“Uninvestable.”
“Probably the worst country in Europe (for pricing).”
“Not an attractive environment.”
Reading quotes like these from recent years, one might reasonably conclude that the UK life sciences sector is in a critical and potentially unsustainable position. But at a recent New Statesman event, Igniting Growth, I had the pleasure of being on a panel exploring the future of UK life sciences, and the overriding feeling among panel members was one of positivity and excitement.
Can the UK really achieve the bold goals in the Life Sciences Sector Plan – namely positioning the UK as third among the world’s leading life sciences economies by 2035, behind only the US and China?
That remains to be seen. But at the time of writing, the Department of Health and Social Care has just announced an update on its 150-day clinical trial target, with the average set-up time for commercial clinical trials in the UK reduced to 122 days, from 169 last year. Progress is being made.
This is not a sector that’s short on strengths, ideas or ambition. The question is whether the UK can now push on and translate its world-class strengths into consistent, timely delivery for patients.
Because for all the debate about whether the UK is keeping pace globally, the reality is more nuanced. As Dame Chi Onwurah, Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West put it, life sciences are already “recognised as being critical to our country’s global competitiveness”, but “we are not realising that potential as we should do.”
Britain has an exceptional science base, a globally respected regulator, and, in the NHS, an incredible health system and uniquely powerful source of data to help drive better population health in the UK.
There was broad agreement on this across the panel. Naomi Weir of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI)emphasised that “there is a lot to celebrate… and be incredibly proud of in the UK in terms of our life sciences sector and capabilities.” Clare Pelham, chief executive of the Epilepsy Society, agreed: “I don’t think things are that bad,” she said. “I think the glass is half full.”
And yet, despite this optimism, the same issue kept resurfacing: the UK struggles to convert scientific excellence into patient benefit at the pace it could achieve. If there is a single fault line running through the UK system, it is that innovation is not consistently reaching patients.
Too often, breakthroughs stall just before they enter routine clinical practice – because there seems to be difficulty translating innovation into real-world care. Too often, we see a paradox, where innovative therapies that are discovered and developed in the UK are available to our European neighbours, but not to patients in the UK. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry’s Competitiveness Framework reports that only 37 per cent of new medicines are made fully available in the UK for all licensed indications, compared with around 90 per cent in Germany. Among the G7 nations, the UK has the second lowest level of uptake three years after a medicine has been approved. Pelham captured this succinctly: “Until better practice is adopted, it’s meaningless for patients.”
From my own perspective, the UK resembles a team of exceptional players that are strong individually but do not always function effectively as a team. “A plan is only as good as what’s been delivered,” said Weir. “The gap between strategy and delivery needs to be narrowed.”
At the heart of delivery is a fundamental question around how the UK defines value. Current frameworks tend to have a relatively narrow view of value, focused on direct NHS health gain and direct healthcare costs, meaning wider societal, innovation and equity benefits are only partially and inconsistently captured.
But today’s innovations can transform how care is delivered: reducing hospital visits, easing workforce pressures, and improving patients’ quality of life. These benefits are real, but often under-recognised in decision-making.
A more holistic view of value – one that reflects patient experience, system efficiency, and long-term sustainability – would better align the system with the realities of modern medicine.
There was also a clear sense that no single actor can solve this alone. The government must create the conditions for innovation to be adopted. The NHS must continue its shift towards digitally enabled, prevention-focused care. And industry must engage differently – earlier, more collaboratively, and with a broader and more compelling value proposition.
Biotech companies such as ours can play an important role. Not just by developing innovative therapies, but also by helping to shape evidence requirements and pilot new access pathways. As a young, science-driven biotech firm focused on rare and complex autoimmune conditions, argenx strongly believes that innovation in access can keep pace with innovation in science, ensuring people across the UK can benefit from transformative therapies.
But I think perhaps the most important takeaway from the panel session was one of tone – and it was a positive one. There is a tendency for UK life sciences discussions to begin with “despite” – “despite our strengths…”, “despite our assets…”, “despite our potential…”
But, as Weir suggested, there is value in changing that narrative: focusing instead on what the UK can do, and how it can lead. We need to remember that the UK is starting from a position of strength. The task now is to make that strength count. The UK life sciences sector aims to become the leading European life sciences economy by 2030 and the third globally by 2035. The ambition to be a global leader in life sciences is difficult yet not unrealistic.
But it will require a step change to get there. Better integration across the system. Faster, more flexible pathways from innovation to access. And a collective commitment – from policymakers, the NHS and industry – to move from debate to delivery. If we can achieve that, I firmly believe that the UK will not just compete – it will lead. And, most importantly, patients will be the ultimate beneficiaries.