FDA veteran Peter Marks will now shape the future of Eli Lilly’s vaccines work after the buys of Curevo, LimmaTech Biologics and Vaccine Company for up to $3.8 billion total.
The biggest winner in Eli Lilly’s $3.8 billion vaccine buyout blitz is Peter Marks, the former FDA vaccine chief who joined the pharma company last fall after his unceremonious departure from the regulator.
The three acquisitions—Curevo, LimmaTech Biologics and Vaccine Company—give “Marks colors to paint a picture,” the ever-vibrant analysts from BMO Capital Markets said in a Tuesday morning note.
The purchase of the three biotechs “provides a scaffold of new products which recently hired head of Infectious Disease, Peter Marks, can further develop to expand Lilly’s development efforts,” BMO wrote. Leerink Partners similarly cited the former regulator as a key factor in the trio of deals.
With plenty to play with now, hopefully Marks isn’t regretting his switch from the public to the private sector.
He had served as head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research for about nine years when Trump was elected as the next U.S. president, and Marks had stated his intention to work with the new administration. But in March 2025, just six weeks after vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took the helm at the Department of Health and Human Services, Marks left the FDA. In a widely-cited resignation letter, he detailed concerns about Kennedy’s handling of vaccine safety records.
When Marks was hired by Lilly, the team here at BioSpace wondered what for. Of course, he was a good get for any pharma. Marks’ decades of experience meant he knew the regulatory system inside out and backward—at least as it existed until President Donald Trump’s second term. But Lilly did not really have much of a presence in infectious disease, where Marks had made his mark at the FDA in his final years. Lilly stayed out of the fray during the pandemic, offering antibody treatments but refraining from entering the vaccine frenzy as its peers dived in.
Prior to joining the FDA, Marks served in industry developing products in hematology and oncology. Perhaps Lilly’s cancer portfolio would be a better fit? Or what about genetic medicine or gene therapy, both areas where Marks was a noted proponent during his time at the FDA?
Why would Marks want to work for Lilly—particularly in an infectious disease role—if his expertise wasn’t more aligned? Wouldn’t Merck, Pfizer or one of the EU vaccine makers, Sanofi or GSK, be better bets?
Now we know. Marks didn’t need Lilly to have a robust infectious disease pipeline. He would build it. This week’s trio of deals is most certainly a substantial step in that direction.
Marks’ departure from the FDA was seen as a blow for vaccines and public health. Now we will see what a dedicated public servant can do with the checkbook, speed and efficiency of a Big Pharma.
Good luck, Dr. Marks.
