In biotech, early data is often ambiguous. Instead of judging programs on potential, leaders must prioritize based on the time and capital required to reach a clear 'yes' or 'no' outcome. Indefinite 'gray zone' projects drain resources that could fund a winner.
During capital-constrained periods, founders must be ruthless in their focus. Every dollar and hour should go towards "killer experiments"—those that directly accrue value and hit the specific milestones required for the next fundraising round. "Cool science" that doesn't advance these goals is a luxury companies can't afford.
Unlike tech investing, where a single power-law outlier can return the entire fund, biotech wins are smaller in magnitude. This dynamic forces biotech VCs to prioritize a higher success rate across their portfolio rather than solely hunting for one massive unicorn.
While a challenging fundraising market seems negative, it forces startups to operate with discipline. Unlike in frothy markets where companies expand based on hype, the current climate rewards tangible results. This compels a lean structure focused on high-value projects, creating a healthier long-term business model.
Erik van den Berg asserts that the primary value of biotech leadership is making decisions with limited information. Because time is the most critical resource, delaying decisions is not a neutral act of caution. It actively wastes money and increases the overall cost of investment and drug development.
Raj Devraj simplifies biotech venture evaluation into a four-part framework: scientific viability ("Will it work?"), market viability ("Will it sell?"), feasibility ("Can I do it in my lifetime?"), and execution capability ("Do I have the team?"). This provides a comprehensive yet concise due diligence checklist for early-stage opportunities.
In high-stakes fields like pharma, AI's ability to generate more ideas (e.g., drug targets) is less valuable than its ability to aid in decision-making. Physical constraints on experimentation mean you can't test everything. The real need is for tools that help humans evaluate, prioritize, and gain conviction on a few key bets.
Unlike ventures in established biological pathways, startups tackling novel biology must first prove a specific drug product can work. The primary question isn't about the platform's potential applications but whether a single, tangible therapeutic is viable. Focusing on a broad platform too early is a mistake.
Faced with limited resources, Ovelle's team identifies the absolute minimal steps required to create a viable egg. They focus only on tasks directly related to these key milestones (e.g., DNA methylation, meiosis, egg growth), shelving all other interesting but non-essential research directions.
The fundamental purpose of any biotech company is to leverage a novel technology or insight that increases the probability of clinical trial success. This reframes the mission away from just "cool science" to having a core thesis for beating the industry's dismal odds of getting a drug to market.
While success is celebrated publicly, some of the best leadership happens privately when a CEO makes the tough, candid call to shut down a program or company due to unfavorable data. This "truth-seeking" decision, often against their personal interest, is a hallmark of excellence.