Can the UK government kick-start the country’s life science industry?

/in

The British government recently outlined its aim for the UK to become the third “most important” life science economy in the world by 2035, behind only the US and China. 

It is part of Labour’s new “Modern Industrial Strategy” which prioritises eight high-growth “frontier industries”, of which life sciences is one. 

While coming third behind the superpowers of the US and China by 2035 is a lofty ambition, it’s not pie in the sky. After all, Team GB came third in the London 2012 Olympics (having benefited from relentless government support and bundles of cash) – although life sciences is a very different game. 

So, what’s planned and what are the chances of success? 

To achieve its objective, the government plans to “reform the business, regulatory and public finance landscape across three pillars”. 

These pillars are (1) “supporting world-class R&D”, (2) making the UK “an outstanding place to start, grow, scale and invest” in a life science business, and (3) “driving health innovation and NHS reform” – meaning getting the NHS more involved, as it’s a huge player in everything from clinical trials to buying new drugs and equipment. 

While the UK has a first-class reputation in R&D, the industrial strategy document admits there have been problems with slow set up and approval of clinical trials in recent years – a fact many a British biopharma knows only too well. On trials, it aims to “slash trial approval times to under 150 days” and “double commercial interventional trial participants by 2026 and again by 2029”. 

Another of the six “interventions” is an investment of up to £600m, alongside the Wellcome Trust, into the Health Data Research Service, a massive data box where bona fide researchers can interrogate NHS (and other) information on the nation’s 68m people.  

A staggering £650m is also going to Genomics England over five years and up to £354m into the mega-scale longitudinal population study Our Future Health. These big data initiatives play to the UK’s undoubted strength of having huge, centrally-organised datasets which exist largely thanks to the NHS. 

The other four “interventions” are:  

  • “backing [drugs] manufacturing” through a “Life Sciences Manufacturing Fund” worth up to £520m; 
  • “streamlining regulation and market access” for new drugs and medical devices, in part by getting the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to work better together;  
  • “streamlining” NHS procurement processes, which can often be turgid; 
  • “partnering with industry to increase growth and innovation”, including striking at least one major deal with a big firm a year, and establishing “a dedicated support service” to help 10 to 20 smaller UK firms “scale, attract investment, and remain headquartered in the UK”. 

There’s a lot of useful stuff here, although it’s notable that most of these interventions seem focused on larger-scale pharma rather than spinouts and smaller-scale biotechs. 

Of course, pharma’s where the big money is – not to mention the prospect of a lot of jobs. And after January’s debacle, when AstraZeneca ditched plans to invest £450m in a vaccine plant in Liverpool citing a cut in government support, you can see why that’s the government’s focus. 

But biotechs are the lifeblood of any healthy commercial life science ecosystem. Fail to nurture them, and the system won’t thrive. 

There’s no mention at all of helping smaller UK life science firms access more private financing, which is a major factor holding them back, and a big reason why so many fold or end up setting up shop in the US instead. To be fair, there are reforms going on elsewhere – such as the Mansion House proposals to steer more pensions cash into UK growth companies – but is the lack of focus on improving private finance in the Modern Industrial Strategy a missed opportunity? 

Finally, there are rumours that AstraZeneca – the UK’s biggest pharma firm by a country mile – is considering upping sticks from the London Stock Exchange and re-listing in the US, according to The Times. AZ’s boss Sir Pascal Soriot is reportedly unhappy with (among other things) NICE’s decision to turn down its cancer drug Enhertu for NHS use; and the low prices the NHS ends up paying for branded drugs in general, due to the VPAG rebate scheme. 

In April he said: “Companies will follow where they feel welcome.”  

Ouch. Whoever’s responsible for the UK’s industrial strategy would do well to print that sentence out and stick it above their computer screen.