Biocom California is the largest trade association representing the life sciences and biotechnology industry across the state of California.
Tim, congratulations on your new role, which you assumed on January 1st 2026. Having spent years within Biocom California and worked closely with Joe Panetta, how do you envision leading the organization forward, and what key changes do you plan to introduce?
As I came into the role, many people asked what my vision for the organisation was. The simple answer is that it remains the same—to act as a trade organisation for California biotechnology companies, providing advocacy in Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, group purchasing opportunities for small companies, healthcare benefits for larger ones, workforce development, and event programming to connect our communities. However, the difference now lies in execution. Biocom began in 1995 as a San Diego-only organisation with six employees, 300 members, and a $700,000 budget. Today, we’re statewide, with 60 employees, 1,800 members, and a $23 million budget.
That growth came with challenges, as systems designed for a smaller structure needed to evolve. We’ve focused on organisational excellence—enhancing member engagement, building robust success and sales teams, and strengthening leadership training. It’s about acting like the California-wide organisation we are, forming partnerships on a statewide and nationwide level, and truly reflecting our position as the largest biotech trade organisation in the world.
You mentioned Biocom’s ongoing initiatives—could you share which ones you’ve chosen to prioritise, including the Take Action programme featured on your website?
We’ve been raising awareness of our policy group, which has always been strong. We have offices in Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, and we’re also very active in regional and municipal policy. For instance, when a company wants to build a new facility, we assist with entitlements and help cities update zoning regulations to allow biotech development. A good example is our work in Pasadena, where we collaborated with Caltech (California Institute of Technology) and city officials to amend zoning so biotech companies could locate near the university.
This kind of local support is unique among trade organisations, but we also continue to engage at the federal level. We’ve established a policy committee that reports directly to our board, ensuring that decisions in Washington and Sacramento are informed by and aligned with our leadership.
What have been the most exciting developments in California’s life sciences ecosystem in 2025?
Despite recent headwinds, California remains a leader in biotechnology innovation. Large pharmaceutical companies continue to invest heavily here—Amgen recently committed $600 million to a new R&D centre in Thousand Oaks, Gilead is completing an $847 million expansion in the Bay Area, and Takeda is investing $170 million in Los Angeles to expand manufacturing for rare disease drugs like Hunter syndrome. These are just a few examples of the continued confidence in California’s life sciences sector.
The industry generates nearly $400 billion in economic output, employing 450,000 people directly and supporting another 1.15 million jobs statewide. Interestingly, 31% of California’s life sciences jobs are in manufacturing, which surprises many who only associate the state with R&D. On top of that, California received $5 billion in NIH funding last year—more than any other state.
When you speak of ‘headwinds’, are you referring to the new White House administration’s approach to the industry? What are your concerns specifically?
Yes, the prevailing headwinds stem from uncertainty in Washington, D.C. The threat of tariffs, potential cuts to NIH funding, and ongoing government instability all create risk for an industry that thrives on stability.
Biotech is already in its third year of what we call the “biotech winter,” the longest downturn I’ve seen in 25 years. We’re also watching FDA staffing cuts and pricing pressures from the Inflation Reduction Act, which, while highlighting inefficiencies in the drug supply chain, has created uncertainty around innovation incentives.
If you’re a venture capitalist and you see NIH funding threatened on one end and an inactive IPO market on the other, you’re likely to wait. Add in geopolitical tensions with China, and the effect across the ecosystem has been chilling. Still, biotech entrepreneurs are inherently optimistic and resilient—this industry always finds a way forward.
Some investors, such as OrbiMed, have expressed optimism lately. They point to the Pfizer and GSK deals and rising biotech indices. Shouldn’t such recent developments make you optimistic?
Yes, cautiously so. The Pfizer and GSK deals with the White House, along with EMD Serono’s and AstraZeneca’s, represent good opportunities and reduce short-term tariff risks. They also reflect a growing dialogue between government and industry. Valuations have reset from pandemic highs, interest rates are dropping, and IPO pipelines are slowly rebuilding—all positive indicators.
Moreover, large pharma’s $350 billion patent cliff will likely spur further M&A activity, which benefits the broader ecosystem. We’re also seeing VC money re-entering the space and renewed enthusiasm for innovation. Most importantly, the breakthroughs in new drugs for unmet medical needs continue every day, and I want to see more focus on these “miracles of medicine” and the patients they serve.
You’ve also mentioned progress at the state level. Could you elaborate?
Yes, while there’s uncertainty federally, California has taken strong, supportive action. The state recently passed its own PBM legislation and tabled an unfavourable 340B proposal. These are big wins for both industry and patients. Combined with strong innovation pipelines and local leadership, these developments give us confidence that 2026 will mark a major turnaround for biotech.
Biocom has also been active internationally. What’s behind this global engagement, and what do these alliances mean for Californian companies?
Being the second-largest industry in the world’s fourth-largest economy, California biotech naturally draws global interest. Countries want access to our technology, venture ecosystem, academic institutions, and clinical trial infrastructure. Joe Panetta, now President Emeritus, has been leading this international outreach, signing memorandums of understanding with Sweden, France, Germany, Taiwan, Korea, Australia, and maintaining our long-standing relationship with Japan.
These collaborations help create international bridges for Californian companies, opening access to markets, partnerships, and research opportunities. We’ve also begun exploring opportunities in India, which shows how expansive and connected the California biotech community has become.
I also need to mention that China will remain an important part of the conversation. Over the last 25 years, it has evolved from a low-cost service provider to a hub of innovation, with thousands of biotech firms and strong government support. Many U.S. companies now rely on Chinese partners for high-quality, affordable preclinical work. This is reshaping global biotech, particularly in fast-moving areas like bispecific antibodies, where most of the pipeline now originates from China.
Finally, what do you expect of 2026?
Looking ahead, I’m optimistic about 2026. I believe we’ll see a significant turnaround, provided the U.S. government reasserts biotech leadership by investing in NIH funding, stabilizing federal agencies’ workforce using AI to accelerate discovery and clinical work, and reforming drug pricing fairly. Innovation must remain incentivised—because today’s breakthrough drugs become tomorrow’s affordable generics, and that cycle is what keeps our ecosystem thriving.
