UK life sciences sector plan criticised for lack of investment in medicines

The UK government’s recently unveiled life sciences sector plan has faced sharp criticism from industry leaders for failing to address key concerns about investment in innovative medicines. The 78-page strategy, part of the government’s broader industrial strategy, aims to establish the UK as Europe’s leading life sciences economy by 2030 and the third most significant globally by 2035, behind the United States and China.

Six overarching priorities have been set to achieve this ambitious vision, including a £600 million joint investment with the Wellcome Trust to create a new Health Data Research Service to improve access to NHS data for researchers. Other measures highlighted in the plan include reducing clinical trial set-up times to under 150 days and providing up to £520 million in support for manufacturing. A strong focus is being placed on securing strategic partnerships with major life sciences companies and nurturing high-growth UK-based firms to keep them headquartered in the country.

The life sciences industry, which employs more than 300,000 people across the UK, is seen as one of the nation’s greatest assets. Government ministers claim they are determined to avoid repeating the errors of past strategies that lacked actionable measures. As part of its goals, the government aims to attract the highest levels of investment in research and development and scale-up capital in Europe by the end of the decade while increasing the number of £10 billion-plus companies in the sector and initial public offerings.

Despite the government’s optimism, the plan has received a mixed reception from the sector. Executives from top pharmaceutical companies, including GSK and AstraZeneca, expressed frustration over its failure to tackle structural issues that are crucial for enhancing competitiveness. Industry leaders have also warned about the decreasing speed of setting up clinical trials and the challenges in scaling up innovative technologies, many of which are driving firms to seek financing opportunities in the United States rather than remaining listed in London.

One of the most contentious topics is the voluntary industry NHS sales rebate scheme, known as the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access (VPAG). This agreement, designed to cap NHS drug expenditure while incentivising innovation, remains unresolved, contributing to uncertainty about the government’s support for the sector. GSK’s Chief Scientific Officer, Tony Wood, welcomed reforms aimed at incentivising UK-based clinical trials and efforts to create research data services and translational labs. However, a GSK spokesperson cautioned that recognising the economic and societal value of innovative new treatments is essential for the plan to succeed.

Novartis UK’s managing director, Johan Kahlström, expressed his disappointment, stating that the plan does not adequately address fundamental concerns about the UK’s investment environment. Similarly, a representative from AstraZeneca – which notably declined to be named in the government’s press release – acknowledged the importance of the sector’s potential as a driver of growth and health but emphasised the need for collaboration to ensure NHS patients benefit fully from scientific advancements.

The plan was more warmly received by Daniel Mahony, chairman of the BioIndustry Association. He praised the government’s focus on boosting early-stage investment and improving access to key resources, including data, trials, and skilled workers. Unlocking pension fund investment to support scaling life science companies was also described as a step in the right direction. Nonetheless, the consensus remains that without greater financial commitment to driving innovation, the ambitious long-term goals set out in the strategy could fail to materialise.