For the drug discovery, and wider pharmaceutical industry, the year of 2025 can be characterised by the words turmoil and uncertainty.  

The second coming of President Trump brought with it a flurry of executive orders, tariffs and global bargaining that placed the US in a position where it attempted to dictate the terms of global imports and exports.  

For pharma, this meant outrage from President Trump at the prices US citizens have been paying for drugs and calls on major firms to slash drug prices comparative to European and other global competitors.  

This strongarming of the industry by President Trump resulted in major players seriously assessing where best to do business, and with the US making up the most dominant market in the world, the US ultimately won out.  

As such the impact of these actions will be felt in both the short and long term throughout the industry. Already this year we’ve seen companies like AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck and GSK announce significant investments in the US with some even cancelling or pausing investment in the UK.  

Other impacts have been felt in Switzerland, which saw the US place a 39% tariff rate on imports from the country. Negotiations to reduce this rate to 15% have helped Switzerland increase its growth forecast for next year but this stranglehold that the US has placed on global trade in 2025 means that government and industry are constantly having to reassess where they stand in global trade.  

This level of reassessment by companies has been mirrored in therapeutic pipelines and 2025 saw pharma seriously step back from the cell therapy space. The abandonment of cell therapy by the likes of Takeda and Galapgos indicates that this is an area that struggles to generate a return-on-investment and that going forward we can expect to see the likes of small molecules, biologics and therapeutic antibodies take precedence.  

For our UK readers, they’ll be well aware of the struggles the life sciences sector has faced this year, with constant calls for the nation’s competitiveness brough into question. As a nation, there’s no doubt that we can produce innovative science – indeed one our great strengths is being an “exporter of innovation” – but for our sector to truly flourish we need more ways to scale-up investments, so companies aren’t relying on selling their IP to the highest bidder. In fact, there’s an article in this issue examining this very challenge, looking at how academia and industry can be better supported so their IP is grown inwardly.  

Steps have been taken by the UK government to address both claims of non-competitiveness and to unlock more investment. The recent British government budget has brought in pension reforms to attract investment into life sciences and is supporting an initial fundraising of £200 million to invest in science and technology.  

The UK has also announced a lower payment rate for newer medicines, which should be welcome news to companies who have had to pay record high rates of 22.5%. These two steps could be the first movements to position the UK in a more competitive light compared to its European and US competition.  

If 2025 has been a year defined by trade deals and geographical commitments, then hopefully 2026 will be defined its clinical successes and innovation. Judging from conversations I’ve had in 2025, AI is now ready to truly deliver meaningful impact within our sector – which has long been hampered by extensive costs and lead times. No doubt though, challenges of investment and politicking will remain in 2026, but hopefully to a lesser degree than we’ve seen in 2025.  

From DDW Volume 27 – Issue 1, Winter 2025/2026 – Read the digital issue here