The message from JPM was clear: AI in biopharma is no longer a differentiator, its table stakes. The question has shifted from "are you using AI?" to "what measurable value has AI created?"

Lilly-Nvidia $1B Co-Innovation Lab. Eli Lilly and Nvidia announced a $1B, five-year AI drug discovery lab which will co-locate scientists and engineers in the Bay Area, opening by end of March. Lilly CEO Dave Ricks framed the goal as turning drug discovery from "artisanal" to "engineering." This is an infrastructure investment, solving for one of the most persistent challenges for big pharma companies: the bridge between scientific research, commercial capabilities, and “digital” initiatives.

ChatGPT Health & Claude for Healthcare. Both launched during JPM, a move that was not a coincidence. OpenAI is targeting consumers, with 230M users already asking health questions weekly. Anthropic is targeting enterprise - pharma, payers, providers - with partners including AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Genmab, Veeva, Flatiron. The supply chain for medical information is shifting in real-time, with wide ranging implications across fields as diverse as medical affairs, commercial insights, and consumer-facing digital health solutions.

Bob Nelsen's "Project Prometheus." In November, ARCH's Bob Nelsen revealed he's co-founding a new venture with Jeff Bezos (whom he referred to in an X post as having “impressive resume and good references”), Vik Bajaj and Rick Klausner to “reinvent the physical world” with AI. ARCH has previously backed Xaira ($1B launch), Insitro, and other AI-bio platforms. With Project Prometheus, Nelsen seems to be doubling down in the space.

Tailwinds: Nvidia expanding BioNeMo as open platform; Lilly's TuneLab opening AI models to partners; big pharma actively seeking AI partnerships.

Headwinds: Consolidation risk (big pharma + big tech squeezing out startups); capital requirements increasing ($1B+ becoming table stakes); expectations rising to more discipline around showing real ROI.

Get specific about the value AI is creating. The days of "we’re an AI-first company" as a selling point are over. Investors want concrete answers: not "we're using ML to optimize discovery," but "AI reduced our hit-to-lead timeline from 18 months to 6 months." If you can't point to specific, measurable outcomes, you'll sound like everyone else.

Figure out if your AI strategy is defensive or offensive. Defensive means you're using AI to stay competitive. Offensive means AI is your differentiation, creating value that wouldn't exist without it. Both are valid but know which one you are. Investors will figure it out quickly.

Seriously evaluate build vs. partner vs. buy. Lilly TuneLab and Nvidia BioNeMo are open platforms actively seeking biotech partners. Before investing in proprietary AI capabilities, ask: is this where I want to spend capital and bandwidth? Or can I get 80% of the value by partnering and focus resources on what actually differentiates my science?

Think about where you fit in the emerging ecosystem. The Lilly-Nvidia announcement signals how the industry is consolidating. As a startup, be realistic: are you building to be acquired? Building a platform that complements their stack? Going after a niche they won't prioritize? The "standalone AI-bio company" path is getting harder.

Don't let AI distract you from the biology. This might sound counterintuitive, but it's worth saying: AI is a tool. The biology still has to work. Investors are getting more sophisticated - they're going to probe whether your AI is actually advancing your science, or masking weak fundamentals.

The macro environment shifted meaningfully in 2025. The uncertainty hasn't disappeared, but it's become more legible. Here's what you need to know:

China as an innovation engine. Nearly half(!) of US pharma in-licensing deals in 2025 came from Chinese biotechs. The "fast-follower" narrative is long outdated - AbbVie paid $5.6B for RemeGen's bispecific; Novartis entered into a $1.6B licensing deal for SciNeuro's Alzheimer's program. These are innovative assets. The open question: whether these partnerships can weather ongoing geopolitical uncertainty.

Patent cliff opens M&A and partnership windows. Big pharma is staring down $200B+ in patent expirations. At JPM, CEOs made clear they're setting aside war chests, but for de-risked science, not science projects. Per J.P. Morgan, over $250B was committed to license assets in 2025, up significantly from the prior year. The window is open, but only for founders with clinical data.

Early-stage funding gap widens. Large VCs are moving later stage. NIH funding is uncertain. Traditional early-stage capital sources are harder to access than they've been in years, creating white space for family offices, angels and emerging fund managers.

Regulatory: mixed signals. The FDA announced new flexibility for CGT just before JPM, including a "plausible mechanism pathway" for personalized therapies. But concerns remain about consistency, leadership turnover, and staffing cuts.

Policy uncertainty has decreased (for now). Big pharma struck tariff deals in exchange for domestic investment. Interest rates are improving. Overall mood at JPM was around restraint, discipline, and execution.

Understand what "de-risked" means to buyers right now. Pharma wants clinical-stage assets with data, not early-stage bets. If you're pre-clinical, work backwards from what a buyer would need to see in 12-18 months, and build your plan around that.

Get realistic about early-stage fundraising. The capital that used to flow into seed and Series A is chasing later-stage deals. Non-dilutive funding continues to be high in demand; however, timelines are slow and grant deployment is uncertain. Family offices and strategic angels are increasingly interested but often don't know how to access deal flow. If you can find your way to those sources, you'll face less competition.

Have a clear-eyed view of China competition. If you're in an area where Chinese biotechs are strong, you're getting benchmarked against companies that run trials faster and cheaper. That's a headwind if you're competing head-to-head but can be an opportunity if you're differentiated on regulatory strategy, market access, or mechanism.

If you're in CGT, take advantage of the regulatory tailwind. The FDA is explicitly trying to make personalized therapies easier to develop. Engage with the agency, understand the new pathways, and build your development plan around them.

Think about your timeline relative to the partnership window. The patent cliff is creating urgency for pharma to do deals, but that window won't stay open forever. Can you get to meaningful clinical proof while buyers are still hungry? If your timeline is 5+ years out, you may be building for a different macro environment.

Relationships matter more in a tight capital environment. When capital is scarce, warm intros and existing relationships convert better than cold outreach. Start building those relationships now, not when you need to raise.

Some of the most interesting signals at JPM came from areas that, just a few years ago, were considered "too early" or fringe. That's changing fast.

Longevity goes institutional. No longer just for biohackers and wellness enthusiasts, JPM had dedicated longevity programming across the main conferences and satellite events. The clinical proof is arriving: Insilico Medicine completed a successful Phase 2a trial for an AI-discovered drug targeting age-related pulmonary fibrosis. Life Biosciences is launching the first epigenetic reprogramming trial this year. Big pharma is engaged and Washington is surprisingly pro-longevity, with new leadership at HHS, CMS, and FDA who are vocal advocates.

Psychedelics: Post-MDMA reset. The Lykos MDMA rejection was a setback, but the sector is regrouping around psilocybin. Compass Pathways and Cybin both have Phase 3 readouts expected in 2026. Cybin's CYB003 showed 71% remission in MDD in Phase 2 - data that's hard to ignore. J&J's Spravato is proving commercial viability. Big pharma is expressing interest as it broadens it’s horizons. The shift is toward scalable drug-device models and away from psychotherapy-heavy approaches.

CGT manufacturing reforms. The FDA's January announcement signaled real flexibility on CMC requirements, supporting adaptive trials and a "plausible mechanism pathway" for personalized therapies. The goal: make the "baby KJ" story the baseline instead of the exception.

New modalities gaining traction. siRNA/RNAi (Alnylam's $3B year), radiopharmaceuticals (Novartis acquiring aggressively), ADCs, bispecifics (AbbVie's $5.6B RemeGen deal), and gene editing (CASGEVY rolling out globally) all showed momentum.

If you're in longevity, the window is opening, but the bar is rising. A year ago, you could get meetings based on the science and the vision. Now investors want to see a path to clinical proof. The good news: the regulatory and reimbursement conversations are evolving. But "longevity" as a category is broad - make sure you can articulate exactly what you're targeting and how you'll prove it works.

If you're in psychedelics, focus on the execution. The MDMA rejection wasn't a rejection of the category, it was a rejection of insufficient rigor. FDA wants clean trials and scalable models. If you're building here, learn from Lykos's mistakes. The commercial proof of concept exists (Spravato). The unmet need is massive. But the path runs through rigorous data. Make sure you work backwards from the inflection points that matter.

For CGT founders: move now on the regulatory tailwind. The FDA is explicitly trying to help. Take action - engage with the agency, understand the new pathways, and design your program around them. Founders who move quickly will have an advantage over those who wait for more clarity.

The common thread across all these areas: the bar is moving from promise to proof. Areas that were "too early" three years ago are now generating Phase 3 readouts and commercial traction. If you're building in an emerging area, that's both validating and challenging. Validating because the category is being taken seriously. Challenging because you now need to deliver and can’t raise on the promise alone.

Finally, think about whether "emerging" is actually an advantage for you. Being in a hot area brings attention but also competition, higher expectations, and more noise. Sometimes the better play is an adjacent space that's less crowded.

These were my takeaways from JPM. But I’d love to hear from you - what were yours? Did you see any themes that I missed? Hit reply and let me know, I’d love to hear from you.

By the way: When I started Bio Founder GPS a few months ago, I wasn’t sure if there was a real need for this, and I honestly didn’t know what to expect.

If nothing else, this JPM has reaffirmed, loud and clear, that this is something that needs to exist.

Throughout the week I heard from investors, strategics, and industry partners about how much they love what we’re building here and how they want to show up for this community.

That support means so much, and it’s fueling what comes next.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be heads down working on new initiatives for this year, and I couldn’t be more excited.

Lots of great things to come - stay tuned!

See you next Sunday!

- Vadim

PS: Is there anything that you’d like to see in this community? Reply and let me know!

PPS: If you have someone on your team helping with fundraising or know another founder who could benefit from being in this community - I’d love to include them. They can join us here: [Join the Community]