BOSTON – "Chris Viehbacher, tear down this wall!" That was the Reagan-like plea from a venture capitalist to Sanofi SA's CEO in a keynote panel at BIO 2012, which featured industry heavyweights who predicted what will happen in the next decade for the biopharma sector and provided solutions for what's needed to keep the drug development engine fueled.

Brian Atwood, managing director at Versant Ventures, fired that shot to Viehbacher as a way to suggest that the industry will survive only if there's more fluid partnering between companies. He said lawyers representing big pharmas are the single biggest source of friction in getting deals done. "We've got to bilaterally disarm. Every deal I'm involved in . . . means six to 18 months of lawyer hell."

But Rachel K. King, CEO of GlycoMimetics Inc., reminded them that it goes beyond deal negotiations. You have to live with the people on the other side of the partnership, and she implied a potential loss of empowerment to push innovation more quickly. "Many of us are in small companies because we like being able to make decisions," she said.

The dire need for more partnering is but one solution to combat the threat – and opportunity – that's coming with emerging markets. The panelists also said biopharmas' business structures should model those in the medical device sector, and companies should be more sharply focused on reimbursement and global commercialization plans.

Tom Watkins, president and CEO of Human Genome Sciences Inc., explained that the FIPCO (fully integrated pharmaceutical/biopharmaceutical company) model won't work anymore. So, along with more partnerships, "we're going to look a lot more virtual 10 years from now. And we've got to figure out how to work with the entire globe to get products on the market at the same time to earn a return across the globe. Our pricing model is the biggest thing that needs to change."

Atwood suggested another way to adapt is to create business structures that are similar to the medical device industry. "In that industry, there isn't basic research in large companies. That's a comfortable ecosystem that we'll evolve toward."

He said the venture industry is trying to figure out how to fund ideas for what's going to be on the market 10 years from now. The biggest challenge isn't the FDA or financial markets, but that "governments around the world say we can't afford your innovations." Investors are asking about reimbursement, "and we don't have any good answers."

King agreed. "There's no place to hide from reimbursement challenges. We're going to have to deliver pharmacoeconomic benefit."

Watkins said the biggest challenge at HGS is meeting investor expectations and continuing to build products. "I thought when we got to commercialization it would be the promised land," but it's not.

King brought the discussion back to the ultimate reason why everyone's in the drug development business: "If there's something out there that can help your mother, but your mother can't get it, you don't care. So we need to be critically concerned about access."

Viehbacher agreed and said there's more money spent on developing the next iPad app than helping people with access to needed therapies. "We need to do a better job of telling people about the promise of science . . . the fundamental value proposition."

He said the U.S. could take a lesson from countries like China. "I'm encouraged by what I see in emerging markets. They are pushing health care systems as a way to demonstrate to populations with accumulating wealth that everyone is going to benefit from innovation. If we only look at unmet need in the U.S. or Europe, we'll miss opportunities."