Want to stay on top of the science and politics driving biotech today? Sign up to get our biotech newsletter in your inbox.
Oh hi. Today, we talk about Eli Lilly’s plan to invest $27 billion into new manufacturing sites stateside, learn about a new wave of biotech VCs, and more.
The need-to-know this morning
- STAT’s Adam Feuerstein, in his weekly Biotech Scorecard newsletter, writes about a counterintuitive, but ingenious, solution to the “zombie” problem among biotechs: Buy them and shut them down.
- Argenx, Europe’s other top biotech, reported fourth-quarter and 2024 earnings.
Biotech’s new generation of venture capitalists
A new wave of biotech venture capital firms, led by younger investors, is reshaping the industry with fresh strategies and a focus on artificial intelligence, longevity, and computational biology. While traditional VC firms stay dominant, these newcomers — many in their 30s and 40s — are securing major funding and backing scientific founders.
STAT’s Allison DeAngelis is out this morning with a rundown of some of the buzziest new VCs, including Dimension Capital’s Adam Goulburn, KdT Ventures’ Cain McClary, and Atria Ventures’ Chris Leiter.
“I think the founders are looking for new blood, and the capital markets … are looking for new blood,” Dar said.
Lilly invests $27 billion in U.S. drug manufacturing
Eli Lilly announced yesterday that it will invest $27 billion into four new drug manufacturing sites in the U.S., aligning with the Trump administration’s push to bring pharmaceutical production stateside. The sites could need as many as 10,000 construction jobs and 3,000 technical jobs. Lilly also touted its previous $23 billion investment in domestic manufacturing over the past four years, which includes new sites in North Carolina, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
During a press conference in Washington, CEO Dave Ricks emphasized the company’s national pride, underscoring how the company was founded by a U.S. Army veteran. Several Trump administration officials attended the event as well.
“I’m honored to be here today because Eli Lilly is doing exactly what the President was hoping would happen, which is having tens of billions of dollars of investment in America,” Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said.
FDA cancels flu vaccine advisory committee meeting
The FDA has abruptly canceled a key vaccine advisory committee meeting scheduled for March 13 — leaving vaccine makers without critical guidance on flu strain selection for the upcoming season. Commitee member Paul Offit confirmed the cancellation, noting that were no plans to reschedule it.
“It’s an important meeting,” Offit said. “Vaccine makers look to this meeting to determine which strains to include in this year’s vaccine.”
The decision follows a pattern of advisory meeting cancellations under the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the WHO is proceeding with flu strain recommendations, with U.S. officials attending virtually.
Reforming drug approval with progressive trials
The FDA is slow, deliberate, and rather risk-averse when it considers drugs for approval, argue Michael Stebbins, a geneticist and former White House biotechnology advsier, and Eric Perakslis, a former FDA chief information officer. At the same time, treatments substantiated by shaky data often ultimately command sky-high prices.
A progressive approval model with a tiered system could work better, the pair opine in a new First Opinion essay.
This approach would incentivize drugmakers as real-world evidence accumulates, they say. By integrating clinical trial opportunities into routine care through electronic health records, more patients could access experimental treatments earlier — and data-sharing requirements would ensure the continuous monitoring of safety and efficacy.
NIH indirect cost cap sparks funding debate
The Trump administration’s proposal to cap NIH indirect costs at 15% has drawn criticism from universities, researchers, and policymakers, who argue it undermines research infrastructure. While private foundations pay lower overhead, they say, universities accept these rates only because federal funding covers most of their research expenses. Private foundation funding serves as a beneficial add-on.
The cap could force institutions to reclassify expenses, cut staff, and reduce research capabilities, ultimately destabilizing academic science. Experts acknowledge inefficiencies in the current system, but argue that drastically lowering indirect cost rates without an alternative funding model could hinder scientific discovery and innovation.
More reads
- Wearable defibrillator maker Kestra Medical plots $150M IPO, FierceBiotech