DDW Editor Reece Armstrong attended day one of BioTrinity. Here he offers an overview of the conference and the themes to come out of it.  

In an era of turbulence, BioTrinity stood out with an air of general positivity concerning the UK’s current standing within the life sciences sector. Though the conference couldn’t escape the threats of China’s rapidly growing pharma sector, or the global disruption caused by our North American neighbours, overall those I spoke to regarded the UK as being both resilient and developing in the right ways for the industry to take advantage of. 

A positive investment landscape

Tim Haines, Executive Partner at investment firm Abingworth mirrored some of these sentiments in his keynote. Haines gave a realistic assessment of the current landscape of biotech investment, stating that a reasonable amount of capital was being invested into the sector. He referenced data from the UK BioIndustry Association (BIA), showing that in 2025 a total of £1.8 ($2.4) billion was raised by UK-based biotech companies, with the majority of it coming from venture capitalist firms. Whilst this figure was a marked decrease from funding raised in 2024 (£3.7/$5 billion), Haines was positive about the UK’s overall global position. For instance, according to the BIA, the UK is the largest European national biotech market, accounting for 30% of total European venture financing.  

Other positives noted by Haines included Isomorphic’s deal with Lily and Novartis in 2024 which was worth almost $3 billion. This year, the company, which is hoping to empower the use of AI within drug discovery, expanded its big pharma collaborations with a research agreement with Johnson & Johnson which will pair the companies’ expertise in both AI and drug discovery and development.  

Lastly, Haines noted that he was encouraged by government initiatives to support the life sciences sector. Throughout the conference, a number of people both on panels and those who I spoke to mirrored this sentiment, referencing developments such as the Mansion House Accord, Labour’s Life Sciences Sector Plan, and MHRA goals to improve clinical trial application times, as being encouraging moves to strengthen the UK’s life sciences position.  

Regulatory reform

Indeed, a keynote in the afternoon delivered by Lawrence Tallon, CEO of the MHRA, provided a useful overview of the current UK regulatory landscape. In regard to clinical trial turnaround times, Tallon noted that the UK’s departure from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a result of Brexit had hampered the MHRA’s ability to achieve consistent clinical trial application (CTA) turnaround times. However, Tallon highlighted that efforts to improve turnaround times had been very forthcoming.  

Reforms at the MHRA have seen approvals for clinical trials fall to an average of 41 days, and data in February show the MHRA meeting 100% of its target to assess 95% of all initial CTA and clinical investigation applications within their category’s statutory timeline. Key to this progress has been the deployment of AI to help speed up the reviewal of applications. One question that is now arising due to these developers is whether or not MHRA progress will result in UK innovation.  

The MHRA is also targeting a 14-day review for early-phase clinical trials. In a recent press release Tallon commented on the progress made by the MHRA so far. 

“This is a timely moment to reflect on the impressive gains and considerable growth that our reforms have already delivered particularly in early and innovative research,” said Tallon.    

“There has been a marked increase in clinical trial applications, and we are consistently meeting or exceeding targets for combined review.  

“We’re already seeing greater confidence from industry that the UK is the best place to run clinical trials. The new regulations coming into force this month solidify our commitment to accelerating research and earlier access for patients to ground-breaking medicines.” 

UK cannot be complacent

I also got the chance to speak to Stuart Rose, CEO of BioUK, formerly known as OBN. The name change, which was announced at the conference, was made to offer a “more fitting representation of our support for life science SMEs nationwide,” Rose said.  

Importantly for Rose, the name change reflects a wider recognition of the entirety of the UK’s life sciences efforts, which can often be hyper-focused on the Oxford, Cambridge and London regions – or the so-called Golden Triangle.  

“If you sit outside the traditional “Golden Triangle” area, this is very welcome, cause it’s recognising that we are a UK-wide organisation,” Rose told me.  

As CEO of BioUK, Rose has a clear understanding of the country’s position within the current market. I asked him to reflect upon the health of the nation’s life sciences sector and he was both positive yet cautious about the challenges that lay ahead. He noted that whilst the UK has a fantastic legacy in life sciences, referencing our top universities and strong research that has been amassed, we cannot become complacent. Rose cited China as being a particularly important competitor in the global biotech and pharma market – noting the nation’s approach to faster approval timelines for drugs, but also the innovation that is coming out of the country.  

“China will very quickly become a leader in the world but our aspirations for the UK is to be number three. I think we can do that,” Rose said. 

The capital challenge

However, one of the biggest issues for R&D SMEs is accessing capital, Rose mentioned. This is a challenge that has been iterated over a number of years now, with the UK and European countries struggling to access larger pools of capital compared to companies within the US.  

The Mansion House Accord is a positive development that Rose cites, which will open up pension funds for private investment in UK markets. It’s a move which Rose alludes to as harkening back to a decade ago in which pension funds were a much larger contributor to public UK investment.  

The problem though will be for the smaller companies and, for Rose, enabling BioUK’s member companies to access capital or to arrange investment pitches is essential for helping those smaller biotechs and pharma companies to survive.  

Rose gave an overall positive opinion on Labour’s efforts to place life sciences in a position of importance. He noted the government’s Industrial Strategy, the Mansion House Accords, and the appointment of Steve Bates, the Executive Chair for the Office for Life Sciences as moves that will benefit the sector.  

“We’re all used to politician’s rhetorics. I think we all judge on what is actually happening. So I think those are things that are happening which are leading the case for a direction of travel that is positive.”