Pitch deck design — Biotech
A studio service
Biotech pitch deck design where science meets capital.
Biotech decks are read by people with PhDs who will notice when a mechanism-of-action diagram is cosmetic. We design the way a scientific journal designs papers: data is the star, typography carries rigour, visuals support claims.
N° 01What biotech decks get wrong
Four design failures that lose the room.
01
Decorative mechanism diagrams
Look scientific but don't describe anything. Partners with pharmacology training spot this in seconds — and it signals the founder doesn't understand their own mechanism well enough to simplify it.
02
Pipeline tables rendered as fluffy icons
Use precise stage markers: Discovery, Preclinical, IND-enabling, Phase 1/2/3, Approved. Each stage has a specific meaning to a life-sciences investor. Don't blur them.
03
Missing citations
Every claim needs a footnoted source, formatted to journal standards. 'Data on file' is acceptable for confidential results; anything else should cite the publication.
04
Over-confident clinical narratives
Sophisticated investors want honest probability-of-success framing. Acknowledging risk increases credibility. Over-claiming is a tell.
N° 02Who this is for
Every modality. Every stage.
01
Platform biotech
Multiple programmes, one underlying technology. Pipeline tables and technology-overview slides carry extra weight.
02
Single-asset therapeutics
One programme, one clinical narrative. Mechanism and indication clarity matter more than breadth.
03
Diagnostics and digital health with biological moats
Clinical validation data and regulatory pathway need the same rigour as therapeutics.
04
Gene and cell therapy
Manufacturing scalability and safety data are investor-specific concerns. We design for the questions they'll ask before they ask them.
Sample slides
Six slide archetypes, in house style.
Generated in our editorial discipline — framed to your vertical. Every deck we ship is original and bespoke.
Investment
Fixed price. No surprises.
Biotech pitch deck — from $4,800.
- 12–16 finished slides
- Mechanism-of-action diagram
- Pipeline table design
- Citation-formatted data
- Editable source files
- One revision round
Questions
The answers we give most often.
- How should I present preclinical data honestly?
- State the model, sample size, and confidence interval. Do not extrapolate to humans without explicitly framing as a hypothesis. Sophisticated investors will penalise over-claim more than they'll reward ambition.
- What's the best way to design a pipeline table?
- Use stage-specific markers (Discovery, Preclinical, IND-enabling, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Approved). Each programme on its own row with indication and modality columns.
- How do I handle clinical risk in the narrative?
- Name the risk explicitly. Risk acknowledgement increases credibility with life-sciences investors.
- How should the IP slide be designed?
- Coverage (geographies), expiry timeline, and stage (granted vs pending). A Gantt-style IP timeline is the cleanest format.
- How do I visualise a scientific advisory board?
- Headshots, name, institution, one-line credential. For lead investigators, add a one-line involvement description.
- Tech transfer vs founded-in-lab: does it change the deck?
- Tech-transfer decks typically carry more IP documentation and university-licensing context. Founded-in-lab decks lean harder on founders' research background. We design for both.
Next step
Ready to build the biotech deck?
Send us your pipeline data and we'll structure a deck that holds up to partner-level diligence.