Back in October 2020, with this very column, I wrote about the revelatory impact that CRISPR was having on the life sciences sector, and how, in time, it would come to make incredible medical advances possible. The technology itself is an exciting new method for editing genes and now, just three years on – the blink of an eye in medical R&D terms – we’re seeing some of those first major developments achieved through the application of the technology. The news earlier this month that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has become the first regulator in the world to approve a CRISPR therapy – which aims to cure sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia – has been a major coup for British life sciences, with only two labs in the world able to make the drug, and one of these being in the UK.
Also important, however, is what the decision represents for businesses – both in the UK and in international markets – looking to work with our regulators. The decision to approve Casgevy underlines just how efficient and robust our medicines regulator is. In recent years, and particularly through COVID, the MHRA has shown itself to be world-leading in its approach to assessing and approving cutting-edge treatments. Knowing that the in-market regulator is open to co-operating on the approval of world-first treatments will no doubt inspire confidence among international researchers, pharmaceutical manufacturers and investors.
The challenge at hand
Whilst the importance of having a world-leading regulator cannot be understated, it’s crucial that we don’t get too ahead of ourselves, or cherry-pick arguments for why the UK is such a strong place to invest in life sciences. It remains the case that the investment landscape for life sciences businesses in the UK is difficult. I’ve previously pointed to worrying data that suggests that foreign direct investment (FDI) into UK life sciences is significantly down on 2021 levels [ABPI]. There are a number of factors that might explain why our innovators are finding it so difficult to secure funding, including talent acquisition struggles, and the legacy of being temporarily outside of the European Horizon programme.
The UK might have been the first to approve Casgevy, but it was Swiss and US innovators who were responsible for its development. If we want to replicate what Casgevy has achieved and have major drug development successes of our own, then we must address some of these barriers to investment and innovation.
Piecemeal response needs overarching strategy
What’s clear is that an overarching, joined-up approach to addressing the investment shortfall in life sciences is desperately needed. Unlike many of its international counterparts, the UK is lacking a cohesive approach and sense of direction that would otherwise be provided by an industrial strategy. The Government’s 2017 Industrial Strategy feels like a dim and distant memory, but gave rise to numerous high profile initiatives to advance the UK in science and tech. We were reminded of this last week with the announcement that UK Biobank, which will be relocating its HQ to our Manchester Science Park campus, has released the whole genome sequencing data of all of its 500,000 participants to approved researchers. This project was initiated in 2018 by UK Research and Innovation’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund.
There have of course been a number of positive steps taken by the Government in recent months aimed at addressing concerns within the sector, not least of which was the recent decision to reverse our exit from Horizon – a very welcome move that will give us an opportunity to start catching back up to our European counterparts.
Even more recently, the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement delivered some strong measures that have been warmly received by the wider UK life sciences ecosystem. For instance, the decision to adopt all of the measures recommended by an independent review of university spin-outs has been vitally important to making it easier for advances made in research labs to be developed at scale.
The Statement also included the announcement of £520 million in capital grants for medicine manufacturing, which will enable the UK to compete to be the home for next-generation technologies such as mRNA and CRISPR. The decision to reduce the threshold for R&D intensive SME tax credit from 40% to 30% and open up support for grant-funded R&D has also been warmly received by the sector.Separately, news of a £3 million fellowship programme scheme, aimed at developing a new generation of science and tech venture investors, will hopefully go some way to addressing concerns I’ve raised previously about a lack of life sciences expertise that exists in some investor circles. And finally, it’s been encouraging to see the Government last month set out a clear plan for achieving the ambitions set out in Lord O’Shaughnessy's independent review into UK clinical trials.
Alongside countless other strategies, programmes and initiatives, these recent announcements are admirable in their aims and will no doubt go some way to improving the prospects of life science businesses seeking investment. However, it is also a disparate approach, lacking an overarching strategy. Core to pulling these strands together and bolstering confidence in UK life sciences, would be a new UK Industrial Strategy. With an election on the horizon, however, the chances of it arriving in 2024 remain slim.
"strategy" - Google News
December 08, 2023 at 06:01PM
https://ift.tt/Jpr1Rge
All I Want For Christmas Is A UK Industrial Strategy - Forbes
"strategy" - Google News
https://ift.tt/E6k9Qlf
https://ift.tt/NMv8u12
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "All I Want For Christmas Is A UK Industrial Strategy - Forbes"
Post a Comment