A Trans-Pacific Biotech Relay Model; Pfizer ADC's Phase 3 Flop and A BioTwitter Debate Over a Newco; A Communication Guidebook for Asian Biotechs
Asian Biotechies In A Bar; Issue 146; 2026-06-28
[Update: a typo in an earlier version was corrected]
Summary
In this week’s issue,
Leon Tang , inspired by his 8-day trip for BIO2026 Conference and SITC Biotech Strategic Meeting, believes a Trans-Pacific biotech replay model is the only path forward to curing diseases and strengthening the US biotech industry.
Angus Liu went from a Pfizer ADC’s phase 3 flop to an emerging debate that’s poised to become the next frontier in the U.S.-China geopolitical discussions.
We invited Tara DiMilia, the CEO of TellMed Strategies, to discuss how Asian biotech companies can navigate the nuances of U.S. communications — from regulatory compliance and patient advocacy to media relations and social media — and what it really takes to get your science heard in one of the world’s most competitive markets.
On July 1st, an ADC expert panel that consists of Jiaqiang Cai from MediLink, Ziye Sui from Lepu Biopharma, Alexandra Snyder from Merck & Co, Greg Dwyer from Orum Therapeutics, Anshu Goyal from XYone Therapeutics, and our very own Jiamin Zhuo from EMD Serono will converge at BioVerse #32 to share their thoughts on the current landscape of this exciting field. Sign up for the webinar here.
Jiamin Zhuo, Angus Liu, and Leon Tang have been the proud writers and editors of this newsletter since 2023.
Email us at contact@iswtc.org to learn how to support or contribute to our newsletter.
The US-China Biotech Collaboration is the Only Path Forward - Reflection on BIO 2026 and SITC Biotech Meeting
The past eight days have been nothing short of a whirlwind. From the sun-drenched, jam-packed BIO 2026 “Speed Dating Marathon” in San Diego to ringing the bell of reality at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Biotech Strategic Meeting at the New York Stock Exchange, I had the privilege of speaking with literally hundreds of industry leaders. We’ve spoken on panels, shared boat parties on the San Diego Bay, and strategized in the boardrooms.
Across these meetings, a unifying theme emerged that is reshaping how we think about drug discovery, clinical development, and global dealmaking. The geopolitical landscape may be fraught with tension, and the dialogue surrounding decoupling grows louder by the day. But when you step away from the political rhetoric and look strictly at the data, the science, and the economics of capital efficiency, a clear, undeniable truth surfaces:
The future of global biotech requires a deeply synchronized, collaborative effort between the East and the West.
Here is a deep dive into the data-driven realities, the case studies, and the winning formulas that will define the next decade of biopharma.
1. The Data-Driven Reality: The U.S. Discovery Edge vs. The China Development Engine
The U.S. and China are no longer running the same race; they are running highly complementary legs of a global relay.
The U.S. Lead in Basic Science and Discovery: The United States remains the undisputed heavyweight champion of basic science, frontier discovery, and commercial depth. Fueled by unparalleled academic institutions, robust NIH funding, and a risk-tolerant venture capital ecosystem, the US is the birthplace of revolutionary modalities. Whether we are discussing next-generation CRISPR applications, novel RNA therapeutics, or advanced in-vivo CAR-T cell therapies, the fundamental “zero-to-one” innovations predominantly originate in American labs. The U.S. ecosystem excels at asking the biggest biological questions and inventing the tools to answer them.
China’s Structural Advantage in Speed and Cost: However, the Cure Innovation Index also highlights a profound shift in the ecosystem: China has built an undeniable, world-class engine for clinical development. Once a fundamental discovery is made, it must survive the grueling transition into human trials—a phase fraught with operational bottlenecks.
This is where China’s structural advantages become glaringly apparent. According to the data, China is currently executing the discovery-to-IND (Investigational New Drug) phase 50% to 70% faster than the rest of the world. Furthermore, they are running Phase 1 clinical trials at a staggering 50% to 60% less cost. This is not merely a byproduct of cheaper labor; it is a structural, deeply ingrained advantage built on immense patient populations, highly concentrated medical centers, streamlined regulatory pathways for First-In-Human trials, and an aggressive, highly optimized CRO/CDMO infrastructure.
2. The Pragmatic Imperative: Compete, Don’t Disengage
In today’s macroeconomic environment, the cost of capital is punishingly high. Biotech companies are under immense pressure to stretch their funding further and deliver clinical proof-of-concept faster than ever before. Yet, the U.S. currently faces a severe clinical translation bottleneck. The “Valley of Death” between a brilliant laboratory discovery and a successful Phase 1/2 trial is widening, choked by exorbitant costs and agonizingly slow patient recruitment timelines.
Because China’s structural advantages in development speed and cost-effectiveness are durable, deeply embedded, and supported by massive infrastructure investments, they are not going to simply vanish due to geopolitical headwinds. In this sense, the proposed BINSA and COINS acts would be rhetoric at best and tremendous self-damaging at worst.
For the U.S. biopharma industry, this presents a stark choice: leverage this global efficiency, or lose out to competitors, particularly those from Europe and Japan. As the Cure Innovation Index implicitly suggests, turning our backs on a system that can cut development time and costs in half is not a viable strategy for survival, let alone leadership. We must navigate the material risks of dependency with eyes wide open, but ignoring the operational leverage that China provides will cause self-inflicted damages to the US biotech industry.
3. The Candid Therapeutics Masterclass: Execution at the “China Speed”
If you want a real-world validation of this thesis, you need look no further than Candid Therapeutics. During the BIOCHINA Global Forum in San Diego, I had the privilege of connecting with Ken Song, the visionary behind Candid, and a few days later listened to his sharing the incredible story during our China biotech panel at the SITC event at the NYSE.
Candid Therapeutics offers a masterclass in modern biotech execution. In a breathtaking 20-month sprint, the company successfully in-licensed five China-originated assets, heavily leveraging China’s drug discovery quality and clinical trial advantages. This strategic maneuvering culminated in a massive $2.2 billion acquisition—creating tremendous value for their shareholders in record time.
The secret sauce to Candid’s success was their mastery of first-in-human clinical trials in China. During our panel, Ken shared a jaw-dropping statistic that perfectly encapsulates the East-West dynamic: by tapping into the Chinese clinical ecosystem, they were able to recruit approximately 70 patients in 2025 alone while a Western competitor took two full years to enroll many fold fewer patients outside China.
Presentation by Ken Song at BIOCHINA, Jun 21, 2026, San Diego
In the high-stakes, hyper-competitive arenas of T-cell engagers for autoimmune diseases, that delta in recruitment speed is the difference between leading the market and becoming irrelevant.
M&A, as panelist Kristen Hege rightly pointed out, is a business of “the right time, right place, and right people.” By leveraging China’s clinical speed, Candid drastically compressed their timelines, ensuring they were in the right place at exactly the right time for an impressive $2.2-billion exit.
4. The Winning Formula: A Trans-Pacific Relay
Looking back at the blur of the past eight days, a highly effective, repeatable blueprint for bringing innovation to patients has clearly emerged. I call it the Trans-Pacific Relay
“US Innovation ➡️ China Early-Stage Development ➡️ US Late-Stage Development & Commercialization”
This is the exact model that Mianus Accelerator and InScienceWeTrust BioAdvisory are championing. Partnering meetings that fall into this model are the vast majority of my meetings. The industry’s dealmaking appetite right now centers squarely on three distinct archetypes:
China-focused Development of Early-Stage West-Originated Assets: Western biotechs with brilliant innovations (such as next-gen in vivo CAR-T, novel payload ADCs, or first-in-class gene therapies) are partnering with Chinese firms to conduct rapid, cost-effective early stage clinical trials. This generates the critical early clinical data needed to secure subsequent funding rounds or trigger M&A interest back in the U.S..
Out-Licensing of Clinically De-risked or Truly Innovative Early-Stage China-Originated Assets: Western pharma companies, hungry for pipeline replenishment but wary of early-stage biological risk, are aggressively in-licensing assets that have already been clinically de-risked in China. China has a massive surplus of these highly optimized, Phase 1/2 ready assets looking for Western late-stage development and commercial partners.
True innovations still have buyers - As SITC keynote speaker Andrew Baum noted, the buyer’s lens right now is heavily focused on novel payload ADCs and the return of agonists (like PD-1/IL-2). But the buyers are not always from the West. Daina Graybosch noted that her ASCO note on Graywolf, a first-in-class innovator, received no interest from Western investors except for one biotech company - Innovent Biologics, the Chinese biotech powerhouse.
Aggressive Drug Discovery Campaigns for European/Western Companies: European and U.S. companies are increasingly utilizing China’s vast CRO network not just for chemistry and manufacturing, but for sophisticated, end-to-end drug discovery campaigns, turning capital into clinical candidates at “China Speed”.
This relay race allows each ecosystem to do what it does best. It pairs the audacious creativity of Western basic science with the ruthless operational efficiency of Eastern preclinical CROs and clinical development infrastructures, ultimately delivering the de-risked asset back to the West for registrational trials and global commercialization.
5. Conclusion: The Art of Biotech Crosstalk
During my panel at the SITC Biotech Strategic Meeting at the NYSE, I was asked about the future of China on the global stage. Many in the West look at China’s rapid ascent in biotechnology with apprehension, fearing it will inevitably take center stage and push others aside.
However, I view this through a distinctly different cultural lens. In Western culture, stand-up comedy is traditionally a one-man show—a solitary figure on stage holding the microphone. But in traditional Chinese culture, the equivalent art form is 相声 (Crosstalk). Crosstalk requires two performers: a lead speaker and a highly skilled supporting partner bouncing off one another in perfect rhythm and harmony to deliver a masterpiece.
Will the future of global biotech be a one-man comedy show, dominated by a single superpower? Or will it be a deeply collaborative, perfectly synchronized two-performer 相声?
Given the economic realities of drug development, the widening Valley of Death, and the undeniable complementary strengths of the U.S. and China, I believe we have no choice but to master the art of crosstalk. We have brilliant innovation, and we have the high-octane engines required to accelerate it.
At the end of the day, our ultimate adversary is not each other but cancer, autoimmune disorders, and rare genetic diseases.
Disease has no borders—and if we want to cure it, neither should we.
Leon Tang , Founder of ISWT BioAdvisory & BD head of Mianus Accelerator
From Pfizer ADC’s Phase 3 flop to heated debate over a gene editing NewCo
Pfizer’s first phase 3 readout from a pipeline ADC inherited from its $43 billion Seagen acquisition was a dud.
Sigvotatug vedotin (SV), designed to target integrin beta-6 (IB6), failed to beat docetaxel on overall survival in previously treated nonsquamous NSCLC, according to the phase 3 SigVie-002 (Be6A Lung-01) trial. No IB6 expression-response relationship was observed.
Pfizer, pointing to a stronger positive trend in second-line patients and phase 1 data, expressed confidence in an ongoing phase 3 trial, Be6A Lung-02, combining SV with Keytruda in first-line NSCLC with high PD-L1 expressions.
But the reality is, with PD-(L)1xVEGF and TROP2 ADCs, the first-line NSCLC space is looking very competitive. The ORR for SV+Keytruda reached 50% among all 46 patients and 86% in 7 patients with PD-L1-high (TPS >=50%) tumor, according to phase 1 results updated at ASCO 2026.
In the Chinese phase 3 OptiTROP-Lung05 study that triggered some buzzes at ASCO 2026, Merck and Kelun’s TROP2 ADC, sac-TMT, used together with Keytruda, recorded a 70% ORR in all patients and 81% in the PD-L1-high subgroup.
Pfizer’s phase 3 failure once again speaks to how much the field still doesn’t understand about ADCs, and the difficulty in finding the next Enhertu or Padcev. The news followed Pfizer’s decisions in the past year or so to axe three ADCs programs targeting B7-H4, CD228 and PD-L1 (TLR7 immune-stimulating payload), as well as significantly reducing efforts around RemeGen-partnered HER2 ADC, disitamab vedotin.
In an interview with Pfizer’s Chief Oncology Officer Dr. Jeff Legos earlier this year, I asked what his plan was to avoid repeating Gilead’s lessons with Immunomedics (multiple Trodelvy phase 3 flops and no sign of new ADC six years after $21B acquisition). Besides the now-failed Be6A Lung-01, he pointed to Pfizer’s work in profiling novel antigens and “a variety of permutations” involving new antibody constructs (multi-specifics) and payloads (protein degraders, molecular glue). For example, rather than SV’s MMAE vedotin payload, Pfizer is working on another IB6 ADC with a Topo1 payload.
Similarly, Daiichi Sankyo’s new R&D chief, Dr. John Tsai, is tasked with developing the next DXd (a platform technology that can yield multiple products) as part of the company’s plan to become a global top 5 oncology company by 2035. And Daiichi is also exploring novel payloads and tumor-selective antibody engineering. In a recent interview, he told Fierce that Daiichi is taking a rigorous approach to biology. One focus is on treatment resistance and cancer escape pathways to consider how to combine or sequence drugs with different payloads.
Rather than following verified targets (HER2/Enhertu and TROP2/Datroway), Daiichi’s strategy now is to be first-in-class to outcompete the 200-some Chinese ADC players, Tsai said.
“We think about unique targets first, and we will be there first, because it’s novel approaches that we take,” he said. “It’s not repeating the sequencing of combinations of PD-1/VEGF.
For competitive reasons, Tsai wouldn’t disclose specific targets because he knows, once that’s out there, Daiichi will have to move faster to outrun followers.
This consideration brings us to the second topic. This week, Serapha Bio emerged through a reverse merger with Boundless Bio with $230 million in funding commitments from a group led by RA Capital and RTW Investments. The company’s lead asset is an in vivo base editing candidate licensed from China’s YolTech Therapeutics. It targets the PiZZ mutation to treat alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency (AATD).
What would have been just another China-to-West NewCo sparked heated debate on biotwitter. The deal struck a nerve because before co-founding YolTech, the company’s Chief Development and Technical Officer, Dr. Emma Wang, worked at Beam Therapeutics, which is developing a clinically more advanced base editing therapy, BEAM-302.
Some people immediately cried foul, accusing YolTech of stealing trade secrets. While no concrete evidence has emerged, the optic does not look good on YolTech. Robert Nelsen, co-founder of ARCH Venture Partners, which counts Beam among its key investments, tweeted on June 23:
“They should have named it Beam Prime. Or Me Too. Or USA Innovation. Or You Invent, We Take.”
In response, RA’s Peter Kolchinsky tweeted:
“Bob, let’s let the teams compete on the quality of their results. Beam is ahead. If anyone else merely the same, they won’t win. But if they are better, then innovation is working as it should, with competition driving improvement. Every company builds on work of others.”
The debate on BioTwitter quickly merged with the ongoing discussion about whether the U.S. should license from Chinese biotechs, while also veering into complaints about American VCs’ seemingly deteriorating tolerance for risk that’s inherent in the development of groundbreaking new technologies.
Underlying these debates is IP, which I think is poised to become the next frontier of geopolitical tension between the U.S. and China in the biopharma industry. Disputes over gene editing technologies are nothing new, but the involvement of a Chinese company has clearly amplified the backlash.
This case holds potential of becoming a watershed event that will reshape how U.S. capital and biopharma engage with Chinese biotechs. Depending on how U.S. stakeholders respond, this case could either elevate the U.S. ecosystem or pull it back further.
I’m going to quote Dr. Lucas Harrington, who co-founded Mammoth Biosciences from the Doudna Lab. In this June 25 tweet, he wrote:
“This is the point that has been missed in the Chinese biotech debate. The real reason these Chinese assets make sense is largely due to the erosion of the US patent system’s ability to protect biotech discoveries. Investment in Chinese companies (that eg @jrkelly is pushing for regulations of) is a consequence not the cause. Adding in financial regulations for an intellectual property problem will only make things worse. Gene editing is one of the clearest embodiments of this issue and why the RA deal for a base editor has been such a flashpoint. US companies were the first to try to exploit this and the Chinese companies are just doing it better and faster.”
However, under the current political environment, as this recent article by The Economist stated, “China can be a useful bogeyman in American politics.” Any serious policy discussions about complex issues in the U.S. risk being reduced to a simple ban.
— Angus Liu, Deputy Editor of Fierce Pharma and iSWT Community volunteer
From Research to Recognition: Bringing Visibility to Life Science Innovation in the U.S. Market
Science Can’t Sell Itself
Science can’t sell itself. The brilliance of your innovation may have the ability to significantly improve, or even save, lives — but potential partners, investors, and the medical community need to hear about it and understand its importance for it to succeed. Effective communication is the bridge between breakthroughs and real-world impact.
A good example of ineffective communication is the rollout of the microwave oven. While the technology was ready in 1945, it took until the 1980s for most Americans to buy one, and many other countries didn’t see them until the 2000s. That 30-plus-year delay happened because the early marketing used scary terms like “high-frequency radiation,” which caused panic as people confused it with nuclear weapons. Even when the science and its promise are clear, you need to get your voice heard amid an increasingly crowded healthcare landscape.
This is especially true in the U.S. market. Many companies are surprised to find that a strong data package and polished presentation aren’t sufficient. Americans expect directness, personalization, and clarity. Investors want to see not only the data but also how others are responding to your progress. Successful communications require understanding the nuances of language, preferred channels, and the regulatory environment — and creating branding that aligns with U.S. culture and regulatory parameters.
Taking a Step Beyond AI
While AI can be valuable for translations and identifying cultural differences, it often misses important nuances. In life sciences communications, those nuances matter.
For example, some companies have used the word “novelty” as a substitute for “innovation” or “new.” While technically correct, Americans commonly associate “novelty” with a trinket or gimmick, making it inappropriate for medically focused materials. Even technical terminology may be translated inaccurately or fail to meet expectations for clarity and accessibility.
Beyond word choices, translations can overlook tone and language preferences of U.S. investors, investigators, and patients. Failing to appropriately acknowledge patients in materials such as data press releases causes a company to appear disconnected from healthcare’s broad mission. This release demonstrates these subtleties — the subhead points to the assessment of the treatment “in patients with T1D” rather than the disease itself, and the quote also refers to patients. This nuanced language demonstrates commitment to patient care while remaining within regulatory compliance.
Communications strategies must also account for complex U.S. legal and regulatory requirements, and building authentic relationships across media and social platforms is critical to creating a brand that resonates. Knowing which tactics best align with a company’s stage, goals, and audience still requires strategic human input — and the right approach can look very different from one company to the next.
Two companies recently took very different approaches to increasing clinical trial enrollment. One was a gene therapy company with more than 1,000 employees preparing to launch a study, while the other was a startup oncology biotech with an active trial underway. Differences in company stage, trial status, audience needs, and regulatory considerations resulted in two very different communications approaches. One program centered on thought leader engagement and conference activities, while the other relied primarily on targeted social media outreach, curated content, and a study-specific webpage.
AI can help generate ideas and accelerate execution, but successful programs still require human insight, strategic judgement, and relationship-building. Ultimately, it all begins with a strong brand.
Branding: Defining Who You Are
A strong U.S. presence begins with a clear, compelling brand. This includes:
A differentiated company identity, mission and values
Human-centered storytelling that resonates with future employees, investors, patients and other key stakeholders
Visible company leadership with authentic, relatable personal brands
Authentic engagement with patient communities
Clear articulation of your product, its purpose and its relation to your identity, mission, and values
As an example, Modifi Bio’s use of imagery successfully illustrated how strategic branding can elevate scientific complexity into accessible, memorable messaging. Their tagline, “Modifying DNA to eradicate cancer,” paired with visual metaphors such as chameleon imagery, transformed intricate molecular science into a story people could easily understand. Creativity is important, but must remain within legal and regulatory parameters and keep patients at the center.
Setting the Framework
Regulatory Considerations
The U.S. regulatory environment demands precision and discipline. Companies that do not adhere to FDA requirements can face regulatory, legal, and financial consequences — including warning letters, product sales restrictions, and damage to investor confidence. A few core principles to keep in mind:
Investigational products must be clearly and constantly defined as such
All statements must comply with research/product labels
Safety information must be shared when naming a product, even on social media
Language should be at a third-grade reading level
The Power of Patient Advocacy
Patient advocacy is a cornerstone of U.S. healthcare communication. Unlike in many other markets, U.S. patient groups increasingly expect a seat at the table on trial design, and FDA advisory committees consider patient perspectives when evaluating therapies. These relationships need to be two-way: companies should both gain input from patient advocates and provide information to them.
Engagement can start as early as clinical trial planning, helping ensure that outcomes data matches patient needs — particularly for diseases affecting mobility and quality of life, where patient and physician perspectives on success can differ greatly.
One very successful patient campaign created by TellMed Strategies was for a client developing a radiopharmaceutical treatment for a rare cancer. TellMed produced pinwheels imprinted with a zebra design — the symbol of rare diseases, aligning with the saying “when you hear hoof beats, don’t just think horses; it could be a zebra.” The pinwheels carried another metaphor too: one doctor stated that “hope is like air for this community of patients,” and pinwheels are powered by air. Distributed to patient advocacy groups across the globe, photos of the pinwheels in Times Square, in front of the Eiffel Tower, and at other international monuments were broadly shared on social media, bringing a sense of hope and unity to the community and significantly raising disease awareness.
Tactics to Raise Visibility
Owned Materials
Branding and messaging should be consistently reflected across all materials, particularly your website and company presentation. These “owned media” tools give you full control over content. A U.S.-facing website — even a simple one-page site — is essential, as it is often the first point of contact for investors, potential employees, and partners, and serves as the foundation for validating information found through news and social media.
Company presentations should clearly lay out the problem you are solving and how you are solving it. Your website — whether a simple one-pager or a more elaborate multi-page site — should reflect your stage and budget, and remember that for many investors, potential employees, and partners, it will be their first interaction with your brand.
Working with U.S. News Media
The U.S. media ecosystem is vast, ranging from national networks to niche trade publications. Working well with media requires honesty, authenticity, and an understanding of each outlet’s audience, deadlines, and methods. Press release distribution services support searchability, but generating genuine journalist interest amplifies both visibility and brand credibility.
While the Wall Street Journal typically focuses on public companies, a reporter decided to lead the piece “New Blood Thinners Will Prevent Blood Clots Without Causing Bleeding” with a privately held emerging biotech only because TellMed was able to offer the reporter a broad view of the company’s role within the ecosystem. Initial discussions grew into a top-of-the-fold story based on TellMed’s continued information-sharing with the reporter — prompting investor attention and social media engagement well beyond the initial publication.
Prepare spokespeople thoroughly: they should know the reporter’s background, anticipate questions, and understand the importance of speaking succinctly on the record.
Social Media: Humanizing Your Company and Your Science
Investors, potential hires, and patients all turn to social media to assess a company’s reputation and culture. Experience across life science companies suggests it is often the first point of exposure — one company found that two-thirds of new hires cited social media as their initial introduction to the firm. In the U.S., the key platforms serve distinct roles:
LinkedIn: Reaches industry, employees, investors, and future talent. Weekly cadence, thought leadership, and human-centered posts perform best.
Facebook: A critical platform for patient engagement. Supports live events, community building, and cross-promotion with Instagram.
Instagram: Highly visual and effective for patient communities. Reels, Stories, and Live sessions help humanize the company.
YouTube: A home for video content that can be shared across platforms.
Bluesky: An emerging platform gaining traction among researchers and academics, requiring frequent posting.
Across all platforms, the goal is to humanize the company, offer personal perspectives, and provide patient-centric information.
Launching a U.S. Communications Program
Bringing scientific innovation to the U.S. market requires more than data — it requires cultural understanding, regulatory fluency, patient partnership, and strategic storytelling. Start by defining your current goals, build a milestone roadmap for consistent visibility, and tailor your messaging to U.S. language and culture. Thoughtful implementation and relationship-building will transform these activities into meaningful visibility and measurable results. When executed well, communications become a growth engine, a trust builder and a catalyst for recognition, shaping perception, and unlocking strategic opportunities.
Your scientific successes can change lives, but you need to make sure your story is heard and understood.
Tara DiMilia, CEO of TellMed Strategies, a healthcare communications agency with experience helping companies create a footprint in the U.S.
