At JRG Partners we sit on the other side of these searches every day, so this reflects what we actually see working for candidates. Joining a biotech means accepting risk, and the useful question is not whether risk exists but whether you understand it accurately before committing. Most of what determines a biotech’s survival, its runway, its scientific position, its financing prospects, is knowable in advance if you ask directly, and companies that will not answer are giving you the answer.
Key Takeaways
- Runway against milestone timing is the central question.
- Ask about the financing plan and what happens if milestones slip.
- Assess the scientific thesis and the strength of the evidence.
- Investor quality and commitment affect survival materially.
- Reluctance to answer these questions is itself information.
Runway Against Milestones
The central question is how much cash the company has, what it burns monthly, and which milestone the current financing must reach. A biotech survives by reaching a value-inflecting milestone before the money runs out, so the relationship between those two numbers determines almost everything. Ask directly, and ask what the plan is if the milestone slips by six months, which is common. Companies with a credible answer, a bridge facility, a supportive syndicate, a cost-reduction plan, are in a different position from those whose plan assumes everything proceeds on schedule.
The Scientific Position
Assess the science as carefully as you can and seek help where it exceeds your expertise. What is the evidence supporting the mechanism, how strong is it, what would the next readout have to show, and what is the realistic probability of that outcome given comparable programmes? Ask what the main scientific risk is and listen to whether the answer is specific and candid or promotional. Leadership teams that can articulate their own programme’s weaknesses precisely usually understand their position; those who present only strengths often do not, or are not being straight.
Investors and Their Commitment
Who has invested and how they behave matters substantially. Experienced life sciences investors with capital reserved for follow-on rounds behave differently in difficulty from generalist or opportunistic investors, and syndicate composition affects whether the company can raise again in a hard market. Ask who the investors are, whether they have reserved for future rounds, and how they have supported the company through previous setbacks. This is reasonable diligence and companies that are well-backed are generally happy to discuss it.
What Reluctance Tells You
Serious executive candidates are entitled to ask about runway, financing plans, scientific risk, and investor support, and well-run companies answer these candidly because they want candidates who join with clear eyes. Evasiveness, vague answers about being well-capitalised, or discomfort at the questions themselves is meaningful information. A company unwilling to be straight with a prospective senior leader before joining is unlikely to become more transparent afterwards, and the transparency of that conversation is a reasonable proxy for how the company handles difficulty generally.
What This Looks Like in Practice
A candidate evaluating a biotech asks directly about cash, burn, the milestone the financing must reach, and the plan if it slips, assesses the scientific evidence and asks what the main risk is, examines investor quality and reserved capital, and treats reluctance to answer as substantive information about the company.
The Mistake Candidates Keep Making
The most common mistake is deciding on the strength of the science as presented, without examining whether the company can afford to reach the point where the science is tested. Compelling programmes fail routinely because the financing ran out before the readout, and a candidate who assessed only the technology has assessed the less decisive half of the question.
Diligence Questions Before Joining a Biotech
| Area | Question |
|---|---|
| Runway | How much cash, what burn, which milestone must it reach? |
| Contingency | What happens if the milestone slips six months? |
| Science | What is the main scientific risk, specifically? |
| Investors | Who invested, and have they reserved for follow-on? |
| Transparency | How candidly are these questions answered? |
The Bottom Line
Evaluate a biotech by examining runway against the milestone the financing must reach, the specific scientific risk, and investor quality and reserves, and treat evasiveness on these questions as meaningful, since a company that will not be straight before you join rarely becomes more transparent afterwards. None of this is quick, but it compounds, and the candidates who start early are the ones with options later.
Related Reading
For more, see How to Negotiate Equity in a Biotech Executive Offer, Transitioning from Big Pharma to Biotech Leadership, Relocation Considerations for Pharma Executives.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Q: What is the central question to ask?
- A: How much cash the company holds, what it burns monthly, and which value-inflecting milestone the current financing must reach, since survival depends on that relationship.
- Q: What if the milestone slips?
- A: Ask this explicitly; slippage is common, and companies with a credible contingency, a bridge, a supportive syndicate, a cost plan, are positioned very differently from those assuming schedule adherence.
- Q: How should I assess the science?
- A: Ask what the main scientific risk is and whether the answer is specific and candid or promotional, and seek outside expert input where the assessment exceeds your own expertise.
- Q: Why does investor composition matter?
- A: Because experienced life sciences investors with reserved follow-on capital behave differently in difficulty, and syndicate quality affects the ability to raise in a hard market.
- Q: What does evasiveness indicate?
- A: That the company is unwilling to be straight with a prospective senior leader, which rarely improves after joining and suggests how difficulty will be handled generally.
![](https://www.jrgpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/tanya-gallardo.jpeg")
Tanya Gallardo
Managing Director, Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy
Tanya Gallardo is the Managing Director of Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy at JRG Partners, leading C-suite and Board engagements across key growth sectors including Technology, Financial Services, and Manufacturing.
With over 18 years of experience specializing in disruptive technology leadership, Tanya is recognized as a leading authority on talent architecture for future-focused executive roles, such as the Chief AI Officer (CAIO) and Chief Digital Officer (CDO). Her expertise lies in accurately assessing the cultural fit and technical depth required to ensure a high return on investment (ROI) for critical leadership appointments.
Prior to her role at JRG Partners, Tanya held senior roles directing global talent acquisition strategies at a major publicly-traded technology firm, advising on organizational design and succession planning for emerging executive functions. She is a recognized speaker and contributor to industry events, sharing data-driven insights on executive compensation, leadership development, and the measurable business impact of C-suite talent.
