What SynbiTECH 2025 taught us about what is coming in 2026

23rd January 2026

Synthetic biology has promised to be at the forefront of revolutionary advancements across a wide range of industries, including medicine, food, agriculture and energy for the last decade. However, the perception that scientific progress is the limiting factor preventing widespread biotech innovation has shifted.

External forces, including policy, capital, regulation, manufacturing and global coordination are shaping the success of scientific solutions more than the biology itself. These dynamics were at the centre of discussions over two days at SynbiTECH 2025, where more than 300 scientists, founders, policymakers, investors and regulators gathered last December to examine the current state and future direction of the field.

The event opened with a reminder of how quickly the field has evolved. In the welcome address, Professor Richard Kitney traced the history of synthetic biology from the discovery of the DNA double helix through to the sequencing of the human genome in 2001, marking the start of the synthetic biology industry that we know today. Two decades on, SynbiTECH made clear that the question is no longer whether synthetic biology will work, but whether the systems around it are mature enough to enable it to scale responsibly and at speed.

Theme 1: Synthetic Biology as a National Strategy

One of the main themes from the event was that synthetic biology can no longer be framed as a niche scientific domain, but rather as a strategic national asset. This field is increasingly considered to be a part of national infrastructure, and will be tied to economic resilience, security, energy, food systems and global competitiveness.

From a US perspective, Mary Maxon opened the event with an outline of how biomanufacturing has been listed as one of six critical technologies for the United States, indicating a shift in viewing this field as strategically essential. Over 50 other countries now have national bioeconomy strategies, demonstrating the global race to build. However, ambition by itself is not enough.

For 2026 and beyond, Mary identified one of the key challenges to be policy volatility and differing priorities amongst administrations.

In particular, the Genesis Mission was highlighted as an initiative launched by the federal government to accelerate scientific research through AI technology, however, this remains largely unfunded. The gap between vision and execution can create uncertainty for companies operating on biological timescales that are measured in decades as opposed to election cycles.

That mismatch between political and biological timelines resurfaced later when Lionel C., Director of BionerG Ltd. Ltd. reflected on biofuels policies from around the world. His point was simple but powerful: problems like climate change, energy security and sustainable fuels cannot be solved on five-year policy cycles. They require 20–30-year horizons and consistent mandates that survive changes in government. Without that long-term view, progress becomes fragmented and companies are left navigating uncertainty rather than building infrastructure.

What emerged from these sessions on policy was a shared recognition that if synthetic biology is to function as national infrastructure, it must be supported like one, with durable policy, long-term investment and a tolerance for timelines that do not map neatly onto government lifespans.

Theme 2: Regulation As an Enabler, Not Just a Constraint.

The impact of regulations was explored across health, food, industrial, and environmental applications, leading to one of the most nuanced discussions at SynbiTECH 2025. Rather than being treated simply as a constraint, regulation was framed as a tool that can either enable progress or unintentionally stop it altogether, depending on how and when it is applied.

In medical biotechnology, Susan Rosser described a landscape that is strict but predictable. Regulatory pathways through bodies like the FDA and MHRA are well-established, and while changes to approved cell lines or processes can be slow and costly, the rules are clear. That clarity forces difficult decisions early in development in terms of materials, processes and design choices, however it also provides confidence once those decisions are made.

The contrast with food and industrial biotech was stark. Cai Linton, CEO of Multus spoke candidly about the uncertainty facing companies developing novel food products, where regulatory timelines and requirements are often unclear or inconsistent. In some cases, products that work well at scale never reach the market at all. The challenge is compounded when companies try to expand internationally, only to find that requirements differ significantly between countries.

Several speakers raised concerns that overly cautious regulation in small domestic markets can make commercial scale-up impossible. Singapore was repeatedly cited as an alternative model, not due to a lack of safety concerns, but because regulators engage early and collaboratively with companies. That early engagement allows risks to be addressed while development is still flexible, rather than after significant capital has already been invested.

Lord David Willetts pointed to a deeper structural issue, highlighting that many regulatory definitions no longer reflect how synthetic biology is actually used. For example, distinctions like containment versus deliberate release were developed for a different era of biotechnology. Furthermore, as applications diversify, outdated categories risk creating confusion rather than clarity. Dr Adrian Butt, Head of Regulations at Colorifix , reinforced this from an international perspective, by describing his experience in Southeast Asia, where inconsistent, slow, and unclear regulatory systems make innovation harder, often requiring direct engagement with government officials simply to move projects forward. Together, the regulations panel called for updated definitions, greater international regulatory trust, and more efficient, outcome-focused regulatory communication.

The UK’s Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) was positioned as a practical response to these challenges. Chaired by Lord Willetts, RIO emphasises the need for early conversations between regulators, funders and startups reflecting a growing understanding that regulatory strategy cannot be bolted on at the end.

What became clear is that regulation is not just about managing risk. It shapes which products get manufactured, where companies choose to scale, and how quickly innovation translates into impact.

Theme 3: Scaling Is as (If Not More) Challenging as Scientific Success

Founders repeatedly emphasised scaling up as a complex, non-linear, and capital-intensive process. Downstream processing, in particular, was highlighted by National Physical Laboratory (NPL) representatives, Jeffrey Anthony and Max Ryadnov, as a major bottleneck, often accounting for up to 70% of production costs. Yet it is frequently under-prioritised in early R&D.

Several interesting discussions emerged from sessions focusing on scaling up, including Nigel Scrutton from C3 Biotech , who challenged the idea that industrial biomanufacturing is a future ambition. His case studies using non-sterile biology, seawater fermentation and low-cost feedstocks demonstrated that it is already deployable at scale. The validation of aviation fuel through RAF use was proof that synthetic biology can function in real-world, operational environments.

Gustaf Hemberg, Founder & CEO at Scindo approached the problem from an engineering perspective, arguing that scale-up depends as much on data ownership and system design as on biology. Minimising waste metabolites, building integrated platforms and owning proprietary datasets were central to achieving efficiency and control.

Dr Chiara Board’s case study focusing on women’s health added another dimension: the importance of early customer feedback when transitioning from in-house production to external manufacturing. She highlighting that technical success without market insight can quickly diminish commercial success.

Similarly, Dr Kaly Chatakondu revealed an operational reality faced by many founders, which is that fundraising almost always takes longer than expected. Because of this, prototypes matter for both validation and credibility. His advice to hire dedicated support early for regulatory considerations resonated strongly with many others.

The scale-up sessions reinforced a set of hard-earned lessons. Companies that succeed tend to start with the end goal in mind, define minimum viable processes early and simplify raw materials and supply chains wherever possible. Complexity may be unavoidable in biology, but unnecessary complexity in manufacturing is costly, and biological success does not automatically translate to commercial viability.

Theme 4: Funding and Capital Remain One of the Biggest Bottlenecks in SynBio

Despite a recognition of how difficult it can be to scale up there is still a growing interest in synthetic biology even with the current financial challenges facing many industries.

Investors spoke openly about what they look for in potential investment cases. Founder credibility, commercial awareness and the ability to communicate all matter, particularly given the inherent uncertainty of biology. Strong intellectual property becomes increasingly important as companies move into later stages, where investors are looking for defensibility as well as potential.

Investment discussions also highlighted a significant gap when companies need capital to scale. Funding gaps continue to persist between the UK and the US, particularly in life sciences and other R&D-intensive sectors, making it easier for companies to raise later-stage capital in the US where the five largest life science venture funds are significantly larger than their UK counterparts. UK companies, by contrast, often struggle to secure the capital required to build manufacturing capacity at home.

Christine Hockley, Managing Director and Co-Head of Funds at the British Business Bank, highlighted how it is strengthening support for the life sciences through dedicated investment activities. To address these gaps, the Bank’s patient capital funds have been designed to increase the size of later-stage UK funding rounds, already supporting 1,521 companies with £2.7 billion committed. Building on this, a new Life Sciences Investment Programme worth £250 million, launched in June 2025, will invest in life sciences–focused funds.

Traditional venture models are often poorly suited to biological timescales, where progress is slow, capital needs are high and outcomes are uncertain. Without financing structures that reflect those realities, promising technologies risk losing impact.

Theme 5: Out with the old, in with the new. AI now widely seen as a foundational infrastructure

AI was discussed less as a tool and more as becoming a foundational infrastructure for modern biology. Several speakers described it as the new interface through which biology is increasingly designed, tested and optimised.

Drew Endy framed foundation models as a way of closing the loop between experimentation and prediction. If sequence-to-function relationships can be reliably predicted, the entire design-build-test-learn cycle changes. Biology becomes faster, more iterative and, in some cases, more predictable. Concrete examples backed this up. Machine-learning-guided media optimisation has delivered production increases of nearly 150%. Host engineering guided by AI has achieved gains of up to 500%. Autonomous labs and AI agents are beginning to reduce the cost and time of experimentation in meaningful ways.

However, the importance of governance, regulation and data infrastructure in keeping up with AI capabilities were not overlooked.

AI in the context of biosecurity concerns was also discussed by Becky Mackelprang. She warned against both overreacting and underreacting to the risks of AI in biology. Over-regulation could stifle innovation, while under-regulation risks public mistrust and real harm to the public. The consensus was that governance must be agile, internationally aligned and grounded in realistic assessments of risk.

Theme 6: The Bioeconomy is Inherently Global

Several sessions emphasised the importance of a borderless bioeconomy, as no country can build the bioeconomy alone. Tamara Kononoff, Industrial Technology Advisor with the National Research Council of Canada’s Industrial Research Assistance Program, emphasised how international collaboration reduces risk by opening access to talent, infrastructure, funding and markets, but only if it is underpinned by clear IP strategies. Zoe Woods, Co-Founder & CEO Change Bio, reinforced the idea that engineering biology is borderless by nature, while Kyoko Morimoto, highlighted Japan’s strengths in biomanufacturing and the importance of relationship-driven markets where trust is built over time.

Country perspectives illustrated how different approaches can complement one another: Canada positioning itself as a partner economy, Japan leveraging deep manufacturing expertise, and Singapore integrating policy, incentives and regulation into a coherent system.

Bilateral initiatives presented at SynbiTECH, such as UK–Canada and UK–Switzerland collaborations were presented as practical ways to harmonise standards, funding and regulatory approaches. Rather than competing in isolation, the message was that scale will increasingly depend on cooperation across borders.

Theme 7: The Importance of Foundational Standards and Responsible Storytelling in SynBio

As SynbiTECH drew to a close, discussions turned to what still needs to be built for the future of Synthetic Biology.

The lack of foundational standards remains a major challenge. Metrology, reference biofoundries, manufacturing-readiness metrics and robust process benchmarks are all essential if synthetic biology is to function as an engineering discipline rather than a collection of bespoke solutions.

Communication was just as important. Sessions on “Synbio Unplugged” highlighted how public confusion, hype and premature storytelling can undermine trust, not just for individual companies, but for the field as a whole.

Ethical considerations, particularly around biodiversity and conservation, were framed as non-negotiable. Interventions must be predictable, robust and safe. Without trust, even the most powerful technologies will struggle to gain acceptance.

Looking ahead – Lessons Learned from SynbiTECH 2025

SynbiTECH 2025 offered a fresh perspective on the field of synthetic biology. While the science is advancing rapidly, the constraints now lie elsewhere, in policy cycles that are too short, capital models that are misaligned with biological timelines, regulatory systems that struggle to keep pace, and a lack of shared standards.

If these themes resonate, we encourage you to follow SynbiCITE to stay connected with industry peers and receive updates throughout the year.