In mid-January, Goodwin and KPMG brought together innovators, practitioners, regulators, and others for an annual symposium on the future of life sciences and healthcare. This event marked the sixth year that Goodwin co-hosted the symposium, which occurs during the annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco.
The symposium covered a range of topics, including prospects for stronger M&A activity, the increasing popularity of dual-track processes, and PE firms’ growing interest in life sciences.
Panelists discussed how regulatory changes under the Trump administration could reshape the life sciences field with new opportunities and challenges. They explained how life sciences companies are harnessing the power of AI.
Here are five takeaways from the event:
Life Sciences M&A Poised to Take Off in 2025
In 2025, life sciences M&A will be robust, driven by big pharma’s demand for innovation. This year's deals will include a mix of both early-stage and late-stage companies, in contrast to 2024 when early-stage transactions were more prevalent.
The new presidential administration’s deregulatory stance could encourage more transactions, particularly among large pharmaceutical companies. Over the last four years, pharmaceutical companies have been cautious about pursuing bigger deals due to concerns that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) might block such transactions. But many firms perceive the new administration as more favorable toward businesses.
(From the fireside chat “Forging the Future: M&A Trends and Biotech Alliances” and the presentation “Capital Markets: Current Trends and the 2025 Outlook”)
Life Sciences Companies Attract More PE Investment
PE firms are increasingly interested in life sciences due to rapid innovation in the sector—a trend that is likely to last. Growth in patents and in the sector's global economic share promise scalability, attracting more PE capital.
The relationship is mutually beneficial: PE firms bring long-term capital and resources (i.e. ownership of clinical research organizations, manufacturers, and life sciences real estate), making them attractive partners for life sciences companies.
Given volatility in IPO markets, many life sciences companies are staying private longer, meaning PE investors are funding companies for more extended periods. Remaining private provides more flexibility for companies, allowing them to focus on innovation without dealing with stock market volatility.
(From the panel “The Evolving Venture Landscape: Shifts in Life Sciences Investments and New Entrants Shaping the Market on a Global Scale”)
Dual-Track Processes Expected to Rise as Capital Markets Strengthen
As capital markets improve in 2025, life sciences companies will increasingly adopt dual-track processes, in which they simultaneously prepare for IPOs and M&A exits.
The dual-track approach—which has grown in popularity in recent years—offers flexibility to quickly pivot strategies, in turn boosting valuations and increasing the likelihood of successful exits. Companies that are planning an IPO may influence potential M&A buyers, who are more likely to act quickly due to the possibility of the company going public.
While dual-track processes can be time-consuming, they provide optionality for companies and can increase valuations. They also help companies anticipate questions. For example, concerns raised during the IPO process can prepare them for the M&A process.
The key to a successful dual-track process is ensuring the presence of a legitimate alternate track. If one track falters (e.g., the IPO appears uncertain), the other track (e.g., the acquisition) remains a viable option, encouraging bidders to offer better terms.
(From the panel “Navigating Multiple Paths: Maximizing Optionality with Dual and Triple Track Strategies”)
Regulatory Shifts Poised to Reshape Life Sciences Landscape
The Trump administration could trigger significant regulatory changes for life sciences companies, with implications spanning antitrust reviews, biosecurity measures, and healthcare policy interpretation.
The FTC is expected to return to a more traditional approach to deal reviews, while any new legislation like the BIOSECURE Act could fundamentally alter international scientific collaboration and supply chains. The Loper Bright Supreme Court decision may give companies more ability to influence regulatory frameworks through judicial challenges.
Key areas of potential change include expediting medical device approvals, reimagining drug pricing strategies, and potentially softening enforcement approaches. These shifts could create new opportunities for innovation and growth, while also presenting complex compliance challenges. For more details, read our companion piece “How the Trump Administration Could Reshape Regulation in the Life Sciences Sector.”
(From the panel "Preparing for Change: Anticipating New Regulatory Shifts for the Healthcare & Life Sciences Industry")
AI's Promise Is Clear, But Adoption Requires Proof Points
Life sciences companies are moving beyond AI experimentation toward implementation across R&D, regulatory, and commercial operations, as early successes with regulatory filings and drug discovery demonstrate AI's potential.
Accelerating adoption requires building trust through validation studies and clear demonstration of results. Organizations must systematically show how AI-driven approaches match or exceed traditional methods while maintaining standards for accuracy, quality, and safety.
Companies are finding success by focusing on specific use cases where AI can deliver immediate value, such as document preparation and clinical trial optimization, rather than pursuing broad transformation initiatives. The emphasis has shifted from general AI enthusiasm to practical implementation, with AI positioned to augment rather than replace professional expertise.
(From the panel “From Hype to Reality: AI’s Transformative Potential in Pharma and Biotech”)
This informational piece, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided on the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Goodwin or its lawyers. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.