[Edaily Reporter KIM SAE-MI ] While Chinese biotech companies are rapidly penetrating the global technology transfer market—even armed with clinical data—the Korean biotech industry is facing an unexpected dilemma. Although companies are required to transparently disclose technology export agreements and the status of new drug development to protect investors, there are concerns that overly detailed information could serve as a reference for competing nations, such as China. Observers point out that K-Bio, which must compete between the U.S. and China, needs a solution that can simultaneously safeguard investor protection and maintain global competitiveness.

On the 9th, at the “K-Bio Deal Summit 2026” panel discussion titled “K-Bio: Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place—Can It Bounce Back?” held at KG Harmony Hall in KG Tower, Jung-gu, Seoul, participants discussed solutions for K-Bio to survive amid competition from U.S. Big Pharma and Chinese biotech companies. Chaired by Lee Seung-kyu, Vice Chairman of the Korea Bio Association, the panel featured Heo Hye-min, an analyst at Kiwoom Securities; Han Jeong-hyun, Head of BD&L at Boehringer Ingelheim Korea; and Kim Myung-ki, CEO of LSK Investment.

Regarding the recently strengthened transparency requirements for biotech company disclosures, Researcher Heo noted, “We cannot say the biotech industry is entirely without fault,” but added, “We need to consider whether excessive transparency is actually beneficial for the biotech sector.” Recently, there has been frequent talk in the biotech industry that domestic companies’ detailed English-language disclosures are being scrutinized and emulated by other countries, such as China. Regarding this, Researcher Heo remarked, “I do wonder whether disclosing absolutely everything is necessarily a good thing.”

China’s pursuit has already reached a level that is difficult to ignore. Since early 2025, the number of licensing deals between Chinese biotech firms and U.S. and European companies has exceeded 100, and the quarterly transaction volume peaked in the first quarter of this year. Vice Chairman Lee analyzed that while cases of Chinese companies entering the global market after securing proof of concept (PoC) or clinical data are rapidly increasing, a significant number of Korean biotech firms are still competing at the preclinical stage.

What Big Pharma Sees in K-Bio

That said, global Big Pharma does not underestimate South Korea’s preclinical assets. General Manager Han assessed, “(South Korea is) an Asian biotech hub where you can find promising projects,” adding, “Even within Boehringer Ingelheim, people say there doesn’t seem to be any other country in Asia with such dynamic entrepreneurship as South Korea.”

The openness of Korean biotech companies is also a strength. One executive noted, “Korean companies are very open,” adding, “This is a major advantage for moving deal discussions forward quickly, provided the project is promising.” He also noted that while publicly disclosed deals with other global pharmaceutical companies—such as MSD, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk—often involve projects in the clinical trial phase, these companies highly value the excellence of preclinical projects in Korea. “Global companies do not undervalue preclinical assets,” he said, adding, “They recognize their true worth.”

However, some pointed out that merely confirming efficacy in animal studies is insufficient to lead to a technology transfer with a major global pharmaceutical company. The argument is that companies must analyze the pipeline strategies of global pharmaceutical firms to demonstrate how their candidate compounds can fill specific gaps, and they must prove the relevance to human diseases with rigorous data. One executive advised that companies can differentiate themselves only by possessing the capability to predict human dosages and discuss development strategies with global pharmaceutical firms—even if they do not conduct clinical trials themselves.

The K-Bio Ecosystem: Drying Up Early-Stage Investment, Gaps Widening

The problem is that the fundamental strength of the domestic biotech ecosystem—which is essential for global competition—is weakening. CEO Kim noted that the share of domestic early-stage investment in 2024–2025 has fallen to about half of previous levels, stating, “No one is making early-stage investments right now.” Vice Chairman Lee also expressed concern, saying, “It feels as though holes are appearing in the biotech industry ecosystem,” and added, “If the ecosystem collapses, the same problems are bound to repeat themselves in two to three years.”

CEO Kim pointed out that institutional factors, such as impairment losses, are further dampening early-stage investment. He explained that when the value of early-stage companies declines and impairment losses are recognized, both assets under management and management fees decrease, meaning that the more a venture capital (VC) firm invests in early-stage companies, the more disadvantageous it becomes for the firm. Describing the domestic investment environment, he said, “People say the U.S. is a jungle, but Korea is a jungle full of zombies,” adding, “There are many cases where companies can’t even die even if they want to.”

Legal impairment losses are also a burden for listed biotech companies. Unlike the nature of the industry, which requires long-term research and development (R&D) investment, persistent losses can create pressure to maintain their listing status. Opinions were also raised that while disclosure should guarantee investors’ right to know, it is necessary to carefully consider whether sensitive information—such as technology export contracts or development strategies—that could be exploited by competitors needs to be disclosed across the board.

The Solution for K-Bio’s Rebound: ‘Restoring Balance’ and ‘Breaking Through Head-On’

While acknowledging the need for support in late-stage development, CEO Kim called for a balance with early-stage investment. He noted, “Since the ultimate goal of the pharmaceutical industry is to bring drugs to market and sell them, late-stage development is indeed important,” but added, “The new drug candidates that grow to that stage originate from the initial investment in the early stages.” He continued, “I feel that many policymakers these days are focusing too much on the late-stage development phase,” and suggested, “Institutional improvements are necessary for partners within the same industry to grow together.”

Researcher Heo called for companies to take a “head-on approach” to achieving results on their own. He predicted, “To attract market attention, companies must demonstrate that they possess global competitiveness,” adding, “For any company, the first tangible results mark the beginning of a turning point.” This implies that outcomes recognized in the global market—such as clinical success or technology transfers—are the starting point for restoring investor confidence.

There was also a suggestion that Korea needs to accumulate experience in global new drug development. Director Han emphasized, “Just reading steps 1, 2, and 3 in a cookbook won’t produce the dish you want. You have to try it yourself to understand the many details in between,” adding, “In particular, hands-on experience gained by directly conducting everything from Phase 1 clinical trials through late-stage development is crucial.” The explanation is that we should not stop at technology transfer but rather create a structure for participating in global clinical trials to internalize that experience domestically.

There were also calls for long-term investment in basic science and talent. One executive noted, “All of this is done by people,” urging continued investment in basic science and technology to ensure a steady influx of master’s and doctoral graduates trained in Korea into the industry. Vice Chairman Lee concluded the discussion by stating, “The Korean biotech industry is bound to succeed; it’s just a matter of whether that success comes sooner or later.”