The UK's pharma deal was vital but the GSK boss is right about US dominance

"The US is still the leading market in the world in terms of the launches of new drugs and vaccines, said the chief executive, Emma Walmsley, in a BBC interview, explaining why GSK invests about three times as much over there as it does at home. Alongside China, the US is also the best market in the world to do business development. Her comments have caused a stir but, actually, are merely a statement of reality. It would be absurd to pretend the UK has suddenly shot to the top of the competitiveness table in life sciences as a result of the multipronged price and tariffs deal at the start of this month. Yes, the UK retains excellent research facilities, links with universities and other soft ecosystem benefits successive governments' boasts about the UK being a life sciences superpower are not wholly fanciful. But the US remains streets ahead in terms of what it spends on new drugs, the depth of its research and manufacturing bases and the funding its startups and biotech businesses can raise. That's just how things are."

"But, as Walmsley also said, this month's deal on NHS prices and tariffs is welcome. Critics complain the terms represent a capitulation to big pharma and Trump. But what else was the government supposed to do? If it is serious about the superpower stuff it had to avert tensions that existed long before the president threatened to impose tariffs at nose-bleed rates on UK pharma exports to the US."

GSK invests roughly three times more in the US than in the UK because the US leads global drug and vaccine launches and offers superior business development opportunities alongside China. The US outspends the UK on new drugs, possesses deeper research and manufacturing bases, and enables greater startup and biotech fundraising. The UK retains strong research facilities, university links, and other ecosystem advantages, but recent NHS pricing and tariff changes were necessary to avoid investment losses and avert trade tensions, even as critics label the terms a capitulation to large pharma and US pressure.

Read at www.theguardian.com