Learn how to investigate a life science opportunity, challenge its assumptions and explain what the findings mean for an investment, partnership or development decision.
Alacrita has conducted hundreds of due diligence assessments for biotech and pharmaceutical companies, investors and research organizations. Our training draws on that experience to show participants where to focus their attention, which questions to ask and how to pursue an issue when the first answer is incomplete.
Through case discussions and selected exercises, participants examine the work behind a recommendation. Does the clinical evidence support the proposed product profile? Has a manufacturing problem been reflected in the development budget? What further evidence would justify proceeding?
We design each program around your team’s experience and the opportunities it evaluates. Sessions are delivered remotely by consultants from Alacrita’s due diligence practice.
The training was developed by Anthony Walker, PhD, Managing Partner and head of Alacrita’s due diligence practice. He brings more than 35 years in life sciences, spanning biotech leadership and consulting.
Anthony has directed and performed technical and commercial diligence across small molecules, vaccines, cell and gene therapies, and other technologies. His work also includes payer research, development strategy and asset valuation. He designed Alacrita’s valuation model, combining risk-adjusted net present value with Monte Carlo simulation to examine how uncertainty in key assumptions affects the range of potential values.
He brings the perspective of an operator as well as an adviser: co-founding and leading cancer immunotherapy company Onyvax, raising venture capital, and helping establish Leucid Bio through technology licensing, seed fundraising and its first phase of operations as initial CEO. He also brings venture investment experience.
That breadth is central to the training: following a scientific finding through to its implications for development, commercial prospects and the decision to commit. Anthony or a colleague from the practice leads the sessions; specialist participation is agreed around your team’s needs.
For colleagues who lead diligence, contribute specialist expertise or use the findings to make decisions.
Business development and technical teams evaluating assets, licensing opportunities and acquisitions. The training also helps development teams scrutinize their own programs, prepare for external diligence and address gaps before discussions with investors or partners.
Investment teams, foundations and seed funders assessing opportunities or reviewing portfolios. We can emphasize how to challenge the evidence, interpret specialist advice and identify the work that would justify a further commitment.
Technology transfer and research teams assessing inventions, collaborations and spin-out opportunities. Discussion can focus on translational evidence, development feasibility and the questions a prospective licensee or investor is likely to ask.
The program follows an opportunity from the initial proposition to a recommendation. We tailor the depth and selected exercises across six areas, so participants can see both how to investigate an issue and why it matters to the decision.
Before opening the data room, establish what would make the opportunity worth pursuing. Is the proposition based on new biology, a better product in an established class, or a different route to an underserved market? Each calls for a different emphasis. Novelty alone does not establish a competitive advantage.
Participants work from the proposed product profile and development stage to identify the claims on which the opportunity depends. They consider the competitive landscape, the expertise needed to assess those claims, and the questions an initial screen can answer before committing to full diligence. The aim is a focused investigation with a clear purpose for each specialist’s contribution.
Follow important claims back to study reports, regulatory correspondence and other source documents. Assess whether the models, comparators, endpoints and patient populations support the conclusion being drawn. Look for alternative explanations, missing evidence and results that challenge the proposed mechanism or clinical benefit.
Participants distinguish risks that can reasonably be estimated from uncertainties for which a credible probability is unavailable. They consider whether further analysis would resolve a question or whether a new experiment is needed, and what its result would change. A numerical score is only useful if the evidence supports it.
Choosing the next experiment. In its diligence for a research incubator and seed funder, Alacrita assessed shortlisted proposals and recommended experiments to strengthen the evidence and address identified risks. This illustrates a practical question for training: which piece of work would most improve the next funding decision?
An asset must be assessed as a whole. A promising biological effect may not translate into a meaningful patient benefit. A manufacturing constraint may change the dose, trial design or launch date. A clinically useful product may still struggle to secure reimbursement or distinguish itself from competitors.
Participants examine these connections across clinical, regulatory, manufacturing and commercial assessments. They consider whether the team and development plan can deliver the proposed product, and where specialist findings contradict one another or leave an important question unanswered.
Strong science, a different strategy. In a review of a preclinical kinase inhibitor, Alacrita found high-quality science but a major competitor several years ahead. The recommendations included strengthening management and changing the development strategy to differentiate the asset. The teaching question is how to preserve what is attractive while addressing what makes the current plan unconvincing.
Technical conclusions need to reach the assumptions used to make a financial decision. If a trial must be larger, manufacturing takes longer or the likely indication narrows, the budget and forecast need to reflect that. Participants examine how development costs, timing, pricing, uptake and competition interact.
The training explores how to challenge valuation assumptions and use scenarios or sensitivity analysis to identify what matters most. It also distinguishes the likelihood of failure from the amount at stake: a small early commitment and a large late-stage investment can expose a buyer to very different losses. The depth of financial work is tailored to the group.
A productive review depends on more than a document checklist. Participants consider how to sequence requests, coordinate specialists and prepare management questions that pursue unresolved issues. They practice distinguishing an incomplete answer from a genuine limit in the available knowledge, while maintaining a constructive working relationship.
How a company handles an adverse finding can matter as much as the finding itself. A known issue with a credible response raises different questions from an issue discovered late that management has failed to disclose. Discussion covers candor, consistency and the team’s ability to respond, alongside confidentiality and responsible handling of review materials.
Bring the assessment together around the decision, rather than producing a catalogue of observations. Participants explain which findings change the case for proceeding, what can be addressed through the development plan, and what remains unresolved. They consider further evidence, mitigation, changes to the proposed commitment, or a decision not to proceed; these responses can be combined.
Case discussions ask participants to defend their reasoning, acknowledge disagreement and specify what would change their recommendation. For teams preparing their own programs for diligence, the same discipline helps identify evidence gaps and weak assumptions before approaching a partner or investor. It also creates room to challenge an attractive project when the findings warrant it.
A company describes its cancer therapy as more effective than a competitor’s. Its presentation highlights a 30% response rate against the competitor’s 20%. You are reviewing the claim before an investment decision.
12 of 40 patients responded.
Patients had not received prior treatment. Responses were assessed at six weeks; confirmation at a later visit was not reported.
20 of 100 patients responded.
Patients had received at least two prior treatments. Responses were confirmed at twelve weeks.
Would you accept the claimed advantage? Consider what differs between the studies, what you would request next and what you could tell the investment committee now.
The populations have different treatment histories, and the studies report response at different times with different confirmation requirements. The company’s smaller study also gives a less precise estimate. The higher percentage alone does not establish that its therapy is more effective.
Check eligibility criteria, response definitions, assessment methods and follow-up. Request later results from the company’s study, including whether responses were confirmed and how long they lasted. Clarify differences between the populations before deciding what comparisons the data can support.
Ask how much the proposed investment depends on better efficacy. The asset may have other potential advantages, but each needs its own evidence. Identify the cost and timing of work needed to test the claimed benefit before relying on it in the investment case.
The two reported rates do not justify a conclusion of superior efficacy. The asset may still warrant investment, but that decision needs a case that acknowledges the limitations of the comparison. Recommend the next investigation and explain which result would change your view.
These studies and figures are invented for teaching. They do not describe a client engagement or a real medicine.
We start with the decisions your team makes, the expertise in the room and the kinds of opportunities it evaluates. These determine the emphasis of the program, the choice of examples and the time needed for discussion.
We develop the presentation, examples and selected exercises for your group. A team screening early research proposals will need a different emphasis from colleagues assessing a clinical asset for licensing. You review draft materials before delivery so we can adjust the technical depth and focus.
Remote sessions combine teaching with case discussion and selected exercises. Depending on the agreed scope, participants may challenge a claim, frame a management question, identify the evidence needed next or formulate a recommendation. Discussion makes the reasoning visible: what persuaded one reviewer, what another questioned, and what the group can legitimately conclude.
We can also prepare materials for your colleagues to deliver themselves, whether for refreshers, new starters or a wider internal audience. The engagement specifies the materials, delivery arrangements and reuse rights. We agree the scope, format and fee before development begins.
For support on a live opportunity, Alacrita also provides due diligence consulting, from initial screening to detailed technical and commercial assessment. We scope that work separately from training.
Explore the assessments behind the approach: how Alacrita investigates opportunities, identifies consequential findings and advises on what to do next.
Why a useful assessment requires both specialist expertise and the ability to bring the findings together around a decision.
Orienting the review, testing alternative explanations and sustaining independent judgment when a project is attractive.
Why the significance of a finding depends on its consequences, the available response and management’s candor.
When probabilities help, when they imply false precision, and how to approach questions that require new evidence.
Alacrita’s due diligence training helps biotech, pharmaceutical, investment and research teams evaluate life science assets and companies. Led by consultants from Alacrita’s due diligence practice, it covers assessing evidence, challenging assumptions, connecting technical and commercial findings, and developing recommendations. Each program is tailored to the participants’ experience and delivered remotely through teaching, case discussions and selected exercises.
No. We agree the starting level with you before preparing the materials. A program can introduce colleagues to diligence or concentrate on issues that experienced reviewers want to explore in more depth.
Yes. We select topics and examples around the assets, technologies and development stages your team evaluates. You review the draft materials before delivery.
Yes. Shared case discussions let scientific, clinical, regulatory, CMC and commercial colleagues work through the same problem together. We adjust the technical detail for the group.
We agree the length and number of remote sessions around the scope and the time needed for discussion and exercises. Training can run as one session or a short series.
Yes, where included in the engagement. Alacrita can prepare presentations, examples and exercises for your own people to deliver. We agree internal use and reuse rights in advance.
Yes, by agreement. We agree which materials will be used, who can access them and any restrictions on sharing. Other examples draw on public information or reconstructed scenarios that protect client confidentiality.
Yes. Tell us about your role and what you want to learn. We will discuss whether we can arrange training to suit.
We provide a proposal covering the design work, materials and delivery. The fee depends on the scope, number of sessions and any arrangements for internal reuse.
Tell us who would attend, the opportunities they evaluate and what you want them to learn. We will discuss a program that fits.
Speak with us about our pharma & biotech consulting services.
Alacrita Consulting, Limited
UK, Europe & Asia
2 Royal College St
London, UK
NW1 0NH
Registered in England & Wales.
No. 10530608
Alacrita Consulting, Inc.
US
One Broadway
Floor 14
Cambridge, MA 02142
Registered in Delaware
© 2009 - 2026 Alacrita Holdings Limited
