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:
Dr. Dolca Thomas is a physician scientist, transplant nephrologist/ immunologist with more than 20 years of experience in academia, large pharmaceutical companies, and biotech across multiple diverse therapeutic areas. She is the CEO of Neolaia Bio, venture partner/senior advisor at Samsara Biocapital and is currently an independent board director for UCB, and Ventus Therapeutics. She is also a scientific advisor for First Tracks (previously AnaptysBio). Prior to Neolaia, she was a board director for Chinook (acquired by Novartis 3.2 billion in 2023) and held multiple roles in biotech companies including Executive Vice President, Head of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer at Equillium and the Chief Medical Officer of Principia Biopharma which was acquired by Sanofi September 2020 for 3.7 billion.
Prior to biotech, Dr. Thomas held multiple roles in pharma including Vice President and Global Head of Translational Medicine for Immunology, Inflammation, and Infectious Disease at Roche where her team was instrumental for the approval of Xofluza; Vice President of Clinical Development and Clinical Immunophenotyping at Pfizer and Vice President and Chief Development Officer of the Biosimilars Research and Development Unit at Pfizer that resulted in the registrational approval of 4 biosimilar assets across oncology and immunology.
Dr. Thomas began her industry career at Bristol-Myers Squibb as Director of Global Clinical Development in Immunology, where she was involved in the registrational approval of the immunomodulatory drug, belatacept and the life cycle management of abatacept. Dr. Thomas began her career as a tenured track faculty member at Weill Cornell Medicine’s Department of Nephrology and Transplantation Medicine. She was the medical director of the Islet Cell Transplantation Program where she performed 5 islet cell transplants in 3 patients and was a principal investigator in several clinical trials.
At Neolaia Bio, you’re developing immuno-metabolic therapeutics for age-related diseases—what excites you most about this space, and where do you see the biggest opportunity for impact?
Immunometabolism is how the immune system and cell metabolism interact to control health and disease.—whether from glucose or other metabolic sources. Every immune cell (T cells, macrophages, etc.) needs energy to function. If a cell’s metabolism is high and active it can fight infection, produce signals, and attack threats. If metabolism is suppressed or altered it may become inflammatory, exhausted, or dysfunctional. So metabolism doesn’t just fuel cells, it controls what they do.
What’s powerful about this approach is that it focuses on reprogramming how cells use energy, rather than simply blocking signaling pathways. While we’ve long understood the basics of cellular metabolism—how mitochondria use NAD, glucose, and other substrates—the direct link between metabolism and immune activation (such as cytokine release and inflammation) has only recently become clear. This opens up a compelling new way to modulate the immune system, potentially reducing the side effects associated with traditional immunosuppressive therapies and instead enabling more precise immunomodulation.
It’s an exciting and emerging field. Many of the therapies being developed are first-in-class, and to date, there are no approved drugs that have demonstrated clinical efficacy using this mechanism. It represents a fundamentally new way of approaching disease.
This is particularly relevant in the context of aging. As we get older, our cells lose the ability to efficiently switch on and off, leading to chronic, low-grade inflammation—often referred to as “inflammaging.” This persistent immune activation contributes to broader cellular dysfunction. By targeting immunometabolism, we can not only regulate the immune response but also support surrounding tissues, improving their ability to regenerate and respond to stress.
That’s why this approach is so exciting—it offers a novel entry point for treating disease, with the potential to be both transformative and, importantly, first to achieve clinical validation and approval.
Having led translational and clinical development at large pharma organizations like Roche and Pfizer, what separates programs that successfully translate into the clinic from those that don’t?
I think it’s multifactorial. First and foremost, it has to be grounded in strong, valid biology—something that enables you to hit the target in a way that improves patient outcomes. Efficacy is critical. At the same time, you need to achieve that efficacy without introducing unacceptable side effects.
This work begins very early in drug discovery, where you’re identifying candidates that can bind effectively, are bioavailable, and can be delivered in a practical way—whether orally, via injection, or IV. These are all essential considerations, alongside determining which patient population is most appropriate.
One thing I’ve observed, particularly in early-stage environments, is that scientists can sometimes over-index on perfection without fully accounting for the benefit–risk balance for patients. If a therapy can meaningfully help patients—especially in fatal or severe diseases—it doesn’t need to be perfect. It needs to improve outcomes and extend lives. Side effects can often be managed or optimized over time, but delaying a promising therapy in pursuit of perfection can come at a real cost to patients with urgent, unmet needs.
Equally important is thinking early about who benefits most. Which disease setting is most appropriate? Which patients have the greatest need? Those with no viable treatment options are often waiting for innovation, and there’s a responsibility to move quickly and thoughtfully to bring new therapies forward.
Ultimately, it’s about balancing scientific rigor with urgency—ensuring we don’t delay meaningful advances for patients by chasing perfection when a therapy could already make a significant difference in the right population.
You’ve built and led multidisciplinary R&D organizations—what do you believe are the key ingredients of a high-performing biotech leadership team, especially in early-stage companies?
I think it’s critical for teams to stay focused on what truly adds value. Early-stage biotech teams are typically very lean. For example, at Neolaia Bio, we’ve been operating for two years with just a three-person team. We started from scratch—no in-licensed assets—and progressed from hit identification to IND-enabling studies in that time, which is quite remarkable, especially as a fully virtual organization.
That kind of progress comes from being disciplined about priorities. Once you have a compound that engages the target, the question becomes: which preclinical efficacy studies matter most? If you can only prioritize a few, which are the top three—and why? You also need to think proactively: if Plan A fails, what’s Plan B? On a day-to-day basis, it’s about constantly reassessing—what new information do we have, and do we need to pivot?
Equally important is building a culture that is comfortable with change and encourages open debate. Team members should feel empowered to challenge ideas and speak up—even outside their core area of expertise. For example, someone in a non-scientific role should feel comfortable questioning the scientific narrative if something doesn’t make sense. That kind of cross-functional dialogue strengthens decision-making and leads to better outcomes.
As the organization grows, maintaining that openness becomes even more important. If people don’t feel connected to the mission or clear on priorities, it can create confusion, slow progress, and reduce engagement. Success in early biotech requires both a culture of constructive challenge and strong alignment—ensuring every team member understands the vision, the next steps, and where to focus their time and energy.
From your experience on boards, how can CEOs most effectively leverage their boards as true strategic partners?
I think from a board perspective, it’s important to be very clear and upfront early about three key areas: what’s working, what the challenges are, and where the team is seeking input or guidance.
Those are, in my view, the three most important slides. First, highlight successes—what has been accomplished, what’s working well, and how much closer the team is to the next critical milestone, whether that’s entering the clinic or achieving another key inflection point. Second, outline the challenges that have emerged since the last update. These often fall into categories such as changes in timeline, safety, cost, or new competitive intelligence that may impact execution, speed, or overall positioning. Third, clearly define the decisions or considerations where the team would value direct board input.
Being transparent about what isn’t working—or where there is uncertainty—is especially important. That’s where the board can provide the most value, drawing on their experience to offer guidance and perspective. If everything is presented as going perfectly, it limits the opportunity for meaningful engagement—and in reality, that’s rarely the case in biotech.
Beyond formal meetings, teams should also make proactive use of their board members. For example, if you’re shaping a clinical strategy or evaluating preclinical models, it can be valuable to reach out in advance: “Here’s what we’re thinking—does this approach make sense? Are there experts we should consult?” This kind of engagement allows teams to leverage the full depth of board expertise.
Most boards bring a diverse set of perspectives—R&D leaders, experienced CEOs, commercial experts, and venture investors. Each offers a different lens, whether it’s end-to-end drug development, fundraising and company-building, market access and commercialization, or strategic planning. Tapping into that diversity is a powerful advantage.
Finally, I recommend that executive teams connect with board members ahead of meetings to preview key topics and surface potential questions. This ensures the team is well-prepared to address concerns during the meeting and makes for a more productive and efficient discussion overall.
You’ve been involved in multiple successful exits, including the acquisition of Principia Biopharma and Chinook—what distinguishes companies that create outsized value from those that fall short?
I believe leadership—particularly the CEO and executive team—plays a critical role in defining what the company should focus on and, importantly, why. When priorities aren’t clear, when teams don’t have the information they need to perform at their best, or when people are in the wrong roles, it can significantly impact success. I’ve seen strong products fail because of weak teams, and I’ve seen delays occur simply due to unclear communication and strategy.
At the executive level, there must be full clarity and transparency around decision-making —specifically, what decisions each leader can make independently and what needs to be escalated to the CEO. This clarity should cascade throughout the organization. Each executive should establish the same expectations with their direct reports, such as SVPs and VPs, creating a consistent framework for decision-making.
It’s important to define what needs to be escalated versus what team members can own independently. That clarity builds trust and empowers people to operate effectively within their scope. Ultimately, this alignment ensures that at every level of the organization, individuals understand priorities, know where to focus their time, and can make decisions efficiently—especially in a resource-constrained environment, which is common in biotech.
As you look at the next decade, how do you see biotech evolving—both in terms of scientific innovation and how companies are built and financed?
Over the past couple of years, it’s been challenging for biotech companies to secure funding from venture capital, which has traditionally been the primary source of early-stage financing. Many VCs have become more risk-averse, increasingly prioritizing validated targets and even looking for clinical data before investing. This has created a significant gap for seed-stage and preclinical companies, which need funding to generate that very data.
As a result, I think we’ll see a continued shift toward alternative funding sources. Pharma partnerships will likely play a larger role, as will non-dilutive funding. At the same time, companies are becoming more focused on efficiency—particularly in clinical development.
We’re also seeing changes in how companies are structured. Fewer startups are investing in physical office space, and more are operating as virtual organizations with distributed teams. Overall, the challenging funding environment from 2023 through 2025 has pushed biotechs to become more nimble, disciplined, and thoughtful about capital allocation—focusing on what is truly essential versus what is simply “nice to have.”
I think it’s a very exciting time to be in drug development. Despite the constraints we’ve seen over the past few years, they’ve pushed the industry to operate under a fundamentally different model. We’ve had to become more efficient, more thoughtful about where we spend, and more focused on how we translate data effectively. At the same time, AI is helping to shorten timelines—particularly on the operational side—and the pace of scientific advancement continues to accelerate. Altogether, it feels like a pivotal moment, and I’m very optimistic about what the next 10 years will bring for healthcare and new therapeutics.
It really does feel like we’re at an inflection point. Many of the “constraints” we’re responding to today aren’t entirely new; rather, we’re now being forced to fully leverage opportunities that were always there. Global clinical development, non-dilutive funding, and alternative deal structures have existed for years, but the current environment is pushing companies to embrace them more aggressively.
We’re also seeing a more global and dynamic landscape emerge. Unexpected players are stepping into major transactions, and the range of what’s possible is expanding quickly. It’s a reminder that innovation—and capital—can come from anywhere, and that we need to broaden our perspective on where opportunities may arise.
At the same time, long-held assumptions in the industry are being challenged. Areas once dismissed as low priority or commercially unviable are now proving to be highly impactful. It underscores the importance of thinking beyond traditional frameworks and being open to new approaches.
Overall, it’s an incredibly exciting time. There’s a sense of momentum and possibility that feels different—and, in many ways, liberating.
