The 2020-2021 biotech "bubble" pushed very early-stage companies into public markets prematurely. The subsequent correction, though painful, has been a healthy reset. It has forced the sector back toward a more suitable, long-duration private funding model where companies can mature before facing public market pressures.

The market correctly sees biology's potential but often misunderstands its timeline. Even with AI, biology is fundamentally harder and slower than software. Daniel Fero warns this mismatch in "tempo" expectations leads to over-funding hype cycles while under-funding foundational companies that are simply moving at the pace required for rigorous biological R&D.

While staying private can offer strategic advantages, particularly for future M&A, the biotech industry lacks a mature private growth capital market. Companies needing hundreds of millions for late-stage trials have no choice but to go public, unlike their tech counterparts.

The biotech industry recently endured its own "dot-com bust." Post-COVID hype gave way to investor impatience with the sector's fundamental realities: it takes over 10 years and massive capital ($200B/year industry-wide) to get a drug approved, leading to a sharp market correction.

Unpredictable changes in FDA review processes are more destructive to biotech investment than consistently high approval standards. Investors can adapt to a stringent but stable regulatory bar, but constant changes undermine the multi-year planning and capital commitment required for drug development, causing investors to flee.

The dominant biotech VC model incentivizes startups to act like real estate developers: build an asset to a certain stage (e.g., early clinical data) and then sell it to a large pharmaceutical company. This focus on short-term exits discourages the long-term, ambitious company-building required for revolutionary platforms.

The financial system's focus on short-term trades is misaligned with biotech's 10-year development cycles. Jeremy Levin suggests a policy solution: treat biotech investing like long-term real estate. He proposes tiering capital gains taxes so that investors who hold stock for many years receive a greater tax benefit, incentivizing long-term commitment over short-term volatility.

Drug development can take a decade, a timeframe that misaligns with typical investor horizons and employee careers. Success requires navigating fluctuating capital market cycles and implementing strategies to retain key scientific talent for the long haul.

While biotech cannot easily replicate tech's rapid iteration cycles due to high costs and long feedback loops, it can adopt the capital efficiency model of tech seed investing. The strategy is to kill flawed projects quickly and cheaply, ensuring that when you lose, you lose small.