Biotech Veteran Jeremy Levin Warns U.S. Leadership in Drug Development Is at Risk Amid Institutional Erosion
核心洞察
Jeremy Levin (搜索), former Teva CEO and Ovid Therapeutics founder, argues in his new book that U.S. biotech leadership faces threats from weakening institutions like the FDA, CDC, and NIH.
Levin contends that short-term venture capital thinking is distorting R&D priorities, with investors demanding de-risked assets rather than funding the most important scientific questions.
China is poised to overtake the U.S. in drug development, aided by American pharma companies seeking innovation and acquisitions there, Levin warns.
The American biotechnology industry is producing scientific breakthroughs at an unprecedented pace, yet the institutional foundations that support these advances—regulators, investors, and public trust in science—are beginning to fracture. That is the central warning from Dr. Jeremy Levin (搜索), a veteran industry leader whose new book, "Biotech in the Balance: Saving a Strategic Industry in an Age of Distrust," has already made waves across the pharmaceutical sector.
Levin, founder and chairman of Ovid Therapeutics and former CEO of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (搜索), argues that political upheaval, weakening institutions, short-term investing, and eroding public confidence are putting the future of the industry at risk, even as the science itself continues to accelerate.
"Biotechnology is now a strategic national asset," Levin writes, warning that several trends now threaten U.S. leadership in science and drug development—a problem with global implications since worldwide health depends on this ecosystem, "for which at present there is no alternative."
Institutional Erosion and Industry Silence
Central to Levin's critique is the damage being done to the independence of key oversight bodies. He points to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), universities, courts, and the free press as institutions under mounting pressure. When these pillars weaken, Levin argues, even the best companies will struggle to stay ahead.
In a recent interview on "The Readout Loud" podcast, Levin called on pharmaceutical companies to speak out against regulatory upheaval. "When an institution such as this, which is critical, is shaken, the industry must stand firm. It must call out why this is a problem. … The titans are dead silent right now," he said.
Levin finds a close connection between internal enterprise culture and the broader political reality, arguing that the industry increasingly glosses over risks and failures. "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.
The Short-Termism Problem in Venture Capital
Levin identifies a fundamental shift in how venture capital approaches biotech. In a healthy system, he argues, venture capital accepts long timelines and the reality that most investments will fail. Today, 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."
The consequence, Levin warns, is that "companies may design programs to satisfy the appearance of certainty rather than to pursue the most important questions." This dynamic, he contends, is not merely a market inefficiency—it represents a moral dimension to decision-making in biotechnology.
"Biotechnology is not simply an industry that produces tools for doctors. It is one of the ways a society expresses what it values," Levin writes. "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."
China's Rising Threat to U.S. Dominance
Perhaps Levin's most striking warning concerns China's trajectory in drug development. "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 told Globes. He notes that American pharmaceutical companies are actively aiding this shift by seeking innovation in China, pursuing acquisitions and investments there at the expense of domestic activity, with U.S. venture capital funds following suit.
Asked whether China could overtake the United States in drug development, Levin responded bluntly: "It will certainly overtake it, unless there is very substantial change in U.S. priorities."
This dynamic carries supply chain implications that Levin frames as a national security concern. He advocates for diversifying sources of raw materials for critical therapies, arguing that "for critical therapies, redundancy is not waste; it is insurance." Levin explicitly warns that in extreme scenarios, hostile countries could hold vital drugs as "hostages," and points to China as a player that could leverage the concentration of drug manufacturing on its territory—potentially forcing agonizing choices about which patients receive life-saving treatments.
A Call for Realism About Failure
Levin demands that the industry embrace boldness: boldness to stand with science against government attacks, boldness to invest for the long term, and boldness to disclose scientific truth even in the event of failure. He argues that everyone with a stake in a biotech company—managers, investors, and directors—"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."
When failure is obscured rather than confronted, Levin contends, confidence in the industry erodes, which "directly strengthens politicians who prefer a world that is not based on facts."
Implications for Israel and the Middle East
Levin sees opportunities for Israel amid the shifting landscape. He reiterates a recommendation for Israel to establish an independent drug regulator, noting that most of the world currently relies on the FDA for assessment of clinical trials. In a world where the FDA's apolitical status can no longer be assumed, "we should look after ourselves," he says. Such a credible regulator could become a magnet for companies worldwide seeking approval in the Israeli market.
He also highlights potential collaboration between Israel and Gulf states, which are investing heavily in hospitals and universities but whose medical systems "lack authority." Israel's highly respected health and science system, which Levin notes has "for the time being, maintained political independence," could form the basis for productive partnerships.
Despite the recent apparent recovery of biotech on Wall Street, Levin remains cautious. "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," he said. "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."