BioSpace, among the most widely read news and careers platforms in the life sciences, published a feature on 6 August 2026 examining how professionals should choose between working at a contract research organisation and working at a biotech. Written by Angela Gabriel, content manager for life sciences careers at BioSpace, the article draws on two experts: Ali Pashazadeh, Founder and CEO of Treehill Partners, and Egle Pavyde, Vice President of Business Development at the European contract research organisation APICES.
Decision rights as the dividing line
Pashazadeh, whose firm works with both types of organisation, framed the difference in terms of who holds the decisions. At a large global contract research organisation, employees do not make the principal calls on which studies are run, how they are run or which indication they serve; they provide input into those studies. Inside a biotech, and particularly a small one, the position reverses. As he put it to BioSpace, the employee is the one driving the bus, working to do as much as possible with limited capital, and with a future tied directly to whether the company succeeds.
Who thrives in a capital-constrained biotech
That environment suits a particular profile, and Pashazadeh noted that the profile is difficult to find: people comfortable in high-intensity settings, on small teams, where budgets drive most decisions and survival is in question from the outset. He was candid about the consequence of a constrained funding market, observing that anyone who says the right things without being willing to do the work is identified quickly, because there is not enough money in the business for them to hide behind.
Movement between the two
Pashazadeh also noted that people can and do move between the two settings. He described a contact who moved from large pharmaceuticals into a contract research organisation, enjoyed the work, but ultimately wanted to be more hands-on and making the decisions rather than contributing to someone else’s programme, and moved into a biotech. While movement back and forth remains relatively unusual, he saw no reason why a return to the contract research side would present a difficulty. Pavyde, contributing the CRO perspective, set out the countervailing advantages of breadth, exposure across therapeutic areas and the stability that comes from supporting hundreds of programmes rather than depending on a single readout.
Read the full article on: https://www.biospace.com/job-trends/cros-vs-biotechs-finding-the-right-fit
📌 Treehill Partners – helping biopharma companies optimize development strategies for both regulatory approval and commercial success, unlocking transaction optionality with strategic and financial players.