For many observers, Galapagos is in an enviable position. The biotech has a balance sheet of €3bn to call upon and a fresh strategic direction to build from.
But 2025 has been a year of major upheaval for the Belgian biotech. In January, backed by a sizeable cash reserve, Galapagos unveiled plans to spin out a company to advance a pipeline in oncology, immunology, and virology. Yet, the split was abruptly abandoned in May in a dramatic U-turn.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
Instead, a larger pivot came in October, when the company revealed it was shutting down its cell therapy unit, leaving its association with the advanced modality behind. Galapagos is just one of many companies to retreat from the sector that has lost momentum and funding, despite at one time holding so much commercial promise.
Now, Galapagos is creating a new chapter in its 26-year history as it embarks upon a plan to create a profitable business model via asset acquisitions.
On the sidelines of Jefferies Global Healthcare Conference in London, Pharmaceutical Technology sat down with Henry Gosebruch, who assumed his role as Galapagos CEO in May 2025 amid the strategic overhaul, to discuss the company’s roadmap.
Gosebruch discussed what he is looking for, the future of the company’s existing $5bn deal with Gilead, and how the recent surge in M&A deals could benefit the biotech.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataThis interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Robert Barrie (RB): Could you explain the internal decision-making process for shutting your cell therapy unit down?
Henry Gosebruch (HG): The board has been under this continuous process to assess what the company should be doing with the capital. What’s the best area to invest in? Does cell therapy make sense? Should we be dedicating all this capital that we saw previously?
Importantly, we tested the market, and we have undertaken a thorough strategic review and sale process to identify potential buyers or investors with the expertise and resources to take the cell therapy business forward – be that pharma, biotech, medtech players, CDMOs.
The modality’s data continues to be attractive and encouraging, but that’s not what people worry about. There are worries related to the patient journey, the logistics of making it work, the complexity of manufacturing cell therapies in general. Other technologies that are coming in may not be fully proven, but they at least have the potential to avoid all those complexities and create a different business model that doesn’t have those problems. Ultimately, it should be a more profitable, sustainable business going forward.
RB: Are you keeping an open mind as to your new opportunities and will this include buying assets?
HG: We’re looking at late-stage assets, so post clinical proof-of-concept assets. In immunology it generally means Phase IIa data and in oncology it can be Phase II or Phase Ib. It doesn’t mean it’s 100% of what we’re looking at, but the clear focus is that.
When I made my rounds, shareholders said they don’t want to take significant clinical risk, given what they have been through in the last few years. [That’s different] to commercial risk. If you have a specific insight for a market indication to make something that’s meaningful, that’s a risk we’re comfortable taking. That’s the guidance I’ve been getting consistently from shareholders. So that’s the plan we think makes sense, and that’s the plan we’re executing.
RB: How does this fit in with the wider pharma industry trend of targeting later stage assets in deals?
HG: What’s different [in pharma] is they tend to have more established, broader commercial capabilities and commercial infrastructure – that’s not what we have. We don’t have a commercial infrastructure. Instead, we can maybe pick diseases that are misunderstood or just perceived to be not as attractive to the big players due to an unknown factor. It’s more those opportunities that we’re seeking. We have this ‘white sheet of paper’ opportunity, whereas [in pharma], you’re looking for not just de-risked opportunities, but you’re probably also looking for ones where you have commercial synergy with whatever portfolio you have.
The second difference is that you have a different budget and capital available. Maybe you don’t know how a certain area is going to play out, so you make two or three bets in said area, as long as you get one good asset from that. It’s a little harder for me to play that.
There are some similarities, but I think we look at it a little bit differently. It’s great to have €3bn, one of the best balance sheets in the industry. But that doesn’t mean I should be competing with a big pharma player.
RB: How will your partnership with Gilead, valued at up to $5bn, fit into your plans?
HG: That partnership was established close to six and a half years ago, and it was well designed from both parties, but it was designed at a time where Galapagos had a discovery technology platform and very rich pipeline entering the clinic.
That continues to be the case today except we no longer have a discovery pipeline. They still have the right to opt into assets we buy. We think the best alternative is to renegotiate that opt-in yield, which they’re very open to. They want us to be finding assets for them and they want us to be successful. They’re very motivated to be doing that. But logically, that means it should be areas that they have some interest in. It could be that they are interested in an area, but they’re not quite ready yet to make the move themselves. Instead, they could opt in later at a different number. That’s why it’s hard to renegotiate the deal under an umbrella approach – there are just too many variables. So, we’ll handle it on a deal-by-deal basis. I won’t pretend it’s simple, but we’re attracted by that complexity, and that’s what makes it exciting.
RB: If we were to sit down again in a year, how do you think Galapagos will look by then?
HG: There will be maybe three big differences. We’re going through the consultation process now, but the cell therapy exit will be completed by end of next year. Number two, the remaining legacy small molecule program will be reading out early next year. We’ll know the answer on whether that’s a promising asset, and we’ll build around that asset. It could be that by this time next year we’ve partnered out the asset because we decide somebody else is in a better position to do it. Number three, we may have another asset by then.
We may do a deal if the right one comes along, but I don’t have to do one next year. It’s more important to do the right deal than to put mandates on timeframes. Of course, we have capital so there’s a chance we will have done something with that. But with the first two, it’s 100%.
RB: Are you optimistic the recent flurry in M&A deals will help your dealmaking strategy next year?
HG: I think the M&A market will stay active. Most importantly, there’s interesting assets coming forward with proof of concept or encouraging clinical data. I think it can be a positive for us, and hopefully, if there’s a slightly better funding environment than there has previously been, then more early ideas will get funded that get to the point where they may become transactable for us.
On the other hand, rising prices have made certain deals hard for us. Sometimes there’s an investor perception that when prices are low, you should see more M&A. And that’s not always true. Price is of course very important, but the big unmet need that the asset is addressing is more important.
I’m encouraged by the activity, I welcome it, and I think it’ll be good for us. Will we lose an opportunity or two as it financially gets out of our zone? Maybe. But I can’t worry about timing the market. I have to find the right assets.
