Biotech, we were told, had entered its age of austerity. The days of bloated valuations and preclinical moonshots were over. Europe, never one to lead the euphoria, was expected to trail the correction. Yet somewhere between rate hikes and risk aversion, a strange thing happened: the continent’s life-science

The pronouncement that "It’s Never Been Harder to Make It in Venture Capital," as captured by Bloomberg, is more than a fleeting headline. It’s a signal of a seismic shift in the venture landscape, a contraction whose tremors are felt with particular intensity in the demanding

At the recent Capital for Cures gathering in Milan, a curated group of biotech innovators, investors, and family office leaders came together to challenge the status quo of life science financing. While the conversation spanned AI, partnerships, and new therapies, a clear consensus emerged: the current model is not enough.

If you’ve ever wondered how governments decide which new drugs to fund and which to reject, chances are the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is lurking somewhere in the background. This tidy little metric, designed to measure the value of health outcomes, underpins cost-effectiveness analyses around the world.

If biotech were a footrace, Europe would be the competitor with flawless running shoes, world-class muscle tone—and one leg inexplicably tied to a lamppost labelled "structural inefficiencies." Meanwhile, the U.S. is sprinting ahead, cheered on by giddy pension funds tossing dollar bills like confetti. This—

In July 2023, the United Kingdom government launched the Mansion House Compact, a voluntary commitment by nine of the country’s largest defined contribution (DC) pension schemes to invest at least 5% of their default funds in unlisted equities by 2030. Its successor, the Mansion House Accord, announced in May

Ah, ESG! Not long ago, you could hardly sip your oat milk latte—or endure a quarterly earnings call—without stumbling over this earnest little trio of letters. Environmental, Social, Governance: a veritable holy trinity promising to keep greedy corporations virtuous, polar bears suitably chill, and boardroom consciences cleaner than

Health economics is to pharma what a crystal ball is to a fortune teller—draped in mystique, full of promise, and often wrong in hilarious and consequential ways. Ostensibly, health economics is the rigorous study of how resources are allocated in healthcare. In practice, it’s the art of making

The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is the darling of health economists and the bane of pharmaceutical companies. At its heart, ICER asks a seemingly simple question: how much are we willing to pay for one extra year of quality life? In practice, however, it has become a highly sophisticated—

Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, nor yet a humble one. This was a suite at the Four Seasons, with a sea view, a minibar that would bankrupt a small health system, and the unmistakable aroma of compliance paperwork. Because this was the residence—however temporary—of a Key Opinion