In this roundtable discussion featuring Konrad Dobscheutz (left) and Quin Wills (right), discover what bold steps are needed to make the UK a destination of choice for pharmaceutical innovation once more
Interview by Jade Williams
Contributors:
- Konrad Dobscheutz, Founder, Leap Advisory & Intelligence
- Quin Wills, Founder and CEO, Ochre Bio
The UK has slipped from 2nd to 7th in global competitiveness for pharmaceutical R&D and investment since 2017. From your perspective, what do you see as the single biggest factor behind this decline?
Dobschuetz:
It’s a stark reality check, isn’t it? Instabilities over that time certainly have not helped. I could easily point out the big B word. Brexit has undoubtedly contributed to the decline, but there are many other factors at play. The commercials to run a life sciences company here are bleak: close to 23% government claw back (VPAG), 25% corporation tax and one of the highest employment costs in the G7.
That is the commercial side of running a market access team here. In my time at Novartis, UK employees shrunk from 800 to below 400. This of course affects R&D investment. If I do not have faith in a market to support the scale of an innovative medicine, I do not invest in the R&D in the country. It is that simple
Wills:
The UK remains strong in early research – biotech company formation, talent, venture capital investment and tax credits – but the ecosystem is structurally designed for discovery, not scale. What we’re witnessing is the outcome of a multi-decade choice to excel at invention rather than industrial and commercial follow-through. Only 5% of UK biotechs reach Phase 2 trials versus 13% in the US.
How can the UK rebuild its attractiveness for international pharmaceutical R&D investment?
Dobschuetz:
We need to fight for it. Nobody comes here just because we are the UK anymore. The treasury needs to make a calculation and departments need to cease looking at their budgets in isolation. A shift in mindset is needed, and this is already underway within the Department of Health and Social Care, for example.
The best comparison I have for life sciences spend is infrastructure investment. These generational expenditures are phased over decades. Who expects the third runway at Heathrow, or HS2, to pay back its value to the taxpayer in one parliament? The same applies to the affordability of medicine. An annualised or even five yearly expenditure model on medicine is not going to provide me with the true picture, is it? We need to look at this over generations and focus on the health of a population.
Wills:
With the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics recognising how innovation may or may not impact human welfare, we should question whether chasing “attractiveness ranking” is always the right proxy. The US remains the world’s most attractive R&D destination yet ranks below all Western European countries for life expectancy and avoidable mortality. The UK’s challenge isn’t necessarily to solely mimic all elements of the US “attractiveness” model – we should be combining elements of attractiveness with the best outcomes.
What we’re witnessing is the outcome of a multi-decade choice to excel at invention rather than industrial and commercial follow-through
Do you think the UK could better leverage assets like the Biobank or NHS data to attract global interest?
Dobschuetz:
The UK could be a leading market in clinical trials purely due to our very diverse population. Where else can you, in a small space, get access to a broad footprint of the global population? As outlined in the NHS 10 Year Plan, recruitment will also become even easier, thus cheaper. But we need to separate this from the early to mid-stage R&D activities.
Seemingly universally available data is not a free for all. The Biobank cannot start selling its data for commercial gain, it needs to have a research angle every time. Our Future Health, hailed as this huge opportunity, is struggling to commercialise what they now sit on. No patient truly owns their data here; it sits with the providers and custodians. We need to move to a patient centred data ownership model where patients can sell their data themselves.
Wills:
The UK is already a global leader in pre-competitive science and health data, from Biobank to NHS records and AI capacity. However, these are platforms and not therapeutic programs. True investment attractiveness rests in therapeutic programmes.
If the government could make one bold move to signal a serious commitment to pharmaceutical innovation, what should it be?
Dobschuetz:
I am usually no fan of the small state but, ‘lower taxes’ and ‘cut red tape’ must be the top two. Cut VPAG in half tomorrow, and lower corporation tax to compete with Europe the day after. Shut down the semi-innovation entities and government funded pet projects. In my opinion, these organisations are there for their own good and protect their stake by slowing things down rather than speeding them up. Lastly, and most controversially, establish a fresh framework for reimbursement solely focused on economic and care value playback into society over a longer period of time.
Wills:
MHRA reform has not yet been enough. The boldest move would be to help more UK biotechs – a lifeline of therapeutic innovation – reach Phase 2, the true value inflection where science becomes a highly attractive investment. If the UK increased the proportion of home-grown assets reaching Phase 2 over five years, this would be transformative. It would mean not only retaining innovation, but becoming a magnet for global investment.
Cut VPAG in half tomorrow, and lower corporation tax to compete with Europe the day after
Beyond government, what role could the industry itself play in strengthening the UK’s life sciences ecosystem?
Dobschuetz:
Be less entrenched and open yourself up even more to tech collaborations. Industry should let in more non-pharma talent to bridge the gap between its understanding of how technology works or the NHS functions – this would help foster more partnerships.
The ABPI needs to take a more active stance on promoting the UK internationally and work more closely with government departments such as Business and Trade. Look at the Association of British HealthTech Industries, for example. There isn’t a single month where they don’t promote the UK.
We keep talking about the extraordinary talent of researchers here and the great infrastructure we have. Yes, that is all still here with heavy investments, but it lacks the systems thinking and only works in pockets. Forget about that and look at the UK in its entirety, across all four nations.
Wills:
As an ecosystem, the UK should learn more eagerly from Chinese speed and pragmatism. China has created superhubs where R&D, GMP and clinical operations are co-located. There is a clear industrial mindset embracing parallelism over perfectionism. China is perfecting what the US has been teaching – that greater money and risk appetite mean greater success.
