Asia-Pacific is rapidly becoming a global hotbed for next-generation modalities, from mRNA therapeutics to AI-driven drug discovery, attracting significant investment and innovation.

However, this growth is occurring against a backdrop of intensifying geopolitical tensions, particularly between the US and China, which are compelling biotech firms and global pharmaceutical companies to adopt sophisticated strategic restructuring and diversification.

Explosive Growth in Advanced Therapeutics and AI

As per a new report by Bain & Company, titled “Empowering Biotech Innovation in Asia-Pacific”, the region has seen a surge in investment in advanced therapeutics. Modalities such as mRNA, cell and gene therapies (CGTs), and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are gaining significant traction, particularly within Chinese biotechs. A prime example is SystImmune’s US$8.4 billion ADC co-development and licensing deal with Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Also Read: Asia Pacific redefines biotech: Global pharma’s strategic shift from West to East

AI-enabled platforms are also revolutionising early-stage drug discovery, promising to streamline processes and accelerate development. Insilico Medicine’s FDA investigational new drug (IND) approval for its AI-designed MAT2A inhibitor, followed by a US$110 million raise in 2025, underscores the viability of these technology-led approaches.

Chinese pharmaceutical giant Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals (Hengrui) has partnered with Paris-based Iktos, leveraging its proprietary AI-driven molecular design platform to enhance the speed and efficiency of hit-to-lead and lead optimisation processes.

China’s biotech dominance and potential

China has long been the engine of biotech investment in Asia-Pacific, accounting for over 75 per cent of regional venture capital (VC) and private equity (PE) funding since 2019. Its strong pipeline includes mRNA therapeutics company Abogen, which raised over US$1 billion in PE/VC funding, and clinical-stage biotech LaNova Medicines, which secured a US$600 million licensing agreement from AstraZeneca for a potential first-in-class ADC.

After decades of strategic focus and streamlined regulatory processes, these innovations have positioned China as a global biotech standout, with the potential to challenge – and even surpass – Western players in first-in-class assets over the next five years.

Navigating geopolitical headwinds

Despite China’s innovative prowess, rising tensions with the US are creating uncertainty for cross-border collaborations and access to Western capital markets. The proposed US BIOSECURE Act, which flagged companies like WuXi AppTec and BGI Genomics as potential national security threats, has led many US pharmaceutical firms to rethink their reliance on Chinese contract research organisations (CROs) and contract development and manufacturing organisations (CDMOs). Although the Act has stalled, the impetus for geographic diversification to hedge against geopolitical risk is palpable.

In response, Chinese biotechs are strategically adopting offshore “NewCo” structures and IP-splitting strategies to manage international risk.

Also Read: Asia-Pacific governments step in as private biotech investors pull back

Examples include Hengrui’s licensing of its GLP-1 portfolio to US-based Kailera Therapeutics and Keymed Biosciences’ formation of Belenos Biosciences with OrbiMed. Firms are also shifting global headquarters and restructuring ownership, as seen with Legend Biotech expanding its US operations and reducing GenScript’s voting power.

In this complex environment, biotech firms’ success will increasingly hinge on scientific excellence,  regulatory fluency, funding adaptability, and astute cross-border strategic positioning.

The post AI, advanced therapeutics, and the geopolitical balancing act in biotech appeared first on e27.

Every organisation, every community, starts with a simple “why.” For centuries, the “why” of farming was survival—providing food for the family and community. Today, technology promises to make that “why” easier, but are we truly understanding the goal? We talk about precision agriculture and digital marketplaces, but are we asking the right questions about the revolution we are creating?

The old way of farming was not just a job; it was a way of life. A farmer’s expertise came from generations of shared knowledge. They knew the land, the seasons, and the subtle signs of a coming storm. But this deeply intuitive knowledge was also a shield against the complex, scientific realities of farming. A single-crop disease or a nutrient deficiency could wipe out a harvest, and the farmer had to rely on observation and gut feeling alone.

Technology offers a powerful upgrade, translating complex data into simple, actionable insights. An app that identifies a pest from a photo or a sensor that tells a farmer to water less isn’t just a tool; it’s a bridge between ancient wisdom and modern science. It elevates the farmer from a passive observer of nature to an active, informed decision-maker.

This is the promise, but it’s a promise that comes with a critical, unspoken question: What are we risking in this pursuit of efficiency?

The uncomfortable truths we need to confront

The push for technological adoption in farming is often framed as a win-win. But we must be honest about the potential for creating a new digital divide. The technology is available, but is it accessible to everyone? A farmer in a remote village without a stable internet connection or the financial means to afford a smartphone can’t participate in this revolution. We are not just creating a gap in income; we are creating a gap in knowledge, opportunity, and resilience.

If the technology is only available to those who can afford it, we risk leaving the most vulnerable farmers further behind, creating a two-tiered agricultural system—one for the digitally connected and another for the digitally excluded. This isn’t just a matter of fairness; it’s a matter of global food security. A system that leaves behind the smallholder farmers who produce a significant portion of the world’s food is inherently unstable and unsustainable.

Also Read: Indonesia’s agritech landscape: Keys to building a scalable agriculture startup

Then there’s the issue of data. Farmers are being asked to share a tremendous amount of information—from soil composition and crop health to market prices and weather patterns. This data is incredibly valuable, not just for the farmer but for the companies that provide the platforms.

The central question we must ask is: Who owns the data, and who truly benefits from it? If the farmer’s data is being collected and used to create market insights that only benefit large corporations, we are not empowering the farmer; we are simply making them a data point in a new, more efficient system of exploitation.

True empowerment means farmers must have ownership and control over their data, ensuring that the insights generated are used for their collective benefit, not just for someone else’s bottom line. This requires a fundamental shift in the business models of agri-tech companies—moving from a model that extracts value from farmers to one that shares it equitably.

Another uncomfortable truth is that technology can inadvertently erode traditional knowledge. As farmers rely more on digital tools for guidance, will they stop trusting their own intuition and the wisdom passed down through generations? Will the intimate knowledge of a particular plot of land—its history, its quirks, its unique ecosystem—be lost in a sea of generic data?

The goal isn’t to replace the farmer’s skill set but to enhance it. The most successful technology will be that which serves as a co-pilot, not a replacement. It should be a tool that helps a farmer make a better decision, not one that makes the decision for them. This requires designing technology that is intuitive and understandable, and which respects the farmer’s agency and experience.

Also Read: How Southeast Asia’s agritech startups are turning smallholder farms into high-tech powerhouses

Finally, we have to challenge the idea that profit is the only measure of success. In our pursuit of productivity and efficiency, are we losing sight of the deeper “why” of farming? A farm is a system of life, not just a factory for crops. The health of the soil, the cleanliness of the water, the well-being of the local community—these are the true indicators of a healthy agricultural system. Technology gives us the tools to measure and improve these things, but it’s up to us to decide that they are what truly matter.

The purpose of this digital transformation shouldn’t just be to make farmers a little more money; it should be to make our food systems more resilient, more sustainable, and more equitable for everyone. For instance, sensors that monitor soil moisture aren’t just about saving money on water; they’re about preserving a finite, essential resource. A transparent supply chain isn’t just about securing a better price; it’s about building trust and connection between the consumer and the person who grows their food.

The future of agriculture is not just about what technology we adopt, but about the values we embed in that technology. It’s about building a system that serves the farmer, the community, and the planet. It’s a challenge that requires us to look beyond the apps and gadgets and ask ourselves the uncomfortable questions about who we are leaving behind and what we truly want to achieve.

The digital revolution in farming has already started, but its final chapter is still unwritten. It will be up to us—tech developers, policymakers, farmers, and consumers—to decide if this powerful new era will be a story of shared prosperity or one of further division.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post The unspoken crisis: Are we building a new digital divide in agriculture? appeared first on e27.

Southeast Asia’s once-vibrant startup funding landscape took a heavy hit in August 2025, as total capital raised plummeted to US$84 million across 22 deals, according to Tracxn.

The slump underscores growing investor caution and macroeconomic headwinds, with this figure representing a 65.1 per cent decline from August 2024 and a staggering 76.4 per cent drop compared to July 2025.

This sharp contraction signals one of the toughest months in recent memory for the region’s founders, who are already grappling with tighter liquidity and slower deal cycles.

Bright spots amid the slowdown

Despite the downturn, some heavyweight venture firms continued to place selective bets:

Also Read: SEA startup funding plunges to US$68M in July 2025, down over 75% YoY

• Peak XV Partners led the month’s activity, backing TazaPay and Blitz Electric Mobility.
• Wavemaker Growth deployed capital into Graas and Kozystay, maintaining its steady investment momentum.
• Square Peg Ventures participated with an investment in ZUZU, while Integra Partners also made moves in the region.

A cautious but not silent market

The August slump highlights a market in recalibration—investors are still active but increasingly selective, gravitating toward startups with strong fundamentals, resilient business models, and proven traction.
For founders, the message is clear: capital is still available, but competition for it is fiercer than ever.

 

The post SEA startup funding nosedives in Aug, sinking over 65 per cent y-o-y appeared first on e27.

Southeast Asia stands at a pivotal moment in educational development. As global edutech markets expand, the region faces a critical choice: replicate the West’s increasingly alienating, screen-centric model or pioneer a fundamentally better approach. The answer lies not in imitation but in leapfrogging—bypassing the “disembodied default” of passive digital consumption to embrace the science of embodied cognition.

Grounded in cognitive research demonstrating that movement, gesture, and sensory experience accelerate learning, this strategy transforms Southeast Asia’s infrastructure gaps into advantages. With digital divides persisting—particularly in rural areas where internet access lags urban centres by up to 30 per cent—the region can leverage its high mobile penetration to build resilient, human-centred systems from the outset.

Escaping the disembodied trap

The West’s edutech trajectory prioritises disembodied AI—an intelligence divorced from physical experience. This reduces learning to screen-bound information transfer, ignoring cognitive science, which confirms that knowledge is constructed through bodily interaction with the environment. Southeast Asia’s constrained infrastructure, however, creates a unique opportunity to reject this model.

By designing Embodied edutech—where technology activates physical and social learning—the region can turn limitations into innovation catalysts. Consider language education: instead of vocabulary apps, an AR tool on low-cost smartphones could have students physically act out verbs while receiving movement feedback, anchoring language acquisition in sensorimotor experience.

Also Read: Why Southeast Asia’s edutech must go beyond chatbots to truly transform learning

Similarly, STEM learning could shift from simulations to community projects where digital blueprints guide students in constructing water filters from local materials, transforming abstract concepts into tangible problem-solving.

Critical success factors

Three pillars will determine this leapfrog strategy’s viability. First, cultural specificity must transcend tokenism. Embodied learning artifacts should be co-created with communities, integrating traditions like batik patterning for geometry lessons or rice cultivation cycles for biology. This approach aligns with UNESCO’s framework for leveraging indigenous knowledge and boosts engagement by rooting education in local identity—a practice proven effective across ASEAN contexts.

Second, assessment must evolve beyond standardised tests. Authentic evaluation methods like performance rubrics, digital-physical portfolios, and “Explain Your Creation” demonstrations are essential to measure embodied learning’s outcomes. These tools capture collaborative problem-solving and practical application—skills inadequately assessed by traditional exams.

Third, scaling the “Bio-Integrator” educator model demands reimagined teacher development. Educators must transition from lecturers to facilitators who bridge digital tools and physical experiences. Micro-credentials in kinesthetic pedagogy, peer learning networks, and partnerships with local artisans can accelerate this shift. Critically, training must itself be embodied—teachers learn by doing activities they’ll facilitate.

The regional advantage

Embodied edutech uniquely addresses Southeast Asia’s challenges. It ensures digital inclusion by functioning offline with basic devices, directly supporting ASEAN’s equitable transformation goals. It builds resilience—projects continue during connectivity outages, vital in disaster-prone regions.

Most significantly, it nurtures holistic development, merging digital literacy with physical dexterity, environmental awareness, and community bonds. This counters the screen alienation observed in Western youth while positioning Southeast Asia as an educational innovator.

Also Read: Edutech in Southeast Asia: Are we just paving the digital road to nowhere?

Conclusion: Pioneering human-centred learning

Southeast Asia’s edutech future need not follow foreign blueprints. By championing embodied cognition—through culturally resonant design, authentic assessment, and empowered “Bio-Integrators”—the region can leapfrog to an education system that is technologically agile yet fundamentally human.

This approach cultivates generations who wield digital tools not as crutches but as extensions of their physical and social intelligence. As global work evolves, this model offers a template for resilient, equitable learning worldwide. The leapfrog begins not with more screens, but with reinventing how bodies and minds engage the world.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post The leapfrog thesis: Why embodied edutech is SEA’s path to a superior education future appeared first on e27.

The old way of thinking about investment is a dangerous assumption that has held back progress for too long. We’ve been conditioned to believe that profit and purpose exist on separate tracks—that you either chase a high return or accept a lower one to do some good.

This outdated mindset, however, blinds investors to the most profound and resilient opportunities of our time. The truth is, a business built to improve lives is not just a good investment; it’s the only truly smart one.

A case from Southeast Asia

Go into any bustling city across Southeast Asia and you’ll see the same vibrant reality: an economy driven by small businesses, from crowded street stalls to family-run eateries. Behind this energy, though, lies a massive hidden inefficiency—millions of tons of food waste.

A team of founders saw not a problem to be ignored, but an opportunity to be harnessed. Instead of building the next viral consumer app, they created a simple platform that connects these businesses with a local network of collectors.

These collectors, working independently, pick up the waste and deliver it not to a dump, but to nearby urban farms for composting. The business owners pay a small fee for the service, and the compost is sold, completing a new, self-sustaining loop.

Building durable systems

This isn’t just a feel-good story; it’s a masterclass in building a business model that is immune to fleeting trends. Its success isn’t tied to a market whim, but to solving a deep-seated, persistent problem. The technology is merely the tool, but the true innovation is the new system it creates.

Building this kind of new system—whether it’s a digital platform or a physical network—is a form of infrastructure development. These are not quick-hit projects; they take time and patience, a long-term view that many traditional investments lack. By transforming waste from a liability into a valuable resource, the company isn’t just optimising a process—it’s building a new micro-economy.

Also Read: Built for all or built to fail? Why tech for social impact must start with inclusion

The service becomes indispensable because it improves the lives of everyone it touches, from the business owner who saves money and gains peace of mind to the collector who earns a new, reliable income. This kind of tangible impact is the very engine of a durable business.

Redefining returns

For investors, this model provides a powerful, dual-sided story that redefines what a return looks like. On one side, you have the traditional metrics: revenue from service fees, growth in the network of collectors, and the profitability from compost sales.

But on the other, you have a far more important measure of value: the total amount of waste diverted from landfills, the number of new jobs created, and the improved quality of soil for local agriculture.

These are not merely social metrics; they are leading indicators of market strength, proving that the business’s growth is a direct reflection of its positive influence. This isn’t charity; this is a form of value creation that builds on itself. When a company’s success is directly tied to the well-being of its community, that community becomes its most loyal partner.

Scaling purpose into impact

A narrow focus on profit alone often leads to short-term thinking and vulnerability to market shifts. A business built on purpose, however, creates a ripple effect of opportunity that strengthens its market position from the ground up. The foundation of this model is change, and it begins with small steps.

A single restaurant changing its behaviour is a minor win. But when that behaviour is adopted by hundreds, then thousands of businesses, it begins to transform an entire city and create a new normal.

Also Read: Why investors are betting big on Asia’s social impact startups

This kind of investment is in the very fabric of society, creating improved livelihoods, unlocking new opportunities, and empowering communities to advance together.

The smartest investment of all

The time for viewing “funding for good” as a side project is over. It is the smartest form of investing because it taps into a fundamental truth: human potential is the most valuable resource on earth.

Companies that solve real problems are the ones that will build the most durable, valuable, and future-proof businesses. Their success is a direct result of their ability to build systems that uplift people and improve their daily reality.

For those seeking more than just a return on capital, this new model offers the chance to impact future generations and leave a genuine legacy. The most valuable ventures aren’t the ones that merely profit today; they are the ones building a better future for everyone.

Profit isn’t the goal; it’s the powerful and inevitable outcome of a purpose-driven mission.

—

The post Funding the future: Why purpose-driven investing is the only smart bet appeared first on e27.