Welcome to Partnology’s Biotech Leader Spotlight Series, where we highlight the remarkable accomplishments and visionary leadership of biotech industry pioneers. This series is about showcasing the groundbreaking strides made by exceptional leaders who have transformed scientific possibilities into tangible realities. Through insightful interviews, we invite you to join us in following the inspiring journeys of these executives who continue to shape the landscape of the biotech industry. This week we are recognizing:
Gary Li has over 20 years of multi-modality drug discovery, translational, and early development experience at both the strategic and operational levels. He is currently the Chief Strategy Officer for AdvanCell, fractional CSO for TippingPoint Biosciences, and advisor for multiple venture capital firms. Previously Gary was a member of RayzeBio’s and SVP, leading Discovery Biology, Translational Medicine, and Portfolio Strategy. He spearheaded the effort to establish a rich portfolio from novel targets to clinical assets. In addition, he played a key role in company building, fundraising, licensing, and scientific communication. Before joining RayzeBio, Dr. Li was SVP, Translational Medicine at BridgeBio, VP of Oncology Research at Ignyta, and held various scientific positions with increasing responsibilities at Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, contributing to target ID/validation, drug discovery and multiple drug approvals. Gary is an inventor on multiple patents, has published 55 peer-reviewed articles, and delivered over 110 invited talks and meeting presentations.
You’ve held leadership roles across large pharma and small biotech companies. What core leadership lessons have carried through from big pharma to startup environments?
You’re right that I’ve transitioned from some of the biggest companies in the world to some of the smallest. RayzeBio, for example, started with just a few of us in an empty office — you can’t get much smaller than that. So yes, it’s been a big transition, but there are also core lessons that transfer across any size company.
The first — and for me, the most important — is strategic thinking. Drug discovery and development is incredibly challenging, and our day-to-day work is often very reactive. We’re constantly solving the problem in front of us: today’s issue, tomorrow’s fire drill. It’s easy to lose sight of the bigger picture — the end game. Leaders need to maintain that long view: a clear vision of what truly matters and what will ultimately make the company successful. That’s critical whether you’re in a startup or Big Pharma, especially in an environment full of unknowns and rapid change. Strategic thinking is what allows you not just to survive, but to thrive.
The second point is adaptability. No matter the size of the organization, drug discovery and development exposes you to risk, uncertainty, and unpredictable situations every single day. To stay relevant and competitive, you have to continually adapt to new data, new ideas, new technologies — and today, a shifting funding landscape. Adaptation isn’t optional; it’s essential.
And finally, hiring and building the right team. You simply cannot overstate the importance of people. I’ve been fortunate to work with exceptional teams at Pfizer, Ignyta, BridgeBio, RayzeBio, and now AdvanCell. Those teams are the reason behind any success I’ve had in my career. Hiring great people, giving them room to grow, and creating an inclusive, motivating environment — especially for scientists — is absolutely fundamental.
AdvanCell is focused on developing Targeted Alpha Therapies for cancer patients – what makes lead-212 an attractive isotope compared to actinium-225 or other alpha emitters?
I actually gave a talk on this last week. I come from the actinium field — and I’m certainly not “defecting” from actinium — but I’m also now working with lead, so I’m in a relatively unique position to comment on multiple isotopes.
The real question is: why work on different isotopes? And importantly, I’m not trying to pick a winner. The field is still very young, and it’s far too early to declare that one isotope is universally better. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution here. As a pharmacologist, I’m essentially modality-agnostic and isotope-agnostic. At the end of the day, what matters is whether the drug benefits patients. Every isotope has strengths and limitations — none is perfect.
If you think about it, a “perfect” radiotherapeutic would combine the right binder, the right payload, and the right patient population. Only that full combination leads to true success.
Now, focusing specifically on lead-212, people are generally more familiar with actinium, largely because of RayzeBio’s success and visibility. Lead-212 is another alpha-emitting isotope (via Bismuth decay) with a simple decay chain, high linear energy transfer, and relatively short decay half-life compared to actinium. Although the short half-life can bring some manufacturing and logistical complexities, it can be advantageous for both efficacy and safety if managed well. For instance, the short half-life offers flexibility in dosing intervals to match therapeutic strategy. It also opens the door for easier combinations with immunotherapies, epigenetic agents, or standard-of-care treatments. And it may provide a safety advantage because the radioactivity clears more quickly, reducing prolonged systemic exposure.
What are the biggest scientific or operational challenges in advancing alpha therapies toward the clinic, and how is AdvanCell addressing them?
I still view this as a young field. Even though there are now several approved radioligand therapies — Novartis has two most commercially successful ones— the modality as a whole is still early in its evolution. And like any emerging modality, it comes with risks: target risk, drug discovery risk, development risk, manufacturing and CMC risk, and so on.
A major challenge people are talking about today is the supply chain. The reality is that medical-grade therapeutic isotopes are generally in tight supply. There is a high barrier to entry when it comes to producing them at scale and at the quality required for commercial use. Just a few years ago, actinium was extremely scarce — even obtaining enough for clinical trials was difficult. The situation has improved considerably with increased production capacity. The same is happening now with lead: production is ramping up, more attention is on the space, and more companies are entering the business of manufacturing medical-grade lead.
This is one of the central challenges — and also one of AdvanCell’s strengths. AdvanCell has developed a patented, proprietary generator that enables highly efficient and cost-effective production of medical-grade lead-212. This generator is one of the company’s core capabilities.
Having helped build RayzeBio from its founding days to a $4.1B acquisition by BMS, what do you think are the key ingredients in creating a “category-defining” biotech company?
I can highlight a few factors that have been key to our success — and that I believe will be important for other companies in the future.
First is the advantage of being a first mover. This ties back to having a strong vision and looking ahead. Being early helps you secure funding, secure isotope supply, attract talent, build momentum, and get noticed by investors and the market. You can certainly succeed as a second or third wave company, but the first-mover advantage has absolutely been part of our “secret sauce.”
Second is people. Not just the leadership team, but the scientists, engineers, and every person involved. We built a high-performing, collaborative team during COVID, which is something I’m incredibly proud of. Remember, we started in the spring/summer of 2020 — essentially in the first months of lockdown. It was a very unusual time to launch a company, but we were lucky to build an initial “tiger team” of highly motivated, deeply skilled individuals. That group formed the foundation for everything that followed.
Third is having strong funding and runway. Raising meaningful capital early allowed us to plan longer term and gave us options. It meant we could try new approaches, take calculated risks, and not be forced into short-term decisions. That financial stability was crucial.
Fourth is building a thoughtful pipeline. Many companies today focus on one or two assets. We intentionally built a diversified pipeline that included both lower-hanging-fruit targets and higher-risk, high-reward targets. We staggered these programs deliberately so we could advance clinical programs while also investing in innovative early-stage work. Investors and big pharma partners really appreciated that balance.
And finally, execution. You can have the greatest strategy in the world, but if you can’t execute, it doesn’t matter. Our team has been extremely focused on delivering results on time and with high quality. That execution mindset is what ultimately turns a vision into real progress.
How do you see the competitive and partnering landscape evolving in radiopharmaceuticals over the next few years?
To understand where the next few years are headed, it helps to look back at the history of the field. Radioligand therapy isn’t completely new; about 12 years ago we had what I would call wave zero — we saw the first RLT approvals but they were not successful commercially.
Then came the success of Lutathera and Pluvicto from Novartis, which triggered what I’d call wave one. Companies like Fusion, RayzeBio, POINT, and Mariana were part of that wave — and all were acquired. That period re-energized the entire sector.
Now we’re entering the next wave, which consists mostly of companies that are already in the clinic or building infrastructure, expanding to new targets, and investing in next-generation binder and linker technologies. These companies are making strong progress — but the bar is significantly higher now. Today, investors and pharma partners expect companies to have a real pipeline, manufacturing capabilities in place, and isotope supply secured.
The field is maturing. Over the next few years, I expect to see some companies go public and others get acquired — likely at a slower, more measured pace, which is actually healthy. Big pharma prefers companies that have hit meaningful inflection points before making moves.
At the same time, new startups continue to appear — honestly, I see/hear about a new one almost every month. Interest in radioligand therapy is strong and sustained. The pace of new company formation is steady, not declining.
The increased competition and higher expectations will push the field forward, especially as we move beyond the three dominant targets — PSMA, SSTR2, and FAP. We need new targets. The future success of radioligand therapy depends on it, and I’m optimistic that second-wave and next-wave companies will deliver them.
Predicting the future is always hard, of course. But one thing is clear: radiopharmaceuticals are here to stay. The field will continue to mature, expectations will continue to rise, and companies will need to deliver more comprehensive data packages and increasingly integrated capabilities. But overall — it’s an incredibly exciting time, and progress is accelerating faster than anything we’ve seen in past years.
What advice would you give to biotech founders and R&D leaders navigating today’s capital-constrained environment?
Capital markets are an interesting topic. As we discussed earlier, the biotech index has actually been trending upward. Take biotech index XBI for example, historically it peaked around 166 during the last biotech micro-bubble. It then dropped to mid-60s in 2022/2023 and stayed low for a while — and now it’s climbed back up to almost 120. That’s only one metric, of course, but if you talk to investors, there’s no question the market sentiment has improved.
However, the recovery is not balanced. It’s not evenly distributed across the sector. A significant amount of capital is flowing into just a few areas — obesity, metabolic disease, autoimmune conditions, and of course AI-related. Those categories are attracting huge amounts of money. Meanwhile, many early-stage biotech companies are still struggling to survive. It’s a very different environment than what we had 4-5 years ago.
So a few suggestions — not universally applicable, but relevant for many companies:
- Prioritize your clinical or near-clinical assets. If you’re in or approaching the clinic, focus on pushing your lead asset to a meaningful value inflection point. I’m not suggesting you abandon or slow down preclinical research, but from a fundraising standpoint, investors want to see clinical progress. Align your operations and communications around that goal and around your future financing plans.
- Be lean and capital efficient. Even though the overall market looks rosier, that doesn’t mean it’s automatically easier for every company to raise money. Conserve cash where you can, invest only where it truly matters, and maintain flexibility.
- Pursue non-dilutive funding. Look at foundation support, grants, or strategic partnerships. These can extend cash runway and enable continued growth without solely relying on dilutive capital raises.
Overall, fundraising is improving, but companies need to be strategic, disciplined, and efficient to navigate the current landscape successfully.
