Leading the Way in Life Science Technologies

GEN Exclusives

More »

The Lists

More »
Sep 18, 2012

GEN Ten: Young Guns of Biopharma

Which biopharm execs haven't reached middle age yet? Find out here.

GEN Ten: Young Guns of Biopharma

They may be young, but they’re already making quite an impact on the global bioindustry. [© olly - Fotolia.com]

  • George Bernard Shaw once commented that “Youth is wasted on the young.” But the GEN TEN list of under-40 biopharma hotshots indicates, instead, that youth is being served. From positions as president and CEO to division head and co-founder, young professionals under 40 are already making an impact on the global bioindustry. And they will certainly play key roles in shaping its future.

    Below is a list of biopharma executives under 40 years old, as verified by their employers or as reported in local or trade publications that have included them in their own “Under 40” lists within the past year.

  • Vance Vanier, M.D.

    CEO, Navigenics (acquired by Life Technologies in July)

    38 years old1

  • Chad Robins

    CEO & President, Adaptive Biotechnologies

    38 years old

  • Brian McVeigh

    VP, Worldwide Business Development, Transactions & Investment Management, GlaxoSmithKline

    39 years old2

  • Andrew Asa Hindman

    President & CEO, Tobira Therapeutics

    39 years old

  • Al Hawkins

    CEO, Milo Biotechnology and VP of Business Development, BioMotiv

    37 years old

  • Uday Gupta

    CEO, Global Cell Solutions and ProteiosBio

    38 years old on June 13

  • Jeff George

    Division Head, Sandoz, Novartis

    39 years old

  • Van Bui

    Treasurer, Genentech

    38 years old4

  • Steven Axon

    VP of Business Development, North America; Head of Global Business Development, Fertility, and Endocrinology, EMD Serono

    37 years old

  • Adeyemi (Yemi) Adesokan, Ph.D.

    Co-Founder & CEO, Pathogenica

    35 years old



Be sure to take the GEN Poll

Scientifically Studying Ecstasy

MDMA (commonly known as the empathogen “ecstasy”) is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, which is reserved for compounds with no accepted medical use and a high abuse potential. Two researchers from Stanford, however, call for a rigorous scientific exploration of MDMA's effects to identify precisely how the drug works, the data from which could be used to develop therapeutic compounds.

Do you agree that ecstasy should be studied for its potential therapeutic benefits?

More »