The CEO dinner brought together senior leaders from across drug discovery, AI-enabled discovery, formulation, drug delivery, CMC, translational science, academia, biotech and pharma. The discussion centred on where the next major advances in medicines are likely to emerge, what will define an ideal drug candidate by 2030, and how early developability, formulation and delivery considerations should influence discovery decisions.
A consistent theme across the discussion was that future breakthroughs are unlikely to come from a single discipline in isolation. Participants highlighted the need for stronger integration between target biology, molecular design, delivery technologies, formulation science, translational insight, manufacturing feasibility and patient access. The discussion also reflected both optimism and caution around AI: while AI has the potential to accelerate discovery and improve decision-making, it should not become a superficial marker of innovation unless it is applied to a clearly defined scientific or development problem.
The strongest conclusion from the evening was that discovery and development must become more connected. Better medicines will require better biological understanding, better molecules, more effective delivery, earlier developability thinking and clearer alignment between scientific ambition and practical translation.
1. Where Will the Next Major Breakthroughs in Medicines Come From?
The first discussion focused on whether the next major breakthroughs in medicines will come primarily from better biological targets, better-designed molecules or more effective delivery technologies.
There was no single consensus that one factor alone would dominate. Instead, several participants argued that meaningful breakthroughs will require progress across all three areas. A promising biological target is not enough if the molecule cannot be designed effectively. Equally, a well-designed molecule may not deliver clinical value if it cannot reach the right tissue, cell type or biological compartment at the right concentration and duration.
Delivery was discussed as a particularly important enabler. Several comments emphasised that even a strong target and a potent molecule may fail commercially and clinically if the medicine cannot be delivered effectively to the patient or to the intended site of action. This was especially relevant for complex modalities, nucleic acids, biologics and therapeutic areas such as neurodegeneration, where access to the relevant tissue remains a major challenge.
At the same time, target discovery and validation were also viewed as critical. In areas such as neurodegenerative disease, participants noted that biological understanding remains limited and that identifying mechanisms with genuine disease-modifying potential would represent a major breakthrough. This suggested that the relative importance of targets, molecules and delivery may vary by therapeutic area and modality.
Overall, the discussion suggested that future breakthroughs will come from the convergence of better biology, better chemistry and better delivery, rather than from any one discipline acting independently.
2. What Will Define the Ideal Drug Candidate in 2030?
The second theme explored how the definition of an ideal drug candidate may change by 2030.
Participants acknowledged that drug discovery has always involved compromise. Potency, selectivity, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, developability and manufacturability must all be balanced. The ideal drug candidate may therefore not be “perfect”, but rather the best possible candidate within a clearly understood set of trade-offs.
Several future-facing characteristics were discussed. Safety and tolerability were highlighted as increasingly important, particularly as expectations rise around reducing side effects and improving patient outcomes. Developability and manufacturability were also seen as central, especially as the industry moves beyond traditional small molecules and biologics into more diverse modalities such as peptides, degraders, nucleic acids, oncolytic viruses and advanced delivery-enabled systems.
Patient access was another implicit theme. A candidate that is scientifically elegant but difficult to manufacture, deliver, scale or reimburse may not become a successful medicine. By 2030, ideal candidate selection is likely to place greater emphasis on the full path to patient benefit, not only early potency or target engagement.
The role of AI prompted important caution. One participant warned that the industry should avoid treating “AI involvement” as a defining feature of an ideal drug candidate. The concern was that AI could become a badge of innovation rather than a meaningful contributor to better science. The group recognised that AI may be transformative when used appropriately, but only when it addresses the right question and improves the quality, speed or confidence of decision-making.
The discussion therefore suggested that the ideal drug candidate of 2030 will be defined not only by efficacy, but also by safety, delivery feasibility, developability, manufacturability, scalability, patient relevance and evidence-based use of technology.
3. The Role of AI in Future Discovery and Development
AI was discussed as both an opportunity and a risk.
Participants recognised that AI could support target identification, validation, molecule design, patient stratification, predictive modelling and interpretation of complex datasets. In particular, AI may help the industry better understand biological systems where large-scale patient data, genetics and disease complexity are difficult to interpret through conventional approaches alone.
However, the group also expressed caution about overuse or misapplication. AI should not be used simply because it is fashionable or because senior management expects it to be present in a discovery programme. One example raised during the discussion was that some questions presented as AI problems may actually be answerable with simpler statistical methods. This reinforced the need to define the problem first, then choose the appropriate tool.
The regulatory implications of AI were also raised. As AI tools become more embedded in discovery and development decisions, questions remain around validation, transparency, reproducibility and regulatory confidence. Participants suggested that these issues will become increasingly important as AI-supported programmes move closer to clinical and regulatory decision points.
The key takeaway was that AI should be treated as an enabling tool, not as an end in itself. Its value will depend on how well it is integrated into scientific reasoning, experimental validation and development decision-making.
4. How Early Should Developability, Formulation and Delivery Shape Discovery Decisions?
The third major discussion focused on when developability, formulation and delivery considerations should enter the discovery process.
There was strong support for bringing these considerations earlier into decision-making, although participants recognised that the appropriate timing may depend on the modality and the maturity of the programme. For traditional small molecules, some physical and chemical properties are already considered early, including solubility, permeability, stability and PK/PD. However, the discussion suggested that these factors are not always carried through consistently into later development.
For more complex modalities, such as antibodies, degraders, biologics and nucleic acid-based therapies, delivery and formulation may need to influence decisions much earlier. The group discussed the importance of understanding whether a candidate can reach the right target, in the right tissue, at the right concentration, for the right duration. This was framed as a central requirement for therapeutic success.
A recurring point was that discovery and development teams need to be better aligned. Delivery and formulation should not be treated as late-stage fixes after a candidate has already been selected. Instead, developability should help shape the choice of target, modality, molecule and screening strategy where appropriate.
The discussion also highlighted that some delivery or formulation challenges can be solved with the right expertise and investment. However, assuming that all problems can be fixed later creates risk. Earlier collaboration between discovery, formulation, delivery and CMC teams can help avoid selecting candidates that are scientifically promising but practically difficult to develop.
5. Modality-Specific Considerations
The discussion made clear that the importance of target selection, molecule design, delivery and formulation varies by modality.
For small molecules, participants discussed the established need to balance potency, selectivity, solubility, permeability, metabolic stability and PK/PD. Small molecules remain especially important for intracellular targets, where larger biologics may face limitations.
For antibodies and biologics, the group noted that target location and accessibility become especially important. Extracellular targets may be more suitable for some antibody approaches, while intracellular biology may require different modalities or delivery strategies.
For nucleic acids, peptides and other advanced modalities, delivery can become a defining challenge. The ability to transport cargo to the right tissue or cell type may determine whether the therapeutic concept can succeed at all.
This reinforced the view that future candidate selection should be modality-aware. The same selection criteria should not be applied uniformly across all therapeutic approaches.
6. Key Discussion Themes
Several cross-cutting themes emerged throughout the evening:
First, breakthrough innovation requires integration. Better targets, better molecules and better delivery technologies should be viewed as mutually reinforcing rather than competing priorities.
Second, delivery is becoming strategically important. It is no longer just a technical development step, particularly for complex modalities and hard-to-reach tissues.
Third, developability must be considered earlier. Programmes benefit when formulation, CMC and delivery expertise are included before critical candidate selection decisions are locked in.
Fourth, AI must be applied with discipline. It has major potential, but it should not become a superficial measure of innovation or a substitute for clear scientific thinking.
Fifth, the definition of success is broadening. Future candidates will need to demonstrate not only efficacy and safety, but also developability, manufacturability, scalability, patient relevance and practical deliverability.
7. Implications for the Industry
The discussion points to several implications for the future of drug discovery and development.
Organisations may need to build more cross-functional discovery models, where biology, chemistry, delivery, formulation, CMC, translational science and data science work together from earlier stages. Candidate selection criteria may also need to evolve to better reflect the realities of development and patient access.
Investment in delivery technologies is likely to remain a major strategic priority, particularly as the industry pursues more complex therapeutic modalities. At the same time, target validation remains essential, especially in disease areas where biology is poorly understood.
AI will continue to shape discovery and development, but its credibility will depend on evidence, validation and appropriate use. Companies that apply AI to well-defined problems, rather than using it as a general label for innovation, are likely to derive greater value.
Conclusion
The CEO dinner highlighted a shared view that the future of medicines will be shaped by convergence. The next generation of successful therapies will depend on the integration of strong biological insight, intelligent molecule design, effective delivery, early developability assessment, robust formulation, scalable manufacturing and patient-centred thinking.
By 2030, the ideal drug candidate will likely be judged not only by its scientific promise, but by its ability to become a real medicine: safe, effective, deliverable, manufacturable, accessible and meaningful for patients.
The evening provided a valuable forum for senior leaders to explore these questions openly and reinforced the importance of collaboration across disciplines as the industry works to bring better medicines to patients faster.
