Biopharma Sentiment Index | Q3 2026 survey results

The lat­est BP­SI shows dra­mat­ic im­prove­ments in bio­phar­ma con­di­tions and a lev­el of op­ti­mism not seen in years.

It’s of­fi­cial: Bio­phar­ma is fi­nal­ly in a good mood.

For the first time since the four-year down­turn that fol­lowed the pan­dem­ic, in­dus­try sen­ti­ment has moved in­to pos­i­tive ter­ri­to­ry. The End­points News Bio­phar­ma Sen­ti­ment In­dex head­line score surged to 105 in Q3, up from 96 the pri­or quar­ter. Any­thing above 100 is con­sid­ered up­beat.

The last year has been a wild ride. The BP­SI, which start­ed in dis­mal ter­ri­to­ry a year ago, climbed swift­ly and steadi­ly, clock­ing a near­ly 29 point in­crease. In Q3, sen­ti­ment rose across each of the 10 mea­sures in our sur­vey. The mood has changed so much that a few re­spon­dents even spoke of ear­ly signs of spec­u­la­tive bub­bles — in deal­mak­ing ac­tiv­i­ty and AI in­vest­ments specif­i­cal­ly. This in­dus­try hasn’t felt the least bit car­bon­at­ed in a very long time.

The Bio­phar­ma Sen­ti­ment In­dex is a glob­al bench­mark pro­duced by End­points Sig­nal. Every quar­ter we put the same 10 core ques­tions to peo­ple across bio­phar­ma, cov­er­ing five key ar­eas: busi­ness con­di­tions, com­pa­ny fi­nances, the fund­ing cli­mate, reg­u­la­tion and hir­ing. The re­sult is an easy-to-grasp head­line num­ber, with subindex­es track­ing Cur­rent Con­di­tions and Fu­ture Ex­pec­ta­tions. A sep­a­rate ro­tat­ing set of ques­tions takes on is­sues of the mo­ment. This quar­ter: job se­cu­ri­ty, deal­mak­ing and AI bud­gets.

The BP­SI draws from the ex­pert sub­scriber base at End­points News. This edi­tion cap­tures the views of 569 ver­i­fied in­dus­try in­sid­ers, more than a quar­ter of whom are C-suite ex­ec­u­tives. The sur­vey was in the field Aug. 13 to Sept. 15.

Steep im­prove­ment in busi­ness con­di­tions

The BP­SI is built from two com­bined subindex­es: Cur­rent Con­di­tions mea­sures how re­spon­dents rate con­di­tions to­day com­pared with a year ago, while Fu­ture Ex­pec­ta­tions ex­plores what they ex­pect a year from now (see method­ol­o­gy for how they’re cal­cu­lat­ed). The split is im­por­tant, be­cause “how things feel right now” and “how peo­ple think things will feel next year” don’t move in lock­step — and the gap is of­ten where pre­dic­tive val­ue lives.

In Q3, Cur­rent Con­di­tions jumped to 103 from 87 last quar­ter. Ex­pec­ta­tions for the year ahead in­creased to 106 from 102. The in­dus­try, on av­er­age, ex­pects more good things to come.

The fac­tor that in­creased most was cur­rent busi­ness con­di­tions, which record­ed the high­est sen­ti­ment score we’ve seen so far: 147 — a fig­ure so high we had to go back and check the num­bers.

The pol­i­cy en­vi­ron­ment was the on­ly cat­e­go­ry that re­mained neg­a­tive — and still deeply so. As one re­spon­dent put it: “With more sta­bil­i­ty and sci­ence-first pol­i­cy-mak­ing, the sec­tor would be on fire right now.”

The present catch­es up

The biggest sur­prise is where the im­prove­ment came from: the present. Cur­rent con­di­tions jumped 16 points over­all in Q3, four times the rise in ex­pec­ta­tions. For the BP­SI’s first three read­ings, re­spon­dents kept telling us things were bad now but were go­ing to get bet­ter. A year ago, ex­pec­ta­tions ran rough­ly 35 points ahead of cur­rent con­di­tions. Now the gap is less than 3 points. The brighter fu­ture re­spon­dents had been pre­dict­ing has, by their own ac­count, most­ly ar­rived.

That makes the next few quar­ters a dif­fer­ent kind of test: Can bio­phar­ma’s gains con­tin­ue, or will high in­ter­est rates and an im­prov­ing-but-still un­sta­ble reg­u­la­to­ry en­vi­ron­ment put an end to the par­ty?

Re­spon­dents had plen­ty to feel good about when the sur­vey opened in mid-Au­gust. Biotech stocks were soar­ing, ac­quir­ers were pay­ing up and the IPO win­dow had been thrown open. The pace of deal­mak­ing was the most-cit­ed source of op­ti­mism.

The reg­u­la­to­ry en­vi­ron­ment is the on­ly cat­e­go­ry in which neg­a­tive an­swers out­num­ber pos­i­tive ones, both for to­day and the year ahead. But even that con­tin­ued to show im­prove­ment. The Q3 reg­u­la­to­ry sen­ti­ment has more than tripled from the score of 23 we record­ed in our first sur­vey.

This was the first BP­SI field­ed since Mar­ty Makary re­signed as FDA com­mis­sion­er in May. “There is still more un­cer­tain­ty re­gard­ing the FDA than there should be,” one biotech ex­ec­u­tive wrote, “but with in­ter­im lead­er­ship, the ship has been stead­ied.”

Fault lines

A ris­ing in­dex can some­times hide stark dif­fer­ences of opin­ion. Re­spon­dents in in­vest­ing roles (126) and at fi­nan­cial firms (127) are the most up­beat in the sur­vey, and C-suite ex­ec­u­tives aren’t far be­hind at 117. At the oth­er end sit sci­en­tists (87) and big phar­ma em­ploy­ees (80), the gloomi­est groups we track.

Some of the biggest gaps in bio­phar­ma sen­ti­ment stretched even wider in re­cent months. Groups that were al­ready bull­ish be­came more so, while some of the most pes­simistic soured fur­ther: See in­vestors vs sci­en­tists, biotech vs big phar­ma, and Asia vs Eu­rope.

Bio­phar­ma job se­cu­ri­ty

These fault lines spilled in­to the sense of job se­cu­ri­ty. This quar­ter we asked re­spon­dents a blunt ques­tion: If you lost your job to­mor­row, how con­fi­dent are you that you’d find some­thing equiv­a­lent with­in six months? Over­all, 58% said they were con­fi­dent, while 38% were not. For sci­en­tists and peo­ple at big phar­ma com­pa­nies, opin­ions were flipped; few­er than half of re­spon­dents thought they could land on their feet.

Lay­offs have been eas­ing across the in­dus­try, but the mar­ket is hard­ly healed. “The job mar­ket re­mains dif­fi­cult,” one biotech vice pres­i­dent wrote, “and I know sev­er­al col­leagues who were laid off last year and are still look­ing for work.”

Di­ver­gence in hir­ing

Biotech and big phar­ma are hav­ing very dif­fer­ent years. The 29-point gap in sen­ti­ment is the widest it’s been since the sur­vey be­gan.

Big phar­ma gave low­er marks than their biotech peers on all 10 ques­tions, and the dis­tance was great­est on jobs. That tracks. In this year’s re­cov­ery, it’s the biotechs that are be­ing ac­quired, li­censed and tak­en pub­lic. Large drug­mak­ers are the ones writ­ing checks, cut­ting costs and rac­ing to re­fill pipelines be­fore patents ex­pire.

Just over half of biotech re­spon­dents (52%) ex­pect their com­pa­nies to add staff over the next 12 months, and on­ly 15% ex­pect cuts. Big phar­ma is al­most the mir­ror im­age: 44% ex­pect their em­ploy­ers to shrink and 14% ex­pect them to grow.

Both splits are sim­i­lar to what we found in the spring, but the gap is even wider now.

Deals, deals, deals

If one thing ex­plains bio­phar­ma’s good mood, it’s the pace of deal­mak­ing. For the third sur­vey in a row, re­spon­dents named it their top rea­son for op­ti­mism, and that lead keeps grow­ing: 38% picked it in Q3, more than dou­ble the share a year ago.

There have been plen­ty of high-pro­file deals to keep the cham­pagne flow­ing — at least four ac­qui­si­tions of $10 bil­lion or more just since June.

More deals to come

A 57% ma­jor­i­ty ex­pects more deals a year from now, and just 7% ex­pect few­er. Our deal­mak­ing-op­ti­mism in­dex has held steady for two straight quar­ters.

The mes­sage from re­spon­dents is clear: The deals boom con­tin­ues.

XBI and the BP­SI

The stock mar­ket has tracked the BP­SI all along the way. The XBI, the bench­mark ex­change-trad­ed fund for biotech, gained 54% in the year through Oct. 2. Stocks ripped along at a fu­ri­ous pace in the sec­ond quar­ter. The XBI hit a five-year high in Ju­ly and peaked on Aug. 19, jump­ing 6% as Mod­er­na’s shares near­ly tripled on late-stage re­sults for the mR­NA can­cer vac­cine it’s de­vel­op­ing with Mer­ck.

The ral­ly has cooled a bit since. On Sept. 16, a day af­ter our sur­vey closed, the Fed­er­al Re­serve raised in­ter­est rates for the first time in three years. By Oct. 2, the XBI was 9% off its Au­gust high. It’s pos­si­ble the Q3 read­ing will prove to be a high-wa­ter mark.

Even at the biotech peak, in­sid­ers weren’t nec­es­sar­i­ly bet­ting on it with their own mon­ey. We asked re­spon­dents where they’d put $20,000 of their own cash in or­der to max­i­mize re­turns over the next year, a ques­tion we’ve posed once be­fore. Just 15% chose biotech, the same share we saw go­ing in­to Q1 be­fore the XBI run-up. Among sci­en­tists, just 6% would.

An S&P 500 fund re­mains the fa­vorite in­vest­ment at 42%, fol­lowed by a tech fund at 25%.

Ar­ti­fi­cial in­tel­li­gence

Faith in AI keeps inch­ing up. In Q3, 76% of re­spon­dents said they ex­pect AI to in­crease drug-dis­cov­ery pro­duc­tiv­i­ty over the next 12 months, up from 74% in Q1 and 69% a year ago. The be­liev­ers are a mea­sured bunch: Two-thirds ex­pect a mod­er­ate lift, and on­ly 9% ex­pect a great one.

Fol­low­ing that trend, AI deals are start­ing to stack up. Genen­tech signed a pact that could top $1.5 bil­lion with AI an­ti­body de­sign­er Earendil Labs in Sep­tem­ber. Chai Dis­cov­ery, which raised $400 mil­lion in Ju­ly, land­ed GSK in Oc­to­ber as its sixth phar­ma part­ner in nine months. And Iambic Ther­a­peu­tics, an AI-dri­ven can­cer drug de­vel­op­er backed by Nvidia, brought in $150 mil­lion in an IPO.

AI cost dis­ci­pline

But how com­pa­nies are spend­ing on AI in­ter­nal­ly is an­oth­er mat­ter. This quar­ter, we asked where com­pa­nies are ap­ply­ing the most cost dis­ci­pline to AI. A third of com­pa­nies said AI spend­ing is pro­tect­ed or grow­ing, while a quar­ter said their com­pa­nies weren’t spend­ing mean­ing­ful­ly on AI to be­gin with. That leaves about 43% who said their com­pa­nies were putting lim­its on AI spend­ing, ei­ther for every­day tools for staff (28%), R&D (5%) or both (10%).

Some of the shine on AI has fad­ed even as the mon­ey pours in. A year ago, 18% of re­spon­dents called AI their top rea­son for op­ti­mism, a close sec­ond on the list. Now on­ly 11% say it’s their lead­ing fac­tor, slip­ping down to fourth place.

Sev­er­al re­spon­dents de­scribed AI as a new tech com­peti­tor for the same old biotech in­vestor dol­lars. Iso­mor­phic Labs, Al­pha­bet’s drug dis­cov­ery arm, raised $2.1 bil­lion in May with­out hav­ing dis­closed a sin­gle drug can­di­date.

Op­ti­mists vs pes­simists

If deal­mak­ing is lead­ing the bio­phar­ma in­dus­try in­to a new­found pe­ri­od of op­ti­mism, pol­i­tics re­mains the one thing hold­ing it back. When we asked re­spon­dents about their top rea­sons for con­cern, pol­i­tics was far and away at the front of the list. But in re­cent months, Chi­na has moved in­to #2 and tak­en some share from po­lit­i­cal con­cerns.

Some of the fear around US po­lit­i­cal up­heaval has been test­ed and found sur­viv­able. Sev­er­al re­spon­dents said the FDA has stead­ied un­der its new in­ter­im lead­er­ship, and trade groups say a new user-fee agree­ment sets aside mon­ey to re­hire drug re­view­ers lost to lay­offs.

On pric­ing, events large­ly fol­lowed the fore­casts that BP­SI re­spon­dents shared in Q2, when 53% pre­dict­ed the ad­min­is­tra­tion's most-fa­vored-na­tion push would be wa­tered down. Twen­ty-six drug­mak­ers have now signed vol­un­tary pric­ing deals with the White House, and the manda­to­ry Medicare pi­lot that CMS fi­nal­ized on Sept. 30 ex­empts those com­pa­nies. Pro­ject­ed Medicare sav­ings shrank 96%, to $440 mil­lion from $11.9 bil­lion.

The threats haven't com­plete­ly van­ished: Tar­iffs of up to 100% on im­port­ed brand-name drugs took ef­fect in Sep­tem­ber, leav­ing some com­pa­nies ex­posed, and Hei­di Over­ton, the nom­i­nee to lead the FDA, won't get a Sen­ate vote un­til at least af­ter the Nov. 3 midterms.

The wor­ry that grew is Chi­na. The share of re­spon­dents who named "in­no­va­tion in Chi­na" as their biggest con­cern dou­bled to 14%, vault­ing it from sixth place to sec­ond.

Every­one, it seems, wants to cut deals with Chi­na. In May, Bris­tol My­ers Squibb com­mit­ted up to $15.2 bil­lion for more than a dozen ear­ly-stage drugs from Hen­grui, and Pfiz­er signed a 12-drug can­cer pact with In­novent worth up to $10.5 bil­lion.

The pace has­n't let up. In the weeks af­ter our sur­vey closed, Eli Lil­ly signed a dis­cov­ery pact with Bei­jing's In­no­Care, Mer­ck agreed to pay $400 mil­lion up­front for a pre­clin­i­cal can­cer drug from Sci­Brunch, No­vo Nordisk li­censed a weight-loss pill from Hen­grui and No­var­tis threw down $575 mil­lion for an mR­NA-based ther­a­py from Abo­gen. Roche has done at least four Chi­na deals since Au­gust.

Chi­na ris­es as a threat

For big drug­mak­ers with pipeline gaps to fill, Chi­na is a key so­lu­tion. But for West­ern star­tups pitch­ing to the same in­vestors, Chi­na is the com­pe­ti­tion. That's why Chi­na lands on both sides of the sur­vey: 11% of re­spon­dents still call it their top rea­son for op­ti­mism, the third-most-cit­ed.

Wash­ing­ton has tak­en no­tice. The surge in cross-bor­der deals is draw­ing scruti­ny from law­mak­ers who want to slow it, and a bi­par­ti­san bill now in the Sen­ate would have the Trea­sury De­part­ment screen biotech deals with Chi­na.

What comes next

One year in, the Bio­phar­ma Sen­ti­ment In­dex has trav­eled from 76 to 105. Every mea­sure of the present has turned pos­i­tive ex­cept reg­u­la­tion. The de­bate among re­spon­dents has moved from whether the re­cov­ery is re­al to how much more juice is left. The next read­ing will show whether we're in a new era of pos­i­tiv­i­ty for the in­dus­try, or if Q3 was just a tran­sient mo­ment in the sun.

Method­ol­o­gy

The Bio­phar­ma Sen­ti­ment In­dex (BP­SI) pro­vides a dis­ci­plined, for­ward-look­ing mea­sure of con­fi­dence across the glob­al bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try. The struc­ture draws in­spi­ra­tion from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan’s Con­sumer Sen­ti­ment In­dex, adapt­ing that frame­work to the unique dy­nam­ics of life sci­ences.

The sur­vey uni­verse is drawn from the End­points sub­scriber base, which com­pris­es a wide cross-sec­tion of the glob­al bio­phar­ma com­mu­ni­ty. The sam­ple in­cludes in­vestors across ven­ture, pri­vate eq­ui­ty and pub­lic mar­kets; C-suite and se­nior ex­ec­u­tives; clin­i­cal and R&D staff; com­mer­cial em­ploy­ees; and pol­i­cy and reg­u­la­to­ry pro­fes­sion­als. Com­pa­ny types span biotech, phar­ma, CROs, CD­MOs, gener­ics man­u­fac­tur­ers and fi­nan­cial in­sti­tu­tions. Ac­cess re­quires an End­points ac­count to en­sure that all re­spons­es are tied to ver­i­fied in­dus­try par­tic­i­pants.

Re­spons­es are an­a­lyzed by role, com­pa­ny type and ge­og­ra­phy to iden­ti­fy sig­nif­i­cant cat­e­gor­i­cal vari­a­tions. The Q3 2026 sur­vey was in the field Aug. 13 to Sept. 15, with 569 sur­vey com­ple­tions.

The sur­vey is con­duct­ed on­line at the end of a cal­en­dar quar­ter. Re­spon­dents are asked, via emailed in­vi­ta­tion, to com­plete a short sur­vey that bal­ances rig­or with ease of com­ple­tion. The me­di­an time to com­plete it is just over three min­utes.

Sur­vey de­sign

The BP­SI sur­vey con­sists of five paired ques­tions that form the back­bone of the in­dex. Each ques­tion is posed in two forms: one fo­cused on cur­rent con­di­tions and an­oth­er framed as ex­pec­ta­tions for the year ahead. Re­spons­es em­ploy stan­dard­ized three-point scales — such as “Bet­ter / Same / Worse” — with slight vari­a­tions to align with the word­ing of the ques­tion. A vari­a­tion of “Don’t know” or “Not ap­plic­a­ble” is al­ways avail­able, and those re­spons­es were ex­clud­ed from scor­ing.

Cre­at­ing the base­line

The Bio­phar­ma Sen­ti­ment In­dex (BP­SI) us­es a small set of core sen­ti­ment ques­tions split be­tween cur­rent con­di­tions and fu­ture ex­pec­ta­tions, and an in­dex val­ue con­struct­ed from dif­fu­sion-style scor­ing. The fo­cus of ques­tions, word­ing and scal­ing sys­tem is unique to bio­phar­ma and was de­vel­oped by End­points Sig­nal.

Dif­fu­sion scales like the BP­SI are ex­cel­lent at cap­tur­ing breadth of sen­ti­ment, but they come with a well-es­tab­lished pos­i­tiv­i­ty bias, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the con­text of busi­ness sen­ti­ment sur­veys. The share say­ing “bet­ter” tends to ex­ceed those say­ing “worse” — even in neu­tral years. To cor­rect for sys­tem­at­ic bias, we nor­mal­ize the BP­SI to “100 = neu­tral” foot­ing. Read­ings sig­nif­i­cant­ly above or be­low the 100 base­line should in­di­cate net op­ti­mistic or pes­simistic con­di­tions.

To de­ter­mine our re­bas­ing fac­tor, we an­a­lyzed the long‑run ex­pe­ri­ence of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan’s con­sumer sen­ti­ment se­ries. Michi­gan us­es its own ver­sion of weight­ing — by in­dex­ing a score of 100 to a sin­gle base year: 1966. This for­mu­la for re­bas­ing has been found to sig­nif­i­cant­ly over­com­pen­sate for pos­i­tiv­i­ty bias, re­sult­ing in an av­er­age con­sumer sen­ti­ment score of rough­ly 84.5 in­stead of 100.

Us­ing Michi­gan’s decades of pub­licly avail­able da­ta, we can cal­cu­late a re­bas­ing fac­tor that should put us much clos­er to our in­tend­ed 100 = neu­tral base­line. From the his­toric records, we cal­cu­late that the av­er­age un­weight­ed per-ques­tion dif­fu­sion score in Michi­gan’s in­dex is 111. From there, we ar­rive at a sim­ple neu­tral­iz­ing mul­ti­pli­er of 0.9 (𝑘 = 100/111 = 0.9), which should more ac­cu­rate­ly re­sult in “100 = neu­tral” scal­ing.

This re­bas­ing method is sim­ple, keeps the in­dex re­sults clos­er to the raw da­ta, and is sup­port­ed by an ex­ten­sive record of da­ta.

In­dex con­struc­tion

The five cur­rent-con­di­tion ques­tions are used to cre­ate the Cur­rent Con­di­tions subindex (BP­SI-CC), while the five for­ward-look­ing items are av­er­aged to form the Ex­pec­ta­tions subindex (BP­SI-EX).

For each of the five ques­tions in a subindex, a Rel­a­tive Score (RS) val­ue is de­ter­mined by sub­tract­ing the per­cent­age of neg­a­tive re­spons­es from the per­cent­age of pos­i­tive re­spons­es. Each subindex is an av­er­age of these five Rel­a­tive Score val­ues, re­based to 100 and scaled us­ing the neu­tral­iz­ing mul­ti­pli­er. These subindex­es are com­bined in­to the head­line BP­SI with a weight­ing of 40% cur­rent con­di­tions, 60% fu­ture ex­pec­ta­tions.

BP­SI-CC = ((av­er­age RS_CC) + 100) * 0.90
BP­SI-EX = ((av­er­age RS_EX) + 100) * 0.90
BP­SI = (0.4 * BP­SI-CC) + (0.6 * BP­SI-EX)

Since the re­bas­ing is on­ly done for the fi­nal in­dex­es (CC, EX, BP­SI), those fig­ures will ap­pear low­er than Rel­a­tive Score re­sults viewed in iso­la­tion. The heav­ier weight­ing on ex­pec­ta­tions mir­rors the method­ol­o­gy used in the Michi­gan con­sumer con­fi­dence frame­work and re­flects the greater im­por­tance of for­ward-look­ing sen­ti­ment for fore­cast­ing pur­pos­es.

The first is­suance of the sur­vey es­tab­lished a base pe­ri­od. Sub­se­quent waves are re­port­ed both as ab­solute scores on the “100 = neu­tral” scale and as quar­ter-over-quar­ter and year-over-year com­par­isons. The “100 = neu­tral” guide­line is nei­ther pre­cise nor ex­pect­ed to be con­sis­tent over time. It pro­vides a key ref­er­ence in the ear­ly quar­ters of the BP­SI, but it’s like­ly that quar­ter-over-quar­ter com­par­isons will ul­ti­mate­ly take prece­dence, just as they have with the Michi­gan in­dex.

To keep the BP­SI re­spon­sive to cur­rent is­sues, each quar­ter­ly wave in­cludes a small set of “pulse” ques­tions. These ro­tate quar­ter­ly and cov­er top­i­cal is­sues such as the out­look for M&A and the an­tic­i­pat­ed pro­duc­tiv­i­ty im­pact of AI. The pulse ques­tions pro­vide con­text for the BP­SI re­port but are not fac­tored in­to the head­line sen­ti­ment scores.

Sev­er­al open-text prompts are in­clud­ed. These qual­i­ta­tive re­spons­es pro­vide nu­ance and col­or to the quar­ter­ly re­ports.

Da­ta qual­i­ty and checks

Sev­er­al safe­guards are in place to en­sure the qual­i­ty of re­spons­es. For ex­am­ple, re­sults are screened for du­pli­cate sub­mis­sions by lo­gin-de­fined URL and flagged for un­usu­al­ly fast com­ple­tions paired with straight-line an­swers. Ad­di­tion­al safe­guards may be tak­en as nec­es­sary.

With each re­lease, the re­port dis­clos­es sam­ple size and any method­olog­i­cal changes so that users can in­ter­pret the in­dex trans­par­ent­ly. A full method­ol­o­gy is up­dat­ed with each quar­ter­ly re­port. This ap­pen­dix in­cludes the core-ques­tion word­ing, de­mo­graph­ics, re­sponse dis­tri­b­u­tions and in­dex­ing for­mu­las. The con­sis­tent ap­pli­ca­tion of these meth­ods will en­sure a re­li­able mea­sure of in­dus­try sen­ti­ment.

Method­ol­o­gy up­dates

Q4 2025 is re­stat­ed to BP­SI 76 (CC 55, EX 91) from the pub­lished BP­SI 78 (CC 55, EX 91). A Q2 method­ol­o­gy change (drop­ping "don't know" from the de­nom­i­na­tor) re­sult­ed in a re­vi­sion to our in­au­gur­al read­ing; Q1 and Q2 read­ings are un­changed.

Cit­ing the BP­SI

The BP­SI was cre­at­ed to be a tool for any­one with an in­ter­est in bio­phar­ma. End­points wel­comes you to use our da­ta and charts, with cred­it giv­en to End­points Sig­nal, the in­tel­li­gence plat­form of End­points News. When pos­si­ble, please in­clude ei­ther a link to this re­port or the full URL so oth­ers may dis­cov­er it, too: https://end­points.news/bio­phar­ma-sen­ti­ment-in­dex-q3-2026/

If you have any feed­back about the BP­SI or ideas for fu­ture pulse ques­tions, drop us a line at sig­nal@end­points.news. We love hear­ing from you.