"Boldness." That is the word that most stands out in "Biotech in the Balance: Saving a Strategic Industry in an Age of Distrust," the book by Dr. Jeremy Levin that was published a few weeks ago in the US and that has already managed to make waves in the industry. Levin, a former CEO of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, is currently a senior figure in the drug development industry in the US and one of the most prominent voices in the increasingly complicated interface between the industry and politics.
In his book, Levin demands that the industry should have the boldness to stand with science against the attacks from the government, that investors should have the boldness to invest for the long terms that the market requires, and that companies should have the boldness to disclose the scientific truth - to themselves and to their investors - even in the event of failure.
"Biotechnology is now a strategic national asset," Levin writes in his book, and warns that several trends now threaten US leadership in science and drug development, and that this is a problem for everyone, since global health depends on this ecosystem, for which at present there is no alternative.
One of the trends he identifies is that these day US venture capital has abandoned the long-term perspective which built the field. When the system is healthy, venture capital accepts the fact that the timetables are long and that most investments will fail. Now, however, "Investors want clean stories, clear timelines, and high probabilities of technical success. They ask for de-risked assets and late-stage proof before committing. They react sharply to any deviation from plan. In response, companies may design programs to satisfy the appearance of certainty rather than to pursue the most important questions."
This is at the same time as the damage being done by the US administration to the independence of the institutions that oversee science and health such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the cutbacks in research budgets. All these things, Levin argues, are bringing about changes some of which are irreversible.
But if the US is finished, he says, at least Israelis have alternatives.
"China has set up a very clear program for leading drug development, and now it has reached the final stage, the stage of innovation," Levin says talking to "Globes." "The American pharma companies are aiding this. They are looking for innovation in China, carrying out acquisitions and investments in China at the expense of the US, and the American venture capital funds are drawn along in the wake of this to invest in China and not in the US.
"Therefore the Israelis too have to be in touch with China, and that will benefit Israel, as long as the Israeli player also protects himself and is wary of, for example, hidden software in a medical device or biotechnological products that could be dual-use."
Could China overtake the US in drug development?
"It will certainly overtake it, unless there is very substantial change in US priorities."
And what about the Middle Eastern countries?
"Absolutely. Today, the Gulf states are focused on building hospitals and universities at massive investment, but their medical systems lack authority. The health and science system in Israel is highly respected and, for the time being, has maintained political independence. This could be a very interesting collaboration for the Gulf states, who could even work here with Arabic-speaking doctors and scientists."
Because of what he sees as the destruction of the FDA, Levin reemphasizes a previous recommendation of his to Israel: to set up an independent regulator here. At present, most of the world relies on the FDA for assessment of clinical trials to check the safety and efficacy of drugs and medical products. In a world in which it is not possible to depend on the FDA being apolitical, we should look after ourselves, he says.
That would have additional advantages. In lieu of the FDA, a credible regulator could become a magnet for companies all over the world wanting to receive a stamp of approval in the Israeli market. The effort would require considerable resources; at present the Ministry of Health hardly keeps up with ratifying drugs that have already been approved by the FDA, but such an investment could pay off, and the ministry has already begun to take an interest in such a plan.
Not just the rules of capitalism
In contrast to his optimism about Israel, Levin paints a gloomy picture of the drug development industry in the US. One of the claims he makes against it is that the desire for a quick profit comes at the expense of values. His provocative starting point is that this industry should not be run in accordance with the rules of capitalism in the first place.
"…biotechnology is not simply an industry that produces tools for doctors. It is one of the ways a society expresses what it values. The choice to invest in vaccines rather than in weapons; in treatments for rare diseases rather than in speculative consumer products; in long-term infrastructure rather than in short-term optics-these are not technical decisions. They are moral decisions, taken over years, by boards, investors, regulators, elected officials, and citizens," Levin writes.
What does this mean for those who work in this field? According to Levin, the industry was never perfect, but the threats are now mounting. He claims, for example, that people in government and the public are not interested in making evidence-based decisions; that economic pressures lead to exaggerated focus on short-term profits; and that at the same time considerable damage is being done to the institutions on which the industry rests: the FDA, the CDC, the NIH (National Institutes of Health), the universities, the courts, and the free press.
If these institutions are weak, Levin argues, even the best companies will struggle to stay ahead.
Levin finds a close connection between internal enterprise culture and the broader political reality, and argues that this finds expression in the way the industry tends to gloss over risks and failures more than in the past . "This behavior is understandable, but it is corrosive. It distorts incentives. It encourages trial designs that maximize the chance of producing something that can be framed as positive, rather than designs that are most likely to produce the truth," he writes. He says that people in biotechnology must adopt a realistic view of failures.
What does that mean in practice?
"What I mean is that everyone with an interest in the company, the managers, the investors, the directors, all of them should proceed on the assumption that failure is part of life in biotech, and that the commitment to scientific truth is the company’s foundation stone, even before success."
Besides that, he says, when the failure is eventually revealed, confidence in the industry is eroded, which directly strengthens politicians who prefer a world that is not based on facts.
Recently it has looked as though biotech is making a recovery on Wall Street. Is that cause for optimism?
"The figures are encouraging, but the capital market is currently rewarding companies that were founded 5-15 years ago. This is the harvest, but not evidence of new seeds being sown. Biotech is not just a collection of stocks, but a complete industrial system, in which all the components are under threat. Sometimes you see a better yield from soil that is being ruined."
To rehabilitate the production infrastructure
Finally, Levin argues that because of the complicated geopolitical situation, the biotech industry should diversify its sources of supply of raw materials. He sees that strategy as preferable to saving on price. "For critical therapies, redundancy is not waste; it is insurance," he writes, and warns that in extreme scenarios hostile countries are liable to hold vital drugs as "hostages."
Levin explicitly points to China as a player that could leverage the concentration of drug manufacture on its territory, which could lead to a situation in which it would be necessary to decide which of two children with cancer will receive chemotherapy, and stresses that this is not scaremongering but a genuine threat.
For that reason, the program he outlines in his book for reconstruction of the field in the US includes rehabilitating the production infrastructure. On that, at least, Levin and President Trump agree.
Published by Globes, Israel business news - en.globes.co.il - on June 8, 2026.
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd., 2026.