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 - and every claim is checked against the public record before a partner checks it for you.
Investment
Three ways to raise.
Fixed price, fixed scope. Pick the tier that matches your raise — from a single deal deck to a full capital-raise kit.
Essential
A focused deck for a single asset or a partnering round - you bring the data, we design it.
5-7 business days
- 12-15 designed slides
- Pipeline table and mechanism diagram
- Data figures redrawn to publication standard
- Every claim footnoted to your source
- 1 revision round
- Editable PowerPoint source files
Standard
The full raise or partnering push: we shape the narrative, build the figures and cut the short version.
Priority - 4-5 business days
- 18-25 designed slides
- We build the narrative from your inputs
- Full figure set - efficacy, safety, IP timeline
- Non-confidential partnering version
- 2 revision rounds
- Editable PowerPoint + source files
Complete
Everything a conference season needs - deck, appendix, one-pager and the data-room set.
Rush available
- 30-50 slides - deck plus appendix
- Company presentation and partnering versions
- Non-confidential one-pager for the leave-behind
- Data-room slide set
- 3 revision rounds, white-glove
- 60-minute strategy call + all source files
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.
N° 03Two different documents
Raising, or out-licensing?
01
Raising
An investor is buying the company: platform, pipeline, team and the ask, with an appendix and a condensed version for the room. That is the deck this page prices.
02
Out-licensing and partnering
A pharma business-development team is buying one asset, and reading it against a trial registry. Different reader, different document, different risk. It needs asset pages built for a buyer's intake form, evidence pages that can carry embargoed congress data, and copy for the partnering-platform profile.
03
Why it matters before you enquire
A partnering package scoped as a fundraising deck is wrong from the first email. If you are going to a partnering conference rather than a round, say so and we will quote the right thing.
04
Both, from one source
Most clinical-stage companies need both inside a year. Built together they share a design system, so the second costs less than the first.
N° 04Before it reaches a partner
We check the claims against the public record.
01
Stage and design, against the registry
Phase, randomisation, comparator, endpoints and enrolment status, read against the trial registries and against your own published pipeline page. Where they disagree we raise it for your ruling. We never change a clinical claim quietly.
02
Congress data under embargo
Data presented days before a meeting cannot appear before the session. We build the pages ready and empty and fill them the hour the abstract is public, rather than designing under time pressure on the day.
03
Third-party rights
Congress slide templates, society logos and abstract text are usually not yours to re-use, and most decks carry some of all three. We identify them and ask before anything is reproduced.
04
Comparative and superiority wording
A comparison against a named, approved product with no head-to-head study is the line a buyer's counsel raises first. We list every instance for your team. We flag; your regulatory and legal people rule.
Sample slides
Sample slides, in house style.
Generated in our editorial discipline — framed to your vertical. Every deck we ship is original and bespoke.
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.
- Is a partnering deck the same as an investor deck?
- No. An investor is buying the company; a pharma business-development team is buying one asset and reading it against a trial registry. The partnering version needs asset pages built for a buyer's intake form, evidence pages that can carry embargoed congress data, and copy for the partnering-platform profile. Pricing it as a fundraising deck scopes it wrong from the start.
- Do you check our claims against the registries?
- Yes, as the pages are built. Stage, randomisation, comparator and enrolment status, against the trial registries and your own published pages. Anything that disagrees is raised for your ruling rather than quietly rewritten. Authoring a clinical claim is your team's job, not ours.
- Our new data is presented days before the conference. Can that work?
- It is the normal case, and it is a scheduling problem rather than a design one. We build the evidence pages ready and empty before the congress and fill them once the abstract is public, so the last step is a fill rather than a redesign under time pressure.
- Can you re-plot our clinical data?
- No, and that is deliberate. We integrate figures as you supply them, restyled to one axis and colour system or placed and captioned. Redrawing a survival curve, from a dataset or from a picture of one, is authoring a clinical claim and it belongs with your team.
Next step
Ready to build the biotech deck?
Send us the deck you have and the date you have to hit. You get what we found in it - the duplicated pages, the claims that do not match the registry, the figures that are not yours to re-use - before we talk about a figure.