Is the class solidified? From Biotech to Pharma

The original author believes that the division of labor between Biotech and Pharma is inevitable, Biotech is small in scale, fast in turn, more suitable for pioneering and exploratory work, Pharma is large-scale, slow to turn, and has many resources, which is more suitable as a basic platform to undertake clinical, production, and sales work, but recently the author has some new ideas.

Globally, the distinction between Biotech and Pharma is indeed very obvious, Pharma is almost always those 20, and only a very small number of Chosen Children can grow from Biotech to Pharma.

For projects like PD1, Biotech is almost impossible to raise billions of dollars in R&D funds in a short period of time, roll out hundreds of clinical trials around the world, and establish clinical and sales forces across languages, cultures, and religions. In this way, there is an obvious barrier between Biotech and Pharma, and the industry is divided into two parts, Biotech and Pharma, each with capabilities that the other does not have.

The situation in China is obviously different, there is no absolute barrier between Biotech and Pharma, and it is difficult for domestic Pharma to build a skill tree that Biotech does not have. China is a large, unified market, and this unification gives small factories more opportunities to grow, and conversely, large factories have a greater risk of being disrupted. Biotech's efforts can also establish clinical and sales teams across provinces and cities in a short period of time, which may be inefficient at first, but this is not a problem of 0 and 1.

When there are good projects in European and American biotech, cooperating with Pharma to commercialize globally as soon as possible is often the only solution. When there are good projects in domestic Biotech, there are two ways to choose between cooperation with Pharma and go it alone. Although cooperation with Pharma may be a win-win, making medicine is like having a child, parents naturally want to raise themselves, and in the case of a retreat, Pharma's bargaining power is greatly reduced.

Global Pharma is indeed difficult to be subverted, and although domestic Pharma is also called Pharma, it is actually difficult to harvest Biotech's high-quality projects. It turns out that we compare some domestic Pharma with good comprehensive capabilities such as R&D and sales to international Pharma, and this analogy is obviously problematic. Even the new generation of Biotech, with first-class R&D capabilities, has grown all the way to the Pharma stage, and it is still difficult to say that it is not dominant if it has not completed internationalization.