BioHealth Capital Region Week will return on September 15 through 17, 2026, at US Pharmacopeia in Rockville, Maryland, bringing together leaders from industry, academia, government, and investment for three days focused on the future of one of the nation’s leading biohealth ecosystems. The event will again feature the BioHealth Capital Region Forum, the Crab Trap Competition, and the Investment Conference.
This year’s Forum theme, “Growing the BioHealth Capital Region of Tomorrow,” reflects both the region’s momentum and the need for continued collaboration at a time when many organizations are navigating a more uncertain funding environment. As public funding conditions shift, the region’s long-term strength will depend on its ability to deepen partnerships, support commercialization, attract investment, and build new pathways for growth. The Forum will serve as a place for those conversations to happen.
Registration for all BioHealth Capital Region Week events will be opening soon. Attendees can expect a strong lineup of programming, networking, and opportunities to connect with the people and organizations shaping the future of biohealth across Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
Sponsorship opportunities are also available for organizations that want to be part of the week’s visibility and engagement. Available options include Lead Headliner Sponsorship, which offers top-level recognition throughout the week and the VIP Leadership Dinner, Standard Sponsorship, which includes logo recognition and VIP dinner access, End-of-Day Reception Sponsorship, which adds event-specific recognition during a featured networking reception, VIP Leadership Dinner Sponsorship, which provides recognition for that evening’s key opinion leader gathering and an opportunity to address attendees, and Display Table Sponsorship, which offers an on-site presence in a limited table area positioned near the main flow of activity. Sponsorship support helps make the week’s programming and convening possible.
For more information about sponsorship opportunities, please contact Rich Bendis at rbendis@biohealthinnovation.org and Andy Eckert at aeckert@biohealthinnovation.org.
How do universities move promising discoveries out of the lab and into the market? In this episode of BioTalk, Tatiana Litvin-Vechnyak, Vice President of Georgetown’s Office of Technology Commercialization, Christon Hill, Program Manager for Georgetown Tech Ventures, and Jennifer Butler, Entrepreneur-in-Residence with BioHealth Innovation, discuss how Georgetown is building a stronger pipeline from academic science to startup formation. The conversation examines how Georgetown’s commercialization efforts are evolving, how GTV supports faculty founders, and why structured programming, outside expertise, and stronger ecosystem connections matter for turning research into real-world impact.
The discussion also explores the “missing middle” between discovery and commercialization, the role of Entrepreneurs-in-Residence in advancing founders and technologies, and how partnerships among Georgetown, GTV, and BioHealth Innovation are helping to create a more durable and commercially focused innovation pipeline. The guests also reflect on Georgetown’s place within the BioHealth Capital Region and what success will look like as the university continues building a stronger culture of entrepreneurship and company creation.
Listen via your favorite podcast platform:
Apple: https://apple.co/3OjZf7f
Spotify: https://bit.ly/4vyGePd
iHeart: https://ihr.fm/4tfSJ0p
YouTube Podcasts: https://bit.ly/4sCEEZK
TuneIn: https://bit.ly/4mz5j8x
Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant.
Tatiana Litvin-Vechnyak, Ph.D., is Vice President of Georgetown’s Office of Technology Commercialization, where she leads the university’s efforts to translate research discoveries into real-world impact through licensing, startup creation, and innovation support. Since joining Georgetown in 2023, she has helped expand the university’s commercialization infrastructure, including securing the U.S. Economic Development Administration Build to Scale grant that launched Georgetown Tech Ventures. With more than 20 years of experience in intellectual property, licensing, and business development, she previously served in leadership roles at Rutgers University, where she helped advance major innovation and venture development initiatives. She holds a Ph.D. in Pharmacology and is a Registered Patent Agent.
Christon Hill is Program Manager for Georgetown Tech Ventures in Georgetown University’s Office of Technology Commercialization, where he develops programs, partnerships, and founder support pathways that help move promising research toward venture creation, strategic partnerships, and real-world use. With an interdisciplinary background spanning biotechnology, biology, and the humanities, he brings a practical and market-aware approach to early-stage innovation, with experience in venture development, ecosystem building, and translating complex ideas for investors, partners, and non-technical audiences. He is a graduate of Georgetown’s biotechnology master’s program, a Marine veteran, and a cross-sector operator focused on helping founders and institutions turn strong ideas into credible, actionable opportunities.
Jennifer Butler is a distinguished global commercial executive and strategic leader with nearly 20 years of experience helping biotechnology companies move from early development through commercialization. She serves as an Entrepreneur-in-Residence with BioHealth Innovation and served as Montgomery County’s first Executive-in-Residence, a role created through a collaboration between Montgomery County and BioHealth Innovation to provide technical assistance to local biotech startups. Across her career, she has brought a strong commercial perspective to emerging companies, helping founders sharpen strategy, accelerate development, and navigate the path toward growth and commercialization.
What does it take to build a biohealth ecosystem that can compete nationally? In this episode of BioTalk, Lisa Johnson, CEO of BioForward Wisconsin, discusses how Wisconsin helped shape the early use of the term “biohealth” and how that approach has supported the growth of its life sciences sector.
Lisa shares how BioForward connects industry, academia, and government to strengthen the state’s ecosystem, along with key developments that have brought increased attention to the region, including the expansion of Eli Lilly and Company. She also reflects on Wisconsin’s designation as a Biohealth Tech Hub through the U.S. Economic Development Administration and what it means for future growth.
Listen yia your favorite Podcast Platform:
Apple: https://apple.co/427YLEg
Spotify: https://bit.ly/3Q7I2OT
iHeart: https://ihr.fm/4sr4jVd
YouTube Music: https://bit.ly/41r37pY
Amazon Music: https://amzn.to/4mmiKZe
TuneIn: https://bit.ly/424YPVo
The conversation highlights both momentum and ongoing challenges, particularly around access to early-stage capital and building a stronger pipeline of companies. Lisa outlines what will be required for Wisconsin to continue growing as a competitive biohealth hub.
Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant.
Lisa Johnson is the Chief Executive Officer of BioForward Wisconsin, the state’s member-driven biohealth industry association dedicated to advancing Wisconsin as a global leader in biohealth innovation. In her role, she leads efforts to strengthen the state’s ecosystem by connecting industry, academia, and government partners to support company growth, workforce development, and investment attraction.
Lisa brings extensive experience in economic development, public policy, and industry leadership, with a focus on building collaborative environments that drive regional competitiveness. She has been instrumental in positioning Wisconsin as a recognized biohealth hub, including leading the state’s successful designation as a Biohealth Tech Hub through the U.S. Economic Development Administration. Through her work, she continues to champion initiatives that support emerging companies, expand access to capital, and foster long-term growth across the biohealth sector.
A recent analysis shared by Ilya Strebulaev, a Stanford professor and a leading voice in venture capital and innovation, offers a useful snapshot of which U.S. universities have been linked to the largest total founder exit values from startup IPOs and acquisitions.
At the top of the list are Stanford University at $415 billion, Harvard University at $326 billion, and MIT at $258 billion. The rankings reflect the combined exit value of companies founded by alumni from each institution, based on exited U.S. unicorns with valid exit values across a large multi-decade dataset.
What makes the list especially interesting is how broadly innovation is distributed. While global brand names are well represented, several universities stand out for performing beyond what many might expect. Public institutions also show strong results, with Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Illinois, UC Santa Barbara, Maryland, Arizona State, and the University of Washington all appearing in the top 25.
For those of us in the BioHealth Capital Region, one point is especially worth noting: the University of Maryland ranks in the top 25 with $56 billion in total founder exit value, and Georgetown University with $46B. That is another reminder that this region is home to institutions with real impact, not only in research and talent development, but also in building companies that create lasting market value.
The full list reinforces something we see every day across the region. Universities are not just centers of education and discovery. They are also engines for commercialization, entrepreneurship, and company creation. When strong research institutions are paired with the right support systems, capital connections, and industry partnerships, the result can be significant economic and innovation outcomes.
We appreciate Ilya Strebulaev for sharing this analysis and helping highlight the role universities play in shaping America’s innovation economy. Please view the original post so readers can explore the full ranking and methodology. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ilyavcandpe_the-universities-behind-americas-biggest-activity-7446982875113246720-3vyE?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAEiF3YBR4X2ycxS417NcZZx7N7BD14MDK4
By Jon Nelson, BHI Director of Client Engagement: The SBIR/STTR program is currently paused pending reauthorization. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. On April 2nd, the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act was presented to the President for his signature. Three different outcomes now lay before us.
- The President could sign the bill into law.
- The President may choose to neither sign, nor veto the bill, in which case, the bill will automatically become law on April 14th.
- The President could veto the bill. In this situation, the bill would return to Congress, where a two-thirds majority would be needed in both houses in order to override the veto.
For companies that have been relying on federal funding as part of their near-term financing strategy, the pause is a genuinely difficult disruption. Plans are delayed, timelines shift, and the natural response is to wait until there is more clarity especially when there are countless other priorities competing for attention. That instinct is understandable. However, the teams that emerge from this period in the strongest competitive position will be the ones that resist it.
While this is the first lapse in the SBIR/STTR program since its inception in the 1980s, other large funding opportunities and federal programs have seen similar pauses. Thus, history is instructive here – when a high-demand funding program goes dark and then reopens, submission volume typically reflects the backlog that accumulated during the gap. Companies that were mid-preparation when the pause began, teams that used the intervening time to get ready, and applicants who hesitated will all enter the queue at roughly the same time.
The result is a more competitive review environment. The bar for what constitutes a competitive proposal is effectively higher than it would be in a typical cycle, and where the difference between a thoughtfully developed application and one that was assembled quickly becomes far more apparent for reviewers to see.
What Good Preparation Actually Looks Like
For most applicants, the limiting factor in a competitive submission is not the quality of the underlying science. It is how clearly the proposal communicates that science to a review panel, how convincingly it is positioned within a credible commercialization strategy, and how clearly the proposal demonstrates that this team, with this approach, at this stage of development, is worth funding. Each of those elements takes longer to develop than most first-time applicants expect, and they each suffer when compressed into the final weeks before a deadline.
A strong commercialization narrative requires that holds up under reviewer scrutiny goes through multiple rounds of drafting and refinement. A technical approach that translates well on the page requires careful editing by individuals who understand both the science and reviewer expectations. A budget that avoids unnecessary scrutiny is one that has been reviewed with agency expectations and common pitfalls in mind.
The best time to do this work is now, before the pressure of an open submission window makes careful development difficult.
Getting the Most Out of the Time Available
Beyond the core proposal materials, there is meaningful preparatory work that is often deferred under deadline pressure. Reviewing and organizing preliminary data, identifying the most relevant solicitations to target when the program reopens, aligning internal stakeholders on project scope and budget, and stress-testing the overall narrative against likely reviewer questions are all tasks that benefit from careful attention that is hard to give them when a submission deadline is just around the corner.
This is also the right time to pursue the relationship-driven components of a strong application. Securing letters of support from key stakeholders, whether from clinical partners, academic collaborators, or potential customers, takes time and follow-up, and letters that are clearly written with care carry more weight with reviewers than ones that read as last-minute requests.
Similarly, identifying and formalizing relationships with contract research organizations or other external partners strengthens both the technical credibility of the proposal and the team’s demonstrated capacity to execute. These conversations take time , and teams that have already invested in them are at a clear advantage in a when the submission window reopens.
Working with BioHealth Innovation
At BioHealth Innovation, we work with early-stage founders and research teams throughout the full proposal development process, from identifying the right funding opportunity to building the commercialization narrative and finalizing technical and budget documents.
Teams that engage early enter submission cycles significantly more prepared. In a competitive environment, that head start can make big difference.
If you are serious about competing when the SBIR/STTR program reopens, the right time to start is now.
Contact us at jnelson@biohealthinnovation.org
By Kelly Murphy, BHI Life Sciences Business Strategist and Program Manager
At BioHealth Innovation, we have worked with hundreds of early-stage biohealth founders preparing for investor meetings, and increasingly, we are seeing AI tools enter the preparation process. When used well, AI can function like a “first-pass analyst” to quickly stress-test your narrative, identify gaps, and to help translate complex science into investor-friendly language. But while AI can accelerate early feedback cycles, it is not a substitute for deep domain expertise, investor insight, or strategic judgement that can be provided by experienced entrepreneurs and analysts. Knowing where it adds value and where it falls short is what separates founders who use it effectively from those who are lulled into a false sense of readiness.
What AI Can Do Well
AI excels at structure, clarity, and pattern recognition. For early-stage companies, this can be a major advantage.
First, AI can help ensure your pitch deck tells a coherent story. Many technical founders struggle to translate highly specialized science into a compelling narrative for an investor audience. AI can quickly flag when your problem statement is unclear, your value proposition is buried, or your slides don’t logically flow from unmet need to solution to market opportunity.
Second, AI is effective at benchmarking against common expectations and best practices. While it doesn’t “know” your company, it has been trained on patterns of successful communication. It can suggest whether you’re missing standard components that investors expect to see.
Third, AI can improve readability and tone. It can simplify jargon-heavy language, tighten messaging, and help tailor your pitch for different audiences (e.g., scientific vs. financial stakeholders). For teams preparing multiple versions of a deck with several authors, this can also significantly reduce iteration time and maintain consistency of tone.
Finally, AI can serve as a rapid feedback loop. Founders can get immediate reactions and refine their materials in real time, making subsequent expert feedback more focused and productive.
Where AI Falls Short
Despite these strengths, AI has meaningful limitations, especially in a field as nuanced as biohealth.
Most importantly, AI lacks true domain judgment and cannot assess the credibility of the claims being made. For example, AI may identify that a “clinical plan” slide is missing, but it cannot validate whether the plan itself is viable. For investors who understand the industry, a well-formatted but strategically flawed slide is worse than nothing at all.
AI also struggles with context. It does not understand your specific market dynamics, competitive positioning, or investor landscape. For example, it may suggest adding more market-sizing details without recognizing that your niche indication requires a more nuanced reimbursement or adoption strategy.
Another limitation is overgeneralization. AI often defaults to broadly applicable best practices that are not always strategically appropriate. In some cases, what makes a company compelling is precisely what deviates from the norm and AI may inadvertently steer founders toward a more generic narrative.
Finally, there is a risk of false confidence. A well-written output can give the impression of rigor, even when underlying assumptions haven’t been critically evaluated. AI also tends to compliment the user and encourage any prompt it is given, even if it is not well thought out. This is particularly dangerous when preparing for sophisticated investors who will probe deeply beyond surface-level messaging. A fun way to test this for yourself is to ask AI its thoughts on the worst business idea you can come up with and see how it responds.
Best Practices for Using AI Effectively: A Recommended Workflow
To get the most value from AI as a first-pass analyst, founders should treat it as a starting point and not as a decision-maker.
Step 1: AI-Assisted Drafting: Use AI early in the process to organize your thinking, pressure-test your story, and identify obvious gaps. Be specific in your prompts, for example, ask it to evaluate your deck from the perspective of a life sciences investor or to critique your value proposition based on clinical and commercial criteria. The more targeted the prompt, the more useful the output.
Step 2: Expert Gap Analysis: Layer in human expertise from advisors, mentors and/or consultants to bring the contextual understanding and strategic insight that AI cannot replicate. The goal is to use AI to elevate the quality of your materials so that expert feedback can focus on higher-value issues. These stakeholders can review positioning and help anticipate the questions investors will ask. A deck that has been reviewed by people who have sat on both sides of the table is stronger. At BHI, our role at this stage is to validate the substance beneath the narrative, not just the presentation.
Step 4: Investor mock session. Before your first real meeting, run a mock with someone who can simulate investor questions by probing your assumptions, challenging your data, and identifying non-obvious areas of improvement. AI cannot do this, but experienced specialists such as BHI’s entrepreneurs-in-residence and analysts can.
Throughout this process, remain critical of the output. Not all suggestions by AI will be relevant, and some may even dilute your differentiation or flatten nuance on complicated topics. Use AI as a tool to expand your perspective but rely on your team’s judgment to make final decisions.
The Bottom Line
AI is a powerful tool for improving the efficiency and clarity of early-stage pitch development. As a first-pass analyst, it can help founders move faster, communicate more effectively, and prepare more polished materials. But in biohealth, where scientific validity, clinical strategy, and market nuance are paramount, AI is only one piece of the puzzle. The strongest pitch decks we’ve seen at BHI combine innovative technologies with deep scientific expertise and strategic storytelling. AI can help you get there faster but it can’t get you there alone.
Work with BHI on Your Pitch Strategy
BioHealth Innovation supports early-stage biotech and medtech companies through go-to-market strategy, market analysis, and investor readiness. If you’re preparing for a fundraising round and want expert eyes on your pitch, beyond what AI can offer, we’d welcome the conversation.
Contact us at kmurphy@biohealthinnovation.org and jnelson@biohealthinnovation.org