Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Corporate venture firms stepped in for drug startups during biotech funding pullback

The prolonged slowdown in biotechnology startup funding has given an opportunity for a specific set of investors to step in: corporate venture firms. Data compiled by BioPharma Dive show that venture funds associated with Novo Holdings, Eli Lilly and Sanofi ha

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

The prolonged slowdown in biotechnology startup funding has given an opportunity for a specific set of investors to step in: corporate venture firms. Data compiled by BioPharma Dive show that venture funds associated with Novo Holdings, Eli Lilly and Sanofi have been among the most active backers of privately held companies this year. Novo Holdings, for example, has been involved in 18 private venture rounds in 2025, the most of any of the roughly two dozen firms tracked by BioPharma Dive. Eli Lilly and Sanofi Ventures also contributed to 13 apiece, respectively, putting them among the upper echelon in terms of deal activity.

Corporate venture activity surged in 2025

Number of rounds involving the most active venture firms tracked by BioPharma Dive The numbers reflect the growing importance of corporate venture investors — which often operate under the umbrella of a pharmaceutical parent — to privately held biotech companies. These firms have been a well-known part of the biotech startup ecosystem over the last decade or so. Many pharmas have venture arms that fund early-stage life science companies, among them Pfizer, Novartis, Roche and Johnson & Johnson. But they’ve increasingly been investing earlier and more actively in recent years. Unlike traditional biotech investors, corporate venture arms don’t rely on outside funding from limited partners to raise new bankrolls. Instead, they draw their capital from their parent corporations, a steadier source of cash that can allow them the freedom to adopt a long-term strategy rather than focus on quicker returns, investors interviewed by BioPharma Dive said. Lilly and Novo Nordisk, for instance, have billions of dollars in newfound revenue due to the popularity of their GLP-1 medicines for obesity, giving them — and, in Novo’s case, its corporate parent Novo Holdings, which is the associated entity that invests in young companies — more cash to work with. “There's a significant need for investors like Novo that are deeper-pocketed, that are longer-term focused to play a role in the space,” said Scott Beardsley, a managing partner at Novo Holdings. “Unfortunately, drug discovery and development hasn't gotten any cheaper. It's gotten more expensive, so the need for capital is more pervasive than ever.” The presence of a corporate venture firm can also make young drug companies seem more appealing to other investors. A July report from Silicon Valley Bank found at least 70% of biopharma initial public offerings since 2022 have included at least one corporate venture investor , and all of those stock issuances raised at least $50 million. Corporate venture firms also backed at least 60% of biotechs acquired during that time, data points that, taken together, are a sign that their presence might “increase the odds of a successful outcome,” the authors wrote. “If you ask some of the VC stakeholders, or other investors that tend to syndicate with these partners, it can be seen as a sign of validation that pharma is in there and they are taking a look at the science and they like what they see, because these people are best in class at what they do,” said Ariana DaCruz, a senior vice president at Stifel’s Life Science and Healthcare Venture Banking group. Corporate arms can also bring benefits to biotech startups that stretch beyond dollars, such as help making important new connections. Biotechs “see the value of relationships that align around shared interest in the science and are not solely based on financial opportunity,” said Brad Robling, the vice president of Lilly Ventures. That kind of support has been more crucial during a multiyear pullback in biotech funding. IPOs have been harder for startups to complete , forcing investors to keep companies private for longer and be more judicious with their cash. Many startups have had difficulty raising further funding rounds, resulting in staff layoffs, programs cuts and, in some cases, shut downs. Uncertainty surrounding drug regulation and pricing , as well as competitive threats from China’s fast-growing biotech ecosystem have added more recent challenges for young companies, too. Amid that backdrop, corporate venture arms have gotten a bigger chance to participate. In 2022, Novo Holdings, Sanofi Ventures and Eli Lilly were involved in a total of 11 private funding rounds. This year, that total has already ballooned to 44, according to BioPharma Dive data. (The upswing in activity has made them the only three corporate entities meeting BioPharma Dive's target focus .) The presence of a corporate venture investor is a “particularly attractive option when access to capital from traditional venture sources and the public markets is constrained,” Robling said. For startups, the theoretical downside of that activity is the possibility that corporate venture interest is tightly tied to the whims of a pharmaceutical company. Some corporate venture arms have a “primarily strategic mandate,” DaCruz said, looking for technologies that fall in line with what their pharma owners have prioritized. Those that invest according to that mandate might be influenced by changes in leadership or corporate strategy, which could cause funding for projects no longer in favor to disappear without warning. A look at the recent investments by Novo Holdings, Eli Lilly and Sanofi Ventures shows many are based in areas, like neurological and immune drug research , that their associated pharmaceutical companies favor. Still, the corporate investors interviewed by BioPhama Dive insist they have a broader directive, homing in on unmet medical needs and science likely to translate into real drug prospects. “Our view is, at this moment in time, this is what biotechs need,” Jason Hafler, Sanofi Ventures’ managing partner, said in September. “They need funds and [corporate VCs] to step in and lead rounds or co-lead rounds.”

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01What Comes Next

With data expected in the fourth quarter of 2026, we are prioritizing histology alongside patient-reported outcomes using the Celiac Disease Symptom Diary, one of only two instruments developed in line with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance, to capture changes in symptoms such as abdominal pain and nausea. Ultimately, the broader aim is to give gastroenterologists and patients a therapeutic option for a disease that has long been managed without one. The future of drug development will not be defined by statistical significance alone, but by whether new therapies also improve the daily burden of living with celiac disease. “The first therapy to cross the line could change the field,” Geller concluded. “It would help establish celiac as a serious medical condition with options beyond a restrictive diet and open the door for what comes next.” Dr. Paul Lizzul is chief medical officer at First Tracks Biotherapeutics, a clinical ‑ stage biotechnology company advancing antibody therapeutics that modulate immune pathways implicated in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Marilyn Geller serves as an advisor to First Tracks Bio. Footnotes Abadie V, Jabri B. IL-15: a central regulator of celiac disease immunopathology. Immunol Rev . 2014;260(1):221-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/imr.12191. Yokoyama S, Watanabe N, Sato N, et al. Antibody-mediated blockade of IL-15 reverses the autoimmune intestinal damage in transgenic mice that overexpress IL-15 in enterocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A . 2009;106(37):15849-15854. https://doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0908834106. Anthony S, Schluns KS. Emerging roles for IL-15 in the activation and function of T-cells during immune stimulation. Research and Reports in Biology . 2015;6:25-37. https://doi.org/10.2147/RRB.S57685.

Source: www.biopharmadive.com ↗
02How Real Brain Cells Respond to Artificial Neurons

Holla, who completed her PhD in Raman’s lab and is now a postdoctoral researcher studying memory at New York University in New York City, designed and ran experiments in mouse cerebellar slices. She positioned a stimulation electrode on the parallel fibers, the main pathway that excites Purkinje cells, and a recording electrode on the Purkinje cells themselves. She played recordings of the artificial neurons’ waveforms into the tissue through a standard stimulation electrode at four different speeds: 7, 60, 218, and 740 spikes per second. At every speed below 200 spikes per second, the Purkinje cells fired in response. The strongest results came at 60 spikes per second, where each artificial spike lasted 0.7 milliseconds, which is fast enough to trigger the cell but brief enough to avoid flooding the tissue with unnecessary current. Above 200 spikes per second, the cells stopped responding. They simply cannot fire that fast. The team included the 740-spikes-per-second condition on purpose to directly challenge the many engineering groups building artificial neurons that operate at those speeds. “We had to show them [740 spikes] wasn’t sufficient,” Brown said. “You can’t work that fast.” “You can see the living neurons respond to our artificial neuron,” Hersam said. But he is careful to note a caveat: The printed artificial neurons were not touching the brain tissue. The waveforms they generated were recorded and then played back into the slice through standard laboratory stimulation equipment. The next step is to prove the printed device itself can interface with living tissue.

Source: www.medscape.com ↗
03Lifestyle Matters: How do environmental and lifestyle factors influence Alzheimer’s disease?

Dr. Harrison and Finnish neuroscientist Dr. Miia Kivipelto explore the complex interplay between genetics and lifestyle in Alzheimer's development. Learn how the groundbreaking FINGER study demonstrates potential prevention strategies, and discover the latest evidence on how environmental factors, diet, and chronic conditions influence Alzheimer's risk.

Source: www.biopharmadive.com ↗
04Why Muscle Cells Might Do Some Heavy Lifting

Brown was studying gene therapy in the 1990s when he designed a technology to turn mRNA expression on or off in different cells. For the new mouse study, published in Nature Biotechnology , he adapted the technology to turn off mRNA expression in dendritic cells, muscle cells, or liver cells. The researchers then vaccinated the mice with each version, delivering the vaccines both intravenously and intramuscularly. “The results were pretty stunning,” Brown said. When mRNA expression was turned off in muscle cells, T-cell response went down, suggesting muscle cells play a role in immunity. When expression was turned off in liver cells, T-cell expression tripled — indicating liver cells dampen immunity. Turning off expression in dendritic cells had no effect on T-cell activation, though it did reduce the number of killer T cells by as much as half. (Interestingly, no such reduction occurred when the antigen was SARS-CoV-2 spike. Brown is now investigating why different antigens had varying effects.) Knowing all this is crucial for designing effective mRNA vaccines and therapies. That’s because different mRNA therapies require different strategies. Cancer vaccines must boost tumor-fighting killer (CD8+) T cells. For genetic disease treatments, scientists want to avoid triggering the immune system to prevent killing the very cells the mRNA is meant to modify. “Understanding the immunology is extremely important for this class of drug,” Brown said. The finding doesn’t mean dendritic cells aren’t important for mRNA vaccines to work. “It just means that the mRNA doesn’t have to get into those cells to induce an immune response,” Brown said. Instead, the antigen can be transferred to those dendritic cells.

Source: www.medscape.com ↗
05China: Threat or opportunity?

One of the biggest biotech news stories of recent years is China’s continued rise as a biotech and life sciences powerhouse. China conducts a quarter of all clinical trials and drug development and has almost 1,500 new drugs in development.¹ Many China-based biotechs have benefitted from government funds, out-licencing deals with large pharmas and venture capital funding. However, policymakers in the US and EU have concerns about the possible threat to their region’s biosecurity and competitiveness as centres for health and life science research. Given China’s increased importance, ICON Biotech conducted the same biotech sector survey with 100 China-based biotech leaders. The results show that Chinese biotechs face many of the same challenges as biotechs located elsewhere. They share the same funding challenges and burdens associated with increasingly complex clinical trials and regulations.

Source: www.biopharmadive.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →