The Problem with “Trendy Science” in Biotech: Chasing the Next Big Thing

Biotech is the land of promise—and peril. Every few years, a new scientific breakthrough takes center stage, drawing billions of dollars, breathless headlines, and a parade of eager investors. CAR-T, CRISPR, mRNA, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), GLP-1 agonists—the buzzwords keep coming. But for every success story, there’s a quieter tale of overhyped technologies, crowded fields, and neglected opportunities.

The biotech ecosystem’s love affair with trends is both its strength and its Achilles’ heel. While trends can drive innovation and funding, they also skew priorities, misallocate resources, and leave less flashy but equally critical areas behind. The question isn’t whether trendy science is good or bad—it’s whether biotech can manage its obsessions without losing sight of the bigger picture.

The Allure of the Trendy

The Money Magnet Effect

Trendy science is irresistible. Investors flock to what’s hot, spurred on by fear of missing out. Startups align their pitches to buzzwords, sometimes stretching their relevance to fit. And media coverage amplifies it all, creating an echo chamber of optimism.

In 2024, ADCs and GLP-1 agonists became the latest darlings of the biotech world. Both areas hold significant promise, but they also exemplify the risks of trend-chasing.

Case Study: ADCs—Targeted Therapy Meets High Hopes

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been hailed as a revolution in cancer treatment. By combining targeted antibodies with potent chemotherapy payloads, ADCs aim to deliver “smart bombs” directly to tumors, minimizing side effects. The idea isn’t new—ADCs have been around for decades—but recent successes, like AstraZeneca’s Enhertu for breast cancer, have reignited interest.

The Hype Machine

In 2024, ADCs saw an unprecedented surge in funding, with over $4 billion invested globally in new ADC startups. Companies rushed into clinical trials, buoyed by the success of blockbuster drugs like Enhertu, which achieved $2 billion in annual sales.

The Risks

But ADCs aren’t without challenges. Manufacturing is complex and expensive, requiring sophisticated infrastructure. Safety concerns—such as off-target toxicity—remain significant, as seen in multiple Phase I trial failures reported in late 2024. Worse, the crowded field has led to overlapping development programs, with over 50 ADCs targeting similar cancer types.

Case Study: GLP-1 Agonists—The Obesity Gold Rush

GLP-1 agonists, originally developed for diabetes, have emerged as a game-changer in obesity treatment. Drugs like Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy and Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro delivered unprecedented weight loss results, driving a frenzy of investment in metabolic therapies.

2024: The GLP-1 Land Grab

By 2024, GLP-1s were projected to generate over $20 billion annually, and every major pharma company scrambled to enter the space. Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly expanded their manufacturing capacities, while startups focused on improving delivery methods, such as oral formulations.

The Problems With GLP-1 Hype

• Cost and Access: The high price of GLP-1 therapies—$10,000 to $15,000 annually per patient—has drawn criticism from payers and policymakers. In Europe, reimbursement debates slowed adoption, highlighting the tension between innovation and affordability.
• Unrealistic Expectations: Companies raced to develop “next-gen” GLP-1s with even greater efficacy, but by late 2024, diminishing returns became apparent. Several high-profile trials failed to outperform existing therapies, raising concerns about overinvestment.

The Collateral Damage of Trend-Chasing

Neglecting the Unfashionable

For every ADC and GLP-1 that captures investor attention, less glamorous areas suffer. Antibiotics, for instance, remain critically underfunded despite the looming threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In 2024, less than 1% of global biotech funding went to AMR research, even as the WHO declared drug-resistant infections a top global health threat.

Market Saturation

The rush to follow trends often leads to oversaturation. CAR-T therapy, a darling of the late 2010s, now suffers from this problem. By 2024, there were over 300 CAR-T clinical trials targeting hematologic cancers, with little differentiation between them. This intense competition has driven up development costs while yielding diminishing returns.

The Bigger Picture: Are Trends Hurting Biotech?

Trends aren’t inherently bad. They drive funding, focus, and innovation in critical areas. But when the industry lurches from one hot topic to the next, it risks neglecting long-term priorities, burning out investors, and losing public trust.

A Balancing Act

• Sustained Investment: mRNA’s success wasn’t built on hype alone; it came after decades of sustained, incremental research. Biotech needs similar long-term commitment in less glamorous areas, from AMR to rare diseases.
• Managing Expectations: Overpromising has real consequences. For ADCs and GLP-1s, ensuring realistic timelines and targets will be key to maintaining credibility.
• Diversifying Funding: Policymakers and investors should incentivize research in underfunded fields to avoid resource bottlenecks.

Final Thoughts: Beyond the Buzzwords

Biotech thrives on ambition, but ambition must be tempered by balance. ADCs and GLP-1s have undeniable potential, but they also exemplify the risks of trendy science: oversaturation, misallocated resources, and unmet expectations. The industry needs to ask itself whether it’s building a foundation for sustained innovation or just chasing the next big thing.

Because in biotech, the next big thing is often followed by a reality check—and not all of them come with a happy ending.