development plans. As Greg Licholai, Chief Strategy Officer at Syneos Health, put it, for companies still on the sidelines, the barrier to entry is lower than it seems. Getting started can be as simple as showing up and building familiarity in the market.
Pharma BD Is Shifting Toward Co-Creation
The panel titled “How Pharma Teams Evaluate Biotech Companies for Partnerships and Acquisitions,” moderated by Harold Bernstein, CMO at Maze Therapeutics, made one thing clear early. The language of business development is changing, and with it, the underlying model.
Florencia Segal, Associate VP, ExploR&D CMO at Eli Lilly, framed evaluation not as a binary decision, but as the start of a longer conversation around value creation. That framing reflects a broader shift away from purely transactional thinking. Laura Holberger, AD of R&D External Innovation at Novo Nordisk, pointed to her own role as a “co-creation architect” as evidence of how intentionally companies are expanding their collaboration models. In practice, that includes milestone-based research partnerships, option-to-license structures, venture debt, and convertible financing layered alongside traditional licensing and M&A.
Segal also highlighted a statistic that reframes the dynamic between pharma and biotech. More than 80% of preclinical assets now sit within biotechs rather than large pharma companies. The implication is that innovation is increasingly external, and pharma’s role is as much about enabling and shaping that innovation as it is about acquiring it.
From the biotech perspective, Jeremy Sokolove, CMO of Vor Bio, emphasized the importance of targeting the right partner. He drew a distinction between broad, exploratory outreach and engaging with pharma teams that have a clearly defined pipeline need. Biotechs that align to an identified gap are more likely to find internal champions across BD, clinical, or commercial functions who will actively advocate for a program.
Sarah Tao, Head of Strategy and Execution for Technology Platforms at Sanofi, reinforced the importance of making these interactions easier to navigate. Alongside Bernstein, she pointed to the growing use of single points of entry and stage-appropriate engagement models designed to reduce friction for biotechs trying to access large organizations.
Taken together, the shift is clear. Pharma BD is evolving from a model centered on discrete transactions to one built around earlier engagement and shared development. As Segal put it, sometimes moving more deliberately upfront is what ultimately accelerates outcomes.
Closing Thoughts
Across the three discussions, a consistent through-line emerged. The traditional transactional layer that once defined interactions between biotech and its partners is steadily fading. In its place, there is a more integrated model where collaboration begins earlier and runs deeper.
Deals are no longer simply signed; they are built over time. Clinical trials are not just placed; they are strategically distributed across geographies. Academic centers are not treated as service providers, but as active collaborators in development. None of these ideas are entirely new, but what stood out at CMO 360 was how naturally panelists spoke about operating this way. What was once aspirational now feels embedded in day-to-day execution.
The common thread is a shift toward alignment. Whether across academia, global development strategy, or pharma partnerships, the emphasis is increasingly on shared goals, earlier engagement, and more flexible structures that support how drug development unfolds today.
Part II will turn inward to how CMOs are navigating these same dynamics within their own organizations, with a focus on the growing role of AI in clinical development, sustaining and motivating teams in constrained environments, and leadership perspectives from the keynote conversation with the CMO of Biogen.
Looking to navigate these evolving market dynamics with the right partner? Connect with GQR’s Life Sciences team to continue the dialogue.