On 14 May 2026, Wes Streeting resigned as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, citing lost confidence in the prime minister’s leadership. He was replaced the same day by James Murray, former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The resignation arrived as the UK life sciences sector was beginning to make a credible case to global investors that the reform environment had finally stabilised. The timing is not ideal, and the implications for pharmaceutical and Medtech companies operating in or considering the UK market are multiple.
The question of where the UK stands in global life sciences was already a boardroom priority well before this week. Life sciences foreign direct investment fell by around 58% between 2021 and 2023. The UK’s global ranking for commercial clinical trial placement declined steadily through the late 2010s. Pharmaceutical R&D investment underperformed global growth trends for several consecutive years, and in 2023, it fell in absolute terms.
Against that backdrop, the policy environment had shifted. A Life Sciences Sector Plan, a reset of the VPAG pricing scheme, accelerating MHRA approval times, and a £600 million commitment to the Health Data Research Service all arrived within a narrow window. The ABPI’s competitiveness framework, which benchmarks the UK against 12 peer countries across 48 indicators, draws a mixed picture: world-class strengths, structural gaps, and a competitive field that is not waiting for the UK to catch up.
UK life sciences competitiveness comes down to a series of questions. Where does the UK have a genuine, durable advantage? Where has it lost ground that can realistically be recovered? Where are competitors building positions that the UK cannot match? And what does a new health secretary, arriving mid-programme from the Treasury, mean for a reform agenda that was explicitly built on political continuity?
The US, China, Germany, Ireland and Spain are all actively building and investing.
The United States
The US accounts for around 55% of global pharmaceutical R&D and has a depth of late-stage capital and an established biotech cluster infrastructure that no other market matches. The world-class research clusters around Stanford, MIT and the Bay Area set a benchmark for ecosystem density that Cambridge and London can approach but have not yet reached.
The current political environment has introduced a degree of regulatory unpredictability, and international investors looking for a hedge against an erratic US environment are actively doing so. That creates an opening for the UK, but only if it can offer the stability and predictability that some sponsors are seeking to complement their US exposure.
China
China’s rise in pharmaceutical R&D is substantive. In 2024, China surpassed the US in total clinical trial numbers. Chinese companies initiated 39% of global oncology clinical trials, the highest share worldwide, and now contribute around one-third of the global new drug pipeline. Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals overtook AstraZeneca as the world’s top clinical trial sponsor in 2024. China filed over 188,000 pharmaceutical patents in 2024, compared to 53,777 in the US.
The focus for innovation has broadened well beyond oncology. China is now active in multiple therapeutic areas, including antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific antibodies, cell and gene therapies, obesity and cardiovascular. Western sponsors now compete for talent, capital and patient populations across these areas.
However, the devil is in the detail. Around 80% of China’s clinical trials still involve only domestic sites. Questions around IP protection and data transparency for global stakeholders persist. Large pharma is increasingly using China as a source of early-stage assets and proof-of-concept data, then moving late-stage development to Western markets. Chinese companies accounted for 32% of global biotech licensing deal value in Q1 2025, up from 21% in 2023, meaning Chinese IP is increasingly flowing outward. China is a competitor on volume, cost and early-stage output; it is not yet a full substitute for the UK’s regulatory trust, data linkage or ecosystem depth.
Spain and Ireland
Spain now leads Europe in clinical trial volumes, driven by the early implementation of EU clinical trial regulations, standardised contracting, and a consistent focus on reducing costs and setup time. When a sponsor is deciding where to run a Phase III trial and speed to first patient is the primary variable, Spain has a structural advantage that the UK is only starting to address.
Ireland’s low corporation tax rate remains a decisive factor for manufacturing and commercial investment. The UK cannot match it and will not try to. The question is whether the UK’s other strengths are sufficiently differentiated to attract investment that Ireland’s tax environment does not specifically target.
Against this backdrop, the UK’s genuine strengths are worth stating. The ABPI framework, and the evidence around it, points to several areas where the advantage is real and not easily replicated.
Genomics and health data
No other healthcare system of comparable size generates the depth and integration of data that the NHS does. The UK Biobank, Genomics England and the 100,000 Genomes Project together represent an asset with no European equivalent. The UK holds 16 of the world’s top 100 universities for life sciences and medicine, and in 2024 produced 399 pharmaceutical spinouts, more than any other sector.
The Health Data Research Service (HDRS), funded with £600 million from the UK government and the Wellcome Trust, is designed to turn that data depth into a usable research infrastructure with a single front door. If it delivers on its mandate, the UK can offer something that Spain, Germany or the Netherlands cannot match: rimary care data linking to secondary care, capturing the full longitudinal patient journey at scale. The challenge is that the data exists, but the infrastructure to access it predictably does not. HDRS is an attempt to close that gap, and whether it succeeds will materially affect the UK’s competitive position in clinical research over the next decade.
AI and life sciences: A convergence the UK is well placed to exploit
The UK attracted £3.4 billion in private AI investment in 2025, behind only the US and China. The convergence of that AI capability with life sciences, particularly in drug discovery, clinical trial design and health data analytics, represents the area where the UK’s combined strengths are most defensible.
The London to Cambridge corridor, and King’s Cross in particular, is attracting serious capital on this basis. The proximity of academic institutions, NHS infrastructure, and technology companies within a geographically compact area creates a density of collaboration that is harder to replicate in larger markets. Companies looking to work at the interface of AI and clinical research can have government, academia, the NHS and industry in the same conversation in a way that is genuinely difficult to achieve in the US or China at comparable speed.
Advanced therapies
The UK leads Europe in cell and gene therapy (CGT) R&D. UK CGT companies raised around £200 million in venture capital in 2023, and the country initiated 47 CGT clinical trials in 2024. This is a high-value, high-complexity therapeutic area where the UK’s academic base, regulatory expertise and clinical networks provide a combination that newer entrants cannot quickly replicate.
Four-nations clinical breadth
The UK’s four-nations structure, often discussed as a governance complexity, is also a clinical research asset. Scotland’s rural populations and decentralised trial capability address recruitment challenges in conditions that are hard to study in dense urban populations. Wales has built strong genomics and GP data infrastructure. In a single country, sponsors can access the genetic variation, ethnic diversity and disease prevalence that other European markets cannot offer at scale.
The evidence of what this can deliver when properly coordinated is tangible. Across the UK, 29 global firsts and 54 European firsts were recorded in commercial clinical trials in less than a year, a significant improvement on recent years. Scotland alone achieved three European firsts in difficult disease areas within a matter of months.
The strengths above sit alongside structural weaknesses that have deterred investment and are not yet fully resolved.
Capital and founder economics
The UK has world-class university spinouts but loses a disproportionate share of them at the point where they begin to return capital. The numbers explain why.
The argument that founders do not start companies with their exit tax rate in mind is technically true, but practically incomplete. The terms shape the culture and financial logic of the ecosystem and determinewhether the UK retains the companies it creates or whether they move to the US at Series B.
The broader capital market gap compounds this. The UK’s late-stage capital markets are weaker than the US, the transition from discovery to clinic at scale is slower, and the funding landscape has been described by multiple industry voices as fragmented and risk-averse. Life sciences foreign direct investment dropped 58% between 2021 and 2023. Had the UK kept pace with global R&D investment trends, it would have received an additional £1.3 billion in R&D investment in 2023 alone.
The NHS as a commercial partner
The NHS represents one of the UK’s most distinctive assets in principle. A single national health system with comprehensive patient records, a diverse population and a track record in research is a compelling offer that no other country of comparable size can replicate.
In practice, the NHS as a commercial partner is fragmented. There is no single front door. Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) operate with different priorities, local formulary decisions vary, and partnering agreements that work in one trust do not automatically transfer to another. Sponsors and industry partners consistently report that accessing NHS expertise and data in practice remains slower and less predictable than the UK’s theoretical assets would suggest.
Where industry, NHS, and patient advocacy groups have come together and collaborated well at the hospital or network level for early trials, the results include faster patient recruitment, greater physician familiarity with new therapies, and faster post-approval uptake. The model works, but it's not consistent.
Clinical trial speed: improving, but Spain sets the pace
The UK’s clinical trial performance has improved materially. MHRA approval times fell from 169 days to 122 days between 2022 and 2025. Commercial trial initiations rose by 37% in 2024–2025. Some VPAG-funded Commercial Research and Development Centres are hitting 90-day post-approval setup times, and the UK recorded 29 global firsts and 54 European firsts in commercial trials in under a year.
Spain, however, leads Europe on industry-sponsored trial volumes through standardised operating models and consistent performance. The metrics that change allocation decisions in global boardrooms are site-level: patients recruited per site, screening failure rates and time to first patient. The UK’s median is improving but variability around that median remains too high. Spain is not more scientifically advanced; it is more consistent, and consistency is what sponsors price into their decisions.
Global pharmaceutical boardrooms can be sceptical of sector plans, and the UK has produced several. Is the current cycle different?
The argument that it is rests on three things: measurable delivery against specific commitments; structural changes rather than announcements; and a degree of external pressure that has not existed before.
On delivery, the MHRA approval time data is a permanent structural change. VPAG has been reset at 14.5% with a hard 15% cap, reducing the unpredictability that deterred investment in 2024 and 2025. HDRS has been created as a delivery service, not an advisory body, with a mandate and funding. The Laboratory of Molecular Biology has secured 10 years of funding. These are commitments with measurable outcomes.
The combination of US protectionism, major pharmaceutical companies halting UK investment during the VPAG crisis, and direct engagement from Washington in the pricing negotiations created the political conditions for a reset.
What Streeting’s resignation changes
Streeting’s resignation on 14 May 2026 lands squarely on the stability argument. He was the most prominent ministerial champion of the NHS reform agenda and, within the life sciences community, the minister most closely associated with the VPAG reset and the clinical trials acceleration programme. His departure, amid wider political turbulence surrounding Keir Starmer’s leadership, introduces uncertainty that the sector hoped was receding.
His replacement, James Murray, comes from the role of Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That background cuts two ways. One reading is that the Treasury, conspicuously absent from the VPAG oversight committee and therefore absent from the governance structure that underpins the sector’s confidence in the pricing deal, now has direct representation at the top of health policy. If Murray brings Treasury engagement to the life sciences investment agenda, that could be a meaningful improvement on the arrangement that preceded him.
The other reading is that a Treasury appointee will manage health primarily as a fiscal challenge, prioritising cost containment over investment. The sector will quickly form a view on which reading is correct: Murray’s early signals on the VPAG oversight process, on HDRS governance, and on whether the 10-year commitment to increase NHS medicine spend to 0.6% of GDP is treated as a live commitment or a prior aspiration, will be watched closely.
What the resignation does not change is the structural layer of the reform programme. MHRA approval times are a product of regulatory process improvements, not ministerial direction. The VPAG cap is contractually embedded in a bilateral trade framework. HDRS funding has been committed. Clinical trial infrastructure investment through the VPAG programme is in the delivery phase and is managed by the NIHR and the Office for Life Sciences rather than by the Health Secretary’s office. A change of minister does not unwind any of this.
UK life sciences competitiveness in 2026 is a story of genuine momentum against a moving baseline. The UK has advantages in genomics, data depth, advanced therapies, AI convergence and ecosystem conveningspeed that are real and not easily replicated. The reform agenda has produced measurable results in clinical trial approval times, trial initiations and pricing predictability.
It is also a story of structural gaps that have not yet closed, and now a political environment that has become less settled than it was a week ago. The capital and founder economics still favour the US. NHS data is, in principle, an unmatched asset and, in practice, still difficult to access predictably. Spain’s lead on trial consistency is not going to close because the UK has improved its median. China’s acceleration in volume, early-stage innovation and licensing activity is compounding, not pausing.
The resignation of a health secretary does not dismantle a regulatory framework or cancel funded programmes. But it does matter to the companies making multi-year investment decisions, because those decisions are premised on a policy environment that holds. The structural work built over the last two years is more resilient than any single minister. Whether the political will to complete it survives the current turbulence is the question James Murray will need to answer early.
CHASE works across the full span of the NHS–industry interface, from commercial field teams and NHS partnerships to clinical trial staffing and patient programmes. If you want to discuss what the current competitive landscape means for your UK strategy, get in touch with the CHASE team.
Explore our latest thinking, event updates and industry insights to stay informed.
CHASE publishes its 2025 gender pay gap report. Read our analysis of the data, what is driving it, and how the picture compares across life sciences and the NHS
The National Cancer Plan for England sets a ten-year strategy to transform outcomes for people diagnosed with cancer by 2035, by reforming the care model.
.jpg)
NHS England has published its MTPF. For pharma, medtech and NHS, it provides financial terms, operational priorities, and strategic direction.
.svg)
