The biotechnology industry sits at the junction of capital, policy and science. Over the past two years, the intersection has narrowed. Private financing has cooled from its 2021 highs, IPO activity has sputtered, and universities — traditionally considered longstanding engines of discovery — have been cutting budgets and facing uncertain federal research funding. This mix of tighter private investment and institutional cutbacks has been changing the sector's trajectory.
This article will explore how these pressures are likely to affect the industry in the short term (18–24 months) and what the longer-term consequences could be if the trend persists.
A Fragile Funding Backdrop
The biotech funding cycle turned decisively in late 2021. Venture investment and IPOs fell sharply. By mid-2025, almost no new biotech offerings reached the market, which is rare for a sector that relies on public capital to scale clinical programs. At the same time, layoffs and restructurings that began in 2023 carried forward into 2025 as companies conserved cash and narrowed their portfolios.
Universities research expenditures hit record highs in FY2023, but many institutions entered 2025 cutting staff, slowing new hires and freezing some core facility spending. Federal appropriations have held NIH and Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) roughly flat, but proposals in the House of Representatives have floated cuts that bring uncertainty into multi-year planning.
Real estate has mirrored these pressures. After a modest rebound in 2024, lab leasing slowed again in early 2025, with rising sublease space and conversions of older facilities away from laboratory use. This mix — scarce capital, fragile federal support and institutional retrenchment — frames short and long-term implications.
Short-term Impacts (18–24 months)
Fewer shots on goal. The most immediate effect is pipeline thinning. Companies will focus resources on lead programs with clearer regulatory paths and validated biomarkers. Later-stage oncology, rare diseases and some genetic medicines remain priorities. Platforms face stricter demands to deliver near-term proof. Early-stage, “blue sky” programs will struggle to attract funding unless they show extraordinary potential.
A tougher bridge from campus to company. University cutbacks may seem incremental, but they slow the translational pipeline. Fewer staff scientists, shorter hours and reduced start-up packages mean early discoveries move more slowly toward commercialization. Tech-transfer offices may stretch negotiation cycles, making it harder for new biotech companies to lock down intellectual property (IP) quickly.
Workforce strain. Biopharma layoffs release skilled scientists, operations experts and program managers onto the market. But absorption is uneven: smaller companies are cautious, and universities are not expanding. For postdocs and junior faculty, the climate is particularly difficult — start-up packages are slimmer, grants face flatter paylines and institutional bridge funding is less reliable. This creates a transient surplus of talent without corresponding opportunities, a mismatch that could drive some scientists permanently out of the field.
Partnerships over primary capital. With IPOs unreliable, companies are leaning heavily on strategic partnerships. Big pharma, facing patent cliffs, continues to seek pipeline assets. Deal-making, however, is selective. Partnerships often target programs with strong early data, clear regulatory pathways or enabling manufacturing capabilities. For small biotech, collaboration becomes not just a growth option but a survival strategy.
Real estate bifurcation. Lab real estate illustrates the bifurcation. High-spec labs in Boston/Cambridge, San Diego and the Bay Area still command demand, while older buildings in secondary clusters struggle with vacancies. Some developers are repurposing underperforming lab assets into office or residential use. For young companies with runway, this downturn offers opportunities to secure quality space at favorable terms.
Resilient areas. Oncology and immunology remain robust given validated endpoints. Genetic medicines like RNAi and antisense therapies with demonstrated delivery continue to attract funding. Autoimmune repurposing strategies and biomanufacturing innovations benefit from policy incentives and market demand.
Long-Term Impacts If Cuts Persist
A narrower discovery base. Universities generate the raw material for biotech — new methods, targets and early IP. Prolonged budget stress shrinks the number of active labs, deters risky projects and reduces throughput. Over a decade, fewer high-risk, high-reward discoveries could emerge, slowing the “idea gradient” that fuels the sector. The HERD data showing record expenditures in FY2023 are encouraging, but without sustained appropriations, that growth is likely to stall.
Geographic concentration. Top-tier hubs like Boston and San Diego will continue to spin out companies, thanks to established investor networks and dense infrastructure. But secondary hubs risk erosion. Start-ups may decline, faculty may relocate and capital will flow toward the Big Three. The current “flight to quality” in lab leasing suggests this concentration is already underway.
Clinical funnel pressure. The costliest stage — Phase 2 trials — is most at risk in a capital-scarce environment. Companies may truncate or delay programs, especially outside oncology. This results in a thinner pool of assets maturing into pivotal trials in the late 2020s, slowing the pace at which new therapies reach patients.
Talent scarring. Funding droughts often drive young scientists out of research permanently. If postdocs and assistant professors exit due to unstable funding or reduced opportunities, the long-term workforce pipeline shrinks. Those who remain gravitate toward well-funded labs, increasing concentration and reducing diversity of ideas.
IP and tech transfer shifts. Universities under financial stress may demand larger equity stakes, stricter milestones or more aggressive licensing fees. While this might generate short-term revenue, it risks slowing company formation. Over time, market pressure may drive a push toward more standardized, startup-friendly licensing practices.
Biomanufacturing Resilience
A counterweight to these headwinds is biomanufacturing. U.S. policy incentives and reshoring trends are prompting investments in domestic production capacity. This creates steady demand for engineers, process experts and GMP-trained staff — providing regional job stability even if discovery budgets tighten.
Key Indicators to Watch
- Federal appropriations: Flat or slightly increased NIH/ARPA-H funding would provide stability; cuts would ripple quickly into lab staffing.
- IPO activity: A sustained run of IPOs priced within range and trading up would reopen the venture - IPO conveyor belt.
- Layoffs and pipeline news: Broad restructurings signal fewer programs entering the clinic.
- University actions: Hiring freezes and facility closures today mean fewer spinouts in two to four years.
- Lab absorption: A drawdown of sublease space would indicate recovery in company formation.
Implications for Stakeholders
In light of this potential slowdown, there are a few things key stakeholders can do to prepare, which are outlined in the following section.
Founders
- Design for optionality: Build plans that can pivot between independent fundraising and partnership pathways.
- Right-size platforms: Focus on two or three validated use cases to reach human data quickly.
- Leverage real estate: Use the downturn to secure higher-quality lab space.
Investors
- Prioritize translational efficiency: Back companies with biomarker-driven strategies and adaptive trial designs.
- Bet on enabling technologies: Manufacturing, analytics and supply-chain resilience benefit from policy support.
- Support university pipelines: Sponsored research and bridge funding can sustain spinouts.
Universities
- Protect cores and staff scientists: These underpin productivity.
- Streamline IP deals: Aligning with market norms accelerates spinouts.
- Pursue consortia: Multi-institutional grants and shared infrastructure maximize flat budgets.
Policymakers
- Provide stability: Multi-year, predictable research funding reduces costly uncertainty.
- Incentivize tech transfer: Grants for proof-of-concept and GMP readiness shorten commercialization timelines.
- Align workforce: Expand credentialing for GMP roles to meet biomanufacturing demand.
Outlook: Navigating a Shifting Political Climate
The outlook for biotechnology over the next four years will be shaped as much by politics as by science. In the near term, the interplay of federal budgetary decisions, shifting research priorities and regulatory philosophies will determine whether today’s cuts deepen into structural retrenchment or remain a temporary setback. If the political climate remains on its current trajectory, the industry faces a more complex environment that blends both constraints and opportunities.
Policy stability and research funding. A sustained period of reduced federal and university research budgets would reshape the innovation pipeline. Over four years, early-stage discoveries — traditionally seeded by NIH, NSF and academic labs — may slow significantly. This would widen the so-called “valley of death” between discovery and commercialization, as fewer projects are advanced far enough to attract private investment. Companies that are dependent on university partnerships for novel IP could face a dearth of licensing opportunities, leading to intensified competition for fewer viable assets. If budget tightening is paired with political resistance to expanding science appropriations, biotechnology may experience its first multi-year contraction in foundational research output since the 1970s.
Regulatory climate. The political tenor also carries regulatory consequences. An administration that prioritizes cost containment in healthcare may impose stricter standards on drug pricing and reimbursement, reducing the attractiveness of investment in high-risk therapeutic areas. Conversely, a deregulatory stance might accelerate approvals and lower compliance costs, but without corresponding funding for basic research, such measures would have uneven benefits. Over a four-year horizon, industry strategy will be shaped less by scientific capability than by the predictability — or unpredictability — of regulatory policy.
Capital markets and investment cycle. If government retrenchment continues, venture funds and institutional investors may become more conservative, concentrating resources into fewer late-stage companies rather than diversifying across a broad portfolio of early innovators. This could create a bifurcated industry structure: large, well-capitalized firms consolidating assets through acquisition, and small start-ups struggling to survive without traditional pathways of support. Over a four-year cycle, there may be an acceleration of mergers, partnerships and “virtual biotech” models that minimize overhead while waiting out funding uncertainty.
Global competition. Political decisions in the U.S. reverberate globally. Should the U.S. sustain cuts to academic and federal research, competitors in Europe, China and Singapore — many of whom are expanding state support for biotechnology — will gain relative advantage. Over four years, this could result in a migration of talent and research leadership abroad, diminishing the U.S. role as the undisputed center of biotech innovation. Policymakers who assume short-term savings from cutting research may underestimate the longer-term cost of ceding global competitiveness.
Workforce and talent development. University funding cuts also restrict training opportunities for the next generation of scientists. If such reductions persist over a four-year horizon, the talent pipeline could narrow, with fewer postdocs, fewer grant-supported labs and limited opportunities for early-career researchers to gain experience. Industry already faces shortages of biomanufacturing specialists and regulatory experts; sustained political neglect of academic support would exacerbate these deficits, affecting productivity well into the next decade.
Strategic responses by industry. If the current climate continues, biotechnology firms will not remain passive. Over four years, companies are likely to expand alternative R&D models, such as public–private consortia, philanthropic collaborations and AI-driven drug discovery partnerships. Another development might be a diversification of funding strategies, with companies tapping into sovereign wealth funds, foreign investors or mission-driven impact capital to replace shrinking domestic streams. The industry’s resilience will depend on how effectively it can reposition itself within this altered landscape.
The Bottom Line
The four-year outlook is inherently political because it spans an electoral cycle. A change in administration could reverse or mitigate funding trends, potentially unleashing pent-up demand for research investment. Conversely, if austerity policies become entrenched, biotechnology may enter a prolonged period of constrained growth. Stakeholders must therefore prepare for two divergent scenarios: one where today’s cuts prove temporary, and another where they harden into a new baseline. Strategic flexibility, scenario planning and diversified alliances will be essential to navigating this uncertainty. T&ID
About the Author
