Former UK prime minister Rishi Sunak recently warned in The Times that Britain risks “squandering its brilliance in biotech.”
With British Science Week underway, In Vivo spoke to UK biotech companies and investors to see whether they agreed. We also asked what the government and private sector must do to strengthen the industry, how the UK can compete with China, and what the country’s biotech landscape should look like by 2030.
The sobering consensus is this: “Yes, Rishi Sunak is right.” A plethora of problems are stunting the industry.
Matthew Fyfe, chief scientific officer, Outrun Therapeutics, a Dundee / Oxford preclinical biotech focused on protein stabilisation, said: “Mr Sunak is correct: a paucity of funding in early stage biotech has led to a swathe of redundancies in the last two years, which could lead to considerable talent loss from the sector and the country, while the value of UK-discovered assets is consistently being realised elsewhere.”
Naveed Siddiqi, senior partner, Novo Holdings Venture Investments, which is invested in numerous UK life science firms large and small, highlighted the “massive funding gap” faced by UK and other European biotechs compared to US firms.
“Less than £100m was raised by publicly listed life science companies in the UK last year according to UK’s Biotech Industry Association. We are seeing regular de-listings among the small number of listed biotech companies because they cannot raise capital on UK exchanges, and there have been no such IPOs for the last 3 years,” he said.
“The picture is the same across Europe’s exchanges. This is where a massive funding gap sits. By contrast in 2025, the US raised more than $15bn in medtech and biotech IPOs and over $35bn in follow-on offerings.”
However, Neil Murray, CEO, of Liverpool-based pneumococcal vaccine developer ReNewVax, believed Mr Sunak’s analysis was all a bit rich, coming from a former PM. He remarked: “Sadly, Britain’s ‘brilliance in biotech’ has been squandered by successive governments for at least the last 20 years. There has never been a cohesive strategy for life sciences.”
Public investment is necessary – but that’s far from the whole story. Creating an environment that encourages small firms to stay and rewards those who take risks is central.
Maina Bhaman, partner of Paris, London and Milan based life sciences VC, Sofinnova Partners, which invests heavily in British life sciences firms, said government must “make the UK the most attractive place in Europe to build and scale a biotech company.”
She explained: “That means competitive tax incentives, smarter regulation, and policies that attract global scientific and entrepreneurial talent. Growth policy, not just funding, is the real differentiator.”
Jeremy Skillington, of AIM-listed Poolbeg Pharma, which is developing a treatment for cytokine release syndrome, said ministers should work to deepen the pool of “risk capital” available. He said: “Spin-outs are emerging at a rapid rate but funding is limiting. Not every company will succeed but each company deserves a chance to succeed.”
Jane Rhodes, CEO, of London-based AstronauTx, which is developing treatments for Alzheimer’s and other neurological disorders by improving sleep architecture, suggested: “Pass legislation that creates a more permissive environment for investment in early stage biotechnology companies – specifically the growth phase, when substantial investment is required to enable clinical development of innovative new therapies.”
Novo Holdings’ Siddiqi was not alone in highlighting the importance of fostering functioning public markets. He said: “The UK government needs to factor in mobilising more capital to back the few existing specialist public fund managers and help seed new ones.
“We sorely need specialist public market participants who can invest in, provide liquidity for, and support UK and European biotech companies as they raise the scale-up capital required to build a robust sector in Europe.”
Reuben Dawkins, co-founder & CEO of London’s Link Biologics, developing protein biologics for inflammatory and tissue-degenerative conditions, proposed: “Push the Mansion House Accord further to ensure pension capital is deployed into growth-stage companies, because Phase II and III trial execution is where the multiplier happens.”
“Embrace risk,” said AstronauTx’s Rhodes – an attitude shared by many, who said risk avoidance was holding UK plc back.
She continued: “Biotechnology is a high risk, high reward endeavour – and failures will not only happen but will accelerate learnings and enable the next success.”
Outrun’s Fyfe seconded Rhodes: “Think like Americans: be less risk averse and more ambitious.”
However, Bhavna Hunjan, chief business officer of Oxford-based Nucleome Therapeutics, which is tackling the molecular causes of inflammatory diseases through a breakthrough approach to 3D human genetics, had a useful rejoinder: perhaps we need less risky ways of investing in (famously risky) biotech.
To “broaden investor participation,” she suggested “introducing instruments with differentiated risk-return profiles to align with diverse risk appetites”.
Dawkins of Link thought a mirror would come in handy. “When [investment] decisions go elsewhere, we need to say why, transparently and loudly,” he said. “An honest feedback loop is a powerful contribution to fixing the ecosystem.”
Meanwhile, Sofinnova’s Bhaman said British firms should think bigger. “Build companies with global intent from day one,” she said. “The private sector must match scientific excellence with operational ambition.”
China’s growing legions of biotechs, with their ability to set up and execute clinical trials at pace and low cost, has been a stand-out story recently. How can British firms compete?
UK companies shouldn’t try to compete head-on, but rather play to Britain’s biotech strengths.
Nucleome’s Hunjan said: “The UK should recognise complementarity rather than pursue competition. Each ecosystem has structural strengths. China’s advantage is in rapid execution and manufacturing scale, while the UK’s strengths are in deep biological innovation rooted in academic depth and NHS integration.”
Murray, of ReNewVax, added: “It’s difficult to compete across the playing field. That doesn’t mean that we can’t compete in specific areas. However, in any competitive situation, it’s about focusing on your strengths and minimising or eliminating your weaknesses.”
Sofinnova’s Bhaman said: “We cannot outspend China, but we can outcompete through agility. Faster regulatory decisions, better use of NHS data, strong AI integration, and policies that attract global talent will determine competitiveness. Speed, clarity, and execution matter more than scale alone.”
Poolbeg’s Skillington said Britain needed to stay in the fray: “China is executing with coordinated urgency and generating impressive and statistically significant clinical data. The UK needs to follow suit.”
Given the many challenges facing UK biotechs, some thought 2030 was too short a timeframe in which to imagine an ideal future.
Murray consequently set the bar low: “Four years is not a long time – but surely we could have a cohesive strategy in place by then?”
Others were more upbeat. Rhodes said she wanted the UK “to be a thriving ecosystem where the best minds are trained in the business of biotechnology, where graduate level jobs are plentiful, our expertise in areas like regulatory science continue to be world leading and where company growth is not constrained by the financing environment.”
Fyfe painted a similar picture of “a thriving ecosystem” which can “compete on a level playing field with US and Chinese biotechs”.
Henning Steinhagen, CEO of Edinburgh’s Lario Therapeutics, which is developing first-in-class precision medicines for epileptic and neurological disorders, said Britain should “play to its strengths” in genomics and encourage “UK-focused patient capital” to nurture growth.
Finally, Bhaman said incentives must be put in place so that the talented, risk-taking individuals who start biotechs stand to benefit.
“By 2030, the UK should be the most founder-friendly biotech market in Europe: fast regulatory pathways, deep talent pools, strong clinical infrastructure and tax policies that reward innovation,” she said.
“Companies should choose to scale from the UK because it is the most competitive place to grow.