The next 50 years won’t be defined by borders

Geography is becoming a less reliable guide to where important science originates, but translating it across borders demands judgment and disciplined execution 

Recently, I had the privilege of joining industry leaders for BIO’s closing plenary session, “Shaping Biotech’s 6th Decade: A Worldview on What’s Next.” Having previously served on BIO’s board of directors, it was an opportunity to reflect not only on where our industry is headed, but on how dramatically it has evolved.

The conversation came at a fitting moment. As Sofinnova Investments celebrates its 50th anniversary, I’ve found myself asking a similar question: What will define the next 50 years of biotechnology?

One theme stood out: Biotechnology innovation is no longer concentrated in a small number of established hubs. Important science is emerging from more parts of the world, capital is becoming more interconnected, and companies are increasingly being built around assets that cross geographic and institutional boundaries.

But a more global innovation landscape does not make drug development simpler. It raises the premium on the ability to identify differentiated science wherever it originates and translate it across clinical, regulatory, and commercial systems.

A widening map of innovation

When Sofinnova was founded in 1976, recombinant DNA technology was still experimental. There were no approved biologics, no genomics industry, no cell therapies, no gene editing companies, and certainly no AI-enabled drug discovery platforms. As one of the first investors in Genentech, we’ve operated through multiple market cycles, technological revolutions, and geographic shifts in where innovation originates.

That perspective has taught us an important lesson: While technologies change, the fundamental challenge of biotechnology remains remarkably consistent. Success is not simply about discovering great science; it is about translating great science into medicines that improve patients’ lives.

The goal remains the same, but the environment is changing.

According to a BioCentury analysis, biopharma M&A exceeded $135 billion in 1H26, with 33 transactions worth at least $1 billion. Large pharmaceutical companies are racing to address more than $300 billion in branded revenue exposed to loss of exclusivity and the Inflation Reduction Act over the coming decade.

That pressure is intensifying the search for differentiated assets. Increasingly, the science capable of replenishing those pipelines is emerging beyond the industry’s traditional centers of innovation.

The geography of biotechnology has dramatically evolved over Sofinnova's 50-year history — expanding from an early concentration in the United States to innovation centers in Europe and Japan. Today, the map is changing again.

China has become one of the world’s leading engines of biopharmaceutical innovation, with outbound licensing activity rising from 94 deals in 2024 to 157 in 2025 and disclosed aggregate value nearly tripling to $135.7 billion. Some of the most compelling advances in oncology, immunology, and metabolic disease are now emerging from Chinese biotech, which we’ve seen firsthand through some of our own investments.

What’s remarkable is that none of these developments displaced the innovation centers that came before them. Instead, biotechnology expanded. Scientific talent is more mobile and capital more interconnected than ever before. Innovation may originate in one country, be financed in another, and ultimately be developed by a team assembled across multiple markets.

That creates more opportunities to find differentiated science. It also creates new challenges in determining which programs can succeed globally and what must happen after an asset crosses borders.

Crossing borders is not the same as creating value

Access to globally sourced science is not, by itself, a durable competitive advantage.

An asset developed in one market must be evaluated against a competitive global landscape. Clinical results may need to be interpreted across different patient populations, standards of care, and trial designs. Development plans must satisfy regulators that may have different expectations for evidence, manufacturing, and study conduct. Intellectual property, technology transfer, and supply chains require careful diligence.

Political and national-security considerations have added further complexity. Scientific innovation is becoming increasingly global, while the systems responsible for developing, regulating, and commercializing medicines remain fragmented.

As a result, success increasingly depends not on finding science, but on translating science.

The proliferation of cross-border NewCos will test whether company formation is adding genuine development capabilities or merely transferring assets into more highly valued markets. The strongest companies will be those that can show why an asset’s clinical profile, development plan, and competitive positioning can travel — not simply that its licensing rights can.

Aiolos Bio illustrates this model. The company was formed around HRS-9821, a potentially best-in-class anti-TSLP antibody licensed from Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. Aiolos assembled an experienced leadership team, established a clear clinical and regulatory strategy, and rapidly advanced the program. Less than two years after launch, GSK acquired the biotech for up to $1.4 billion. The value created was not simply in moving an asset across borders, but in combining differentiated science with disciplined company building and execution.

As competition for the best science intensifies, we are likely to see more NewCos built around globally sourced assets, particularly from emerging innovation hubs. 

What the next 50 years will require

As I look toward the next 50 years, I am convinced biotechnology will become even more global and interconnected. Innovation will emerge from more places, and cross-border licensing, partnerships, company formation, and M&A will become increasingly commonplace.

This evolution will not make biotechnology easier. It will make judgment more important.

That does not mean borders will cease to matter. Political, regulatory, and national-security considerations will continue to shape how science, capital, and technology move. But geography will become a less reliable guide to where the most important innovation originates.

One thing, however, will not change. The companies that create lasting value will not be defined by where they are headquartered. They will be defined by their ability to identify exceptional science, build exceptional teams, and execute with discipline. Innovation can come from anywhere; the winners will be those who know how to build around it.

Ultimately, biotechnology is about patients, not politics. Disease does not recognize borders, and neither should innovation. Our responsibility as investors is to identify the best science, wherever it originates, and help translate it into medicines that improve patients’ lives.

That principle has guided Sofinnova for the past 50 years. I believe it will matter even more over the next 50.

__________

Jim Healy is Managing Partner and Chairperson at Sofinnova Investments, where he has invested in dozens of life sciences companies over his 26-year tenure.

Signed commentaries do not necessarily reflect the views of BioCentury.