On Pharma partnership
[This blog is a bit of a side quest. While I’m also drafting an article on “self-aware” therapies for inflammatory arthritis, my recent US trip kept circling me back to the topic of pharma partnerships. At first, many of these conversations felt like new territory, but writing this piece is my way of learning, unpacking the landscape, making sense of what I heard :)]
Biopharma press releases often frame deals as win‑win arrangements, but the mechanics and motivations behind those alliances seem more complex. Large pharmaceutical companies face an innovation gap: the cost of bringing a drug to market has skyrocketed and patent cliffs threaten revenues. Venture‑backed startups, meanwhile, struggle with a scale gap. They lack the capital, regulatory expertise and global infrastructure needed to shepherd promising science through clinical development. This article goes beyond the headlines to analyse how and why established pharma companies partner with innovative startups across the United States and United Kingdom, and of course, what those partnerships signal about the emerging longevity biotechnology sector.
Why Partner?
Pharma’s Innovation Gap
Drug development pipelines have thinned over the last decade. A BioSpace analysis found that global pharmaceutical companies invested 33 % more in licensing deals in 2024 than in 2023, and upfront payments for phase‑II‑ready assets jumped 460 % between 2022 and 2024. These figures illustrate how large companies are increasingly using external partnerships to refill their pipelines ahead of looming patent expirations. Option‑based deals allow pharmas to hedge risk: Takeda’s R&D head explained that paying for the right to acquire or license a program later lets the partner advance the science while the company preserves capital.
New modalities such as RNA interference, oligonucleotides, antibody–drug conjugates, gene therapy and AI‑driven target discovery require expertise and nimble experimentation that traditional R&D structures struggle to support. For example, Boehringer Ingelheim’s partnership with Ochre Bio, a UK startup using perfused human livers and big‑data models (I have featured them in a previous article) , provides the pharma giant with access to platform technologies it would be hard to build internally. The same article listed AbbVie’s option‑to‑license deal with Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals, which paid $65 million upfront for a right to in‑license novel neuroplastogen therapeutics with up to $1.95 billion in milestones. Such deals illustrate how established companies use external innovation to access AI‑enabled drug discovery and novel modalities without taking on the full development burden.
Startups’ Scale Gap
For venture‑backed startups, partnerships are about access to capital and expertise. Many small companies in the UK are R&D‑intensive but cannot easily advance their science to clinical proof‑of‑concept: an Imperial College report noted that numerous UK biopharma firms struggle to secure investment and “risk being acquired by non‑UK players” before they scale. Startups also need expertise in clinical trial design, regulatory navigation and manufacturing. The worldwide enterprise value of longevity discovery platforms and neuro‑focused longevity pharmas alone drew roughly US$2.5 billion each in funding in 2024, but translation into human trials requires partnerships with organisations that understand global regulatory pathways.
Pharma partnerships can also offer distribution and commercialization muscle. Retro Biosciences, for instance, partnered with robotics company Multiply Labs in 2024; the $85 million agreement enabled Retro to automate cell‑therapy manufacturing, accelerating the transition from development to clinical trials. Without such infrastructure, many platform‑based startups risk stalling during scale‑up.
The Evolving Deal Structures Beyond Licensing
Partnerships now reflect a spectrum of deal types, balancing risk and reward for each side.
Option‑based Agreements. Pharmas increasingly pay for the right to acquire or license at a later stage. Takeda’s $200 million‑up‑front deal with Keros Therapeutics included up to $1.1 billion in milestones. Option structures allow startups to retain more control early on while offering pharmas an attractive entry point should the science bear fruit.
Equity Investments and Corporate Venture Capital (CVC). Rather than outright acquisitions, many companies take minority stakes through corporate venture arms to keep an “ear to the ground.” A review of CVC activity showed that Novo Holdings, Lilly Asia Ventures, Pfizer Ventures and others collectively oversaw billions in assets; Novo Holdings alone managed US$160.6 billion with 98 active portfolio companies. Equity stakes give pharmas visibility into novel platforms without fully committing resources.
Integrated R&D Collaborations. Some alliances involve true co‑development rather than outsourcing. Boehringer Ingelheim’s partnership with RNAi company Ribo Life Science includes more than US$2 billion in potential milestones and features joint research teams. GSK’s collaboration with Flagship Pioneering aims to generate up to ten new medicines by combining GSK’s clinical expertise with Flagship’s venture‑creation engine. Such arrangements embed startup scientists within larger organisations and share both data and risk.
Deal economics often follow a familiar pattern: upfront payments reward platform maturity, while milestone payments and royalties reflect perceived risk and future value. The BioSpace licensing report shows that blockbuster deals in 2024/25 carried small upfronts but enormous milestone potential; for example, Novartis’s license of Argo Therapeutics’ immunotherapy portfolio involved US$185 million upfront and US$4.165 billion total. The mix of cash up front and contingent payouts signals the technology’s uncertainty and the companies’ willingness to share risk.
US and UK
United States
Cambridge, Massachusetts is the epicentre of gene‑editing innovation. Companies such as Beam Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Prime Medicine and Wave Life Sciences are all headquartered in Cambridge and are pioneering base‑editing, in‑vivo gene editing and prime editing technologies. The region’s density of MIT and Harvard spinouts, world‑class hospitals and venture investors fosters constant cross‑pollination. CRISPR Therapeutics deliberately established R&D operations in Cambridge to access its academic founders and a “large pool of scientific talent”.
Geographical size and talent pipeline
Massachusetts’ small geographic size brings hospitals, universities and biotech firms into close proximity, encouraging collaboration and innovationscispot.com. The state leads the nation in NIH funding (8,210 awards totaling $4.8 billion in 2024), boasts more than 62 million ft² of lab space and attracted $7.89 billion in venture capital in 2024genengnews.com. Massachusetts still captured about 22.5 % of US biotech venture capital in the first half of 2025 despite a 17 % decline from the prior year.
Valuation expectations
The US remains the largest source of life‑science venture capital. Data from the BioIndustry Association (BIA) show that US biotech companies raised £3.96 billion (≈$5 billion) of venture capital in Q2 2025 despite a 24 % quarter‑on‑quarter decline. Massachusetts companies alone raised around $2.75 billion in H1 2025. Due to the country’s market size, market potential and speed to market (the commercialization side) tend to be big factors in investors’ consideration. It is not to say that scientific validity is downplayed, but quite the opposite. From the conversations I had with funds such as Curie Bio and Three Rock Ventures, the validity of the target, which tier it belongs, the belief in mechanism etc are some of the most important metrics to consider when evaluating a proposal.
Despite of the capital intensity, both public and private funding have plummeted as federal policy changes have thrown the biotech sector into an era of uncertainty. Venture capital investment in Massachusetts-based companies dropped more than 17 percent to $2.75 billion in the first half of 2025, compared to the same period in 2024, the lowest level since 2017. The volatility needs to be considered.
United Kingdom
Basic science and spinout
The UK’s strength lies in the quality of its basic scientific research. Universities such as Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College London, combined with resources like the UK Biobank and the Crick Institute, underpin a pipeline of 399 spinouts that raised over US$10 billion between 2017 and 2024. UK companies are often commended for stretching capital further and focusing on deep platform science. The BIA’s mid‑2025 report shows that UK life‑science firms attracted £1.23 billion in venture capital in the first half of 2025, nearly matching the whole of 2023.
Commercial environment under strain
Despite strong science, the UK’s pharmaceutical R&D investment has grown only 1.9 % per year since 2018, well below the global average of 6.6 %. Foreign direct investment into UK life sciences fell 58 % between 2017 and 2023, and the country’s share of global phase‑III trial recruitment slipped to 2.6 %, dropping from fourth to eighth place. These figures indicate a troubling decline in late‑stage clinical activity. Pharmaceutical spending accounts for only 9 % of UK healthcare expenditure, versus 20 % in Japan and 14 % in Germany, and clawback rates on branded medicines have risen to 23.5 % (and were set to increase to 31.3 %). This has eroded margins for companies and discouraged investment. The Guardian and Chemistry World report that several multinational companies have cancelled or paused major UK investments: MSD cancelled a £1 billion London research centre, AstraZeneca halted a £200 million Cambridge expansion and cancelled a £450 million vaccine facility, while Eli Lilly and Sanofi have paused or threatened to withdraw R&D projects. Bristol Myers Squibb cancelled 34 partnerships and reduced its UK organisation due to high rebate rates. Industry leaders argue that high and unpredictable clawbacks, limited NHS spending on medicines and a slow uptake of innovative therapies make the UK less attractive for investment.
Regulatory issues, and reforms
To address some of these issues, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) relaunched the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP) in early 2025. The refreshed ILAP provides an integrated “end‑to‑end” process that allows developers to work closely with regulators, the NHS and health technology assessment bodies from the early stages of clinical development. It offers stricter entry criteria, bespoke support, clearer timelines and early patient engagement, and the MHRA’s chief executive said it makes the UK a more attractive place to develop and launch innovative products. While ILAP is encouraging, it does not fully address pricing pressures or ensure adequate reimbursement for new medicines.
In short, some strategic considerations for founders in bullet points (to be expanded…?):
Evaluate the category and stage of the development of the technology, to see where it fits in each market.
Consider capital requirements and investor expectations.
Monitor policy shifts and industry sentiment.
Transatlantic Case Studies
Boehringer Ingelheim & Ochre Bio (UK). The German pharma paid US$35 million upfront with up to US$1 billion in milestones to collaborate on regenerative therapies for chronic liver disease using Ochre’s human‑organ perfusion models.
AbbVie & Medincell (French/US). This co‑development agreement covered up to six long‑acting injectables, with US$35 million upfront and US$1.9 billion in potential milestones.
While US companies often command larger upfronts, UK or European startups can secure high‑value deals when their technology addresses a critical gap. The difference lies in how investors and partners assess risk and value scientific novelty versus market potential.
On Longevity Biotech Startups and Big Pharma
High Risk, Existential Reward
Longevity R&D is in its infancy and poses unique hurdles. Validated biomarkers of aging are scarce, regulatory pathways are undefined, and clinical trials require long follow‑up periods. The TAME trial (Targeting Aging with Metformin) illustrates both promise and challenge: it is designed as a six‑year, multi‑institutional trial enrolling ~3,000 participants aged 65‑79 to test whether metformin delays the onset of age‑related diseases. The trial’s sponsors hope the FDA will recognise “aging” as a treatable indication, shifting the regulatory paradigm. However, the study has yet to secure full funding and has not begun recruiting. This shows why most large pharmaceutical companies hesitate to invest directly in longevity programs: the timelines are long, endpoints ambiguous and regulatory acceptance uncertain.
Platform Potential and The Partnership Opportunity
Longevity therapeutics, if successful, could function as platform drugs: a single agent might prevent or treat a spectrum of age‑related diseases, making the market size every aging human. For pharmas, partnering early on longevity science provides a hedge against being left behind.
Below are some recent Pharma-Startup (longevity science) collaborations/partnership with publicly available information. Be aware that there are partnerships being made/discussed in the background with stealth biotech startups.
Chugai Pharmaceutical & Gero (Singapore). In 2024 Chugai, backed by Roche, partnered with Gero, which uses machine learning on longitudinal biological data to discover aging‑related targets. The partnership combines Gero’s AI‑driven target discovery platform with Chugai’s antibody engineering expertise.
Novartis & BioAge Labs (US). Novartis teamed up with BioAge, a company that leverages decades of human aging data and AI to identify determinants of healthy lifespan. Although financial details remain private, the partnership shows big pharma’s interest in data‑driven longevity platforms.
Calico & Mabwell (US‑China). In June 2025 Alphabet’s longevity arm Calico signed an exclusive licensing agreement with Mabwell Bioscience for 9MW3811, an IL‑11‑targeting monoclonal antibody. Calico paid US$25 million upfront with up to US$571 million in milestones, gaining rights to develop and commercialise the drug outside Greater China. IL‑11 blockade has shown preclinical lifespan extension in mice, making this a bet on inflammation as an aging driver.
HanAll Biopharma & Turn Biotechnologies (Korea/US). In May 2024 HanAll signed a licensing agreement for Turn Bio’s Epigenetic Reprogramming of Aging (ERA™) technology, which uses mRNA‑encoded transcription factors to transiently rejuvenate cells. The deal, valued at over US$300 million for the first product, grants HanAll rights to develop ERA‑based therapies for eye and ear diseases. Turn Bio’s platform aims to reverse cellular aging without triggering de‑differentiation; the partnership pairs Turn Bio’s mRNA and lipid‑nanoparticle expertise with HanAll’s ophthalmology experience.
Altos Labs & Dorian Therapeutics (US). In May 2025, ultra‑funded longevity firm Altos Labs, which launched with US$3 billion in capital, acquired Dorian Therapeutics, a Stanford spin‑out developing “senoblockers” to neutralize senescent cells and reactivate stem‑cell function. Although financial terms were not disclosed, the acquisition brings Dorian’s epigenetic modulators (tested in models of lung fibrosis and osteoarthritis) under Altos’ umbrella. Altos has yet to begin human trials, but Dorian’s program could be among the first.
These deals show that longevity biotech is no longer a fringe pursuit: mainstream pharmas and consumer‑health giants are positioning themselves via options, licenses and acquisitions. The up‑front cash remains relatively modest ($25-$85 million) because the science is early and the risk high, but milestone payments and potential royalties are enormous, reflecting the sector’s expected payoff.
The Clinical and Regulatory Challenge
The biggest hurdle in longevity drug development is proving that an intervention meaningfully extends healthspan. Traditional endpoints like survival, tumour response or blood pressure may not capture subtle improvements in age‑related physiology. Longevity trials may require composite endpoints covering multiple age‑related diseases or validated biomarkers of biological age. The TAME trial proposes to track whether metformin delays the onset of chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer and dementia, yet it also illustrates how logistically difficult and expensive such studies are. Pharmas bring experience in large, multi‑national trials, regulatory negotiation and scale, making them indispensable partners for longevity startups.
Conclusion
Partnerships between big pharma and startups have become an essential engine of innovation, especially as the cost and complexity of drug development outstrip what either side can achieve alone. Across the US and UK, deal structures have evolved from simple licenses to option‑based agreements, equity stakes and integrated collaborations, balancing risk through carefully calibrated upfront payments and milestone‑dependent payouts.
The dynamics of these partnerships differ across regions. The US offers unrivalled venture capital, high valuations and aggressive deal‑making, whereas the UK and Europe provide deep scientific talent and capital efficiency but face funding and regulatory challenges. Transatlantic collaborations are increasingly common as European startups seek US expansion. Regulatory reforms such as the MHRA’s ILAP and international reliance efforts may help the UK compete on speed and pragmatism, but access to the US market remains critical.
Looking ahead, longevity biotech represents the most audacious frontier for pharma‑startup partnerships. With early preclinical evidence but long regulatory timelines, companies are experimenting with creative deal structures to position themselves for a potential paradigm shift. The next few years will reveal whether these bets pay off, and whether aging can indeed become a treatable indication. What is clear is that the process will require the combined ingenuity of nimble startups, deep‑pocketed pharma giants and forward‑thinking regulators on both sides of the Atlantic.
