FOCUS – UK’S BIO-ENGINEERING INDUSTRY
ordinated strategy that fosters an entrepreneurial culture. One significant issue is the current model for university-
based startups, where a substantial portion of grant funding, which can be up to 40%, is allocated to university overheads. This can limit the funds available for actual research and delay the transition of innovative ideas to market. In addition, many universities will expect high royalties, some of up to 30%, which makes it much harder to be profitable and invest in growth. A consolidated national strategy that boosted funding
for high-priority sectors within biotech such as Micro- Physiological Systems (MPS) would help bridge this gap by offering larger, more sustained investment streams. Moreover, adopting international best practices, such as those seen in Switzerland, where focused investments in key sectors drive rapid progress, would help create a more predictable and supportive environment. This strategic focus would enable the UK to better harness its intellectual capital, accelerate technology transfer, and maintain competitiveness on the global stage.
WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE UK’S REGULATORY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOW DOES THIS IMPACT YOUR BUSINESS, IF AT ALL? While the UK’s regulatory framework is essential for ensuring safety and efficacy, it can sometimes create practical challenges that slow down innovation. A careful balance is needed between maintaining necessary regulations, for example in cell therapy, while facilitating innovation. In addition, there are logistical and infrastructural
barriers to overcome. For example, GDPR restrictions have, at times, complicated routine operational tasks like shipment notifications from European partners.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN PLACE IF THIS WAS REVISED? There is a pressing need for improved physical infrastructure, such as collaborative research hubs and incubators, that can more seamlessly bridge the gap between academic research and commercial ventures. Streamlining these regulatory and infrastructural elements would reduce delays and operational costs while preserving the high standards that are vital to the life- sciences sector.
A consolidated national strategy
that aimed to boost funding for high-priority sectors within biotech such as Micro- Physiological Systems (MPS) would address financing issues by offering larger, more sustained investment streams
10
www.scientistlive.com
Amsbio’s multinational team in the UK – nine nationalities are represented
WHAT FUNDING OR INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES ARE YOU AWARE OF / HAVE YOU BENEFITTED FROM? Amsbio has successfully leveraged several funding streams, including UK Innovate and EuroStar Grants, to support early-stage research and product development. However, these are much smaller amounts than you can
access in the US, which serves as the best benchmark for supporting life science and technological innovation. For example, for a US-based company, a small business innovation research (SBIR) grant in the US might begin at around $300,000 with a subsequent phase offering a minimum of US$1m: levels of funding that are just not available in the UK. This disparity in funding has tangible impacts on the
growth trajectories of companies. A notable example is Solexa, a UK-based company founded in 1998 by University of Cambridge scientists. Solexa developed a groundbreaking genome-sequencing technology but faced limitations within the UK funding environment. In 2007, Solexa was acquired by the US company Illumina for approximately US$600m. Post-acquisition, Illumina leveraged the more robust US funding landscape to further develop and commercialise Solexa’s technology, establishing Illumina as a global leader in the field. For an extended version of this article click here.
For more information visit:
www.amsbio.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
