Conexiant
Login
  • The Analytical Scientist
  • The Cannabis Scientist
  • The Medicine Maker
  • The Ophthalmologist
  • The Pathologist
  • The Traditional Scientist
The Medicine Maker
  • Explore

    Explore

    • Latest
    • Features
    • Interviews
    • Business & Trends
    • Technology & Manufacturing
    • Product Profiles
    • White Papers

    Featured Topics

    • Biopharma
    • Small Molecules
    • Cell & Gene
    • Future of Pharma

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
    • Cell and Gene Therapy Supplement
  • Topics

    Topics

    • Drug Discovery
    • Development & Clinical
    • Formulation
    • Drug Delivery
    • Bioprocessing
    • Small Molecules
    • Cell and Gene
    • Facilities & Equipment
    • Outsourcing
    • Packaging
    • Supply Chain
    • Regulation & Standards
  • News & Blogs

    News & Blogs

    • Industry News
    • Research News
    • Blogs
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Community & Awards

    Community & Awards

    • Power List
    • Sitting Down With
    • Innovation Awards
    • Company of the Year Awards
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
    • eBooks
Subscribe
Subscribe
The Medicine Maker / Issues / 2016 / Articles / May / Why the BIA Says No to a Brexit
Business & Regulation Business Practice Trends & Forecasts

Why the BIA Says No to a Brexit

Steve Bates, CEO of the British BioIndustry Association (BIA) explains why he thinks the UK bioindustry is stronger inside the European Union.

By Steve Bates 05/17/2016 1 min read

Share

On June the 23rd, 2016, Britain will decide whether or not it wants remain a member of the European Union. A number of pharmaceutical executives have been vocal in their support of continued EU membership (1) – as has The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA [2]). Steve Bates, CEO of the UK BioIndustry Association – a trade association for enterprises involved in UK bioscience – also argues that a vote to leave would be damaging for the biopharma industry.

How important is UK influence on EU regulatory policy to the biopharma industry? The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been particularly influential and proactive in discussions on accelerated access, contributing effectively to discussions on adaptive pathways and PRIority Medicines (PRIME) and linking these discussions back to UK specific initiatives such as the Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS) and the Accelerated Access review (AAR). UK influence has also been at the heart of the development of EU regulations such as Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMP) regulation, the Orphan Medicines Regulation and the Clinical Trials Regulation. A key reason for the UK to remain in the EU is that it has a strong voice to influence EU regulation that impacts on the UK. If we were to leave we would lose this voice and still be in a position where we would likely mirror regulation that we had no influence over. How would the biopharma industry be affected by a Brexit? The BIA believes that the UK is the most attractive destination in Europe for life science companies. For example, we are the headquarters of choice for many US companies looking to enter the European market. If we left, the UK could remain strong, but would lack the catalyst provided by the EU. In the event of a “Brexit”, it is our view that the UK would either have to accept European legislation that it cannot influence (which is the model available under membership of the European Economic Area) or develop new UK-specific rules, at cost. Even if the latter option were pursued, in order for the UK to remain an attractive place to do business in for global companies, similar (if not identical) regulatory systems would need to be established. Beyond the impact on core regulatory matters, a “Brexit” could also pose significant risks to the UK’s attractiveness for inward investment and as a location for the world-leading talent the life sciences sector depends upon. All of this would have negative consequences for the UK and its economy. The UK accounts for under 3 per cent of the whole global market and we need to be realistic in thinking whether this will make the country an attractive destination for companies looking to headquarter their business in Europe or deciding on a first market to launch their drugs. What changes or reform would you like to see within EU regulations that you think will benefit science? One area where there is scope for improvement is where the precautionary principle has been misused. The precautionary principle has its roots in environmental law and has been defined as ‘when human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish harm.’ An example of where the principle has been misused and led to EU policy making not being rooted in scientific evidence is Genetically Modified Organisms (both GM crops and GM insects).  EuropaBio, the European trade association for bio-industries, of which the BIA is a member, notes that the current legislation on GMO cultivation, under which member states are allowed to ban safe, EU approved GM crops on non-scientific grounds, illustrates how the misuse of the precautionary principle restricts access to innovation. By being part of the EU, the UK has the opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of its progressive science based approach to the wider EU members and has a strong and powerful voice to influence change in the European market.

Newsletters

Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

References

  1. The Financial Times, “UK’s life sciences sector is ambitious for the EU,” (2016). Available at: http://on.ft.com/1X1xg87 EFPIA, “EFPIA statement on Brexit,” (2016), Available at: http://bit.ly/1pNxl1H

About the Author(s)

Steve Bates

Steve Bates is CEO of the BioIndustry Association – a trade association for innovative enterprises involved in UK bioscience.

More Articles by Steve Bates

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

Related Content

What Trump’s Latest Moves Mean for the Industry
Business Practice Standards & Regulation Trends & Forecasts Bioprocessing - Upstream & Downstream
What Trump’s Latest Moves Mean for the Industry

May 27, 2025

6 min read

Audrey Greenberg’s latest insight on US-based manufacturing, Trump’s “Administration for A Healthy America”, and an ever-shifting regulatory environment.

Big Bad Pharma?
Business Practice Trends & Forecasts
Big Bad Pharma?

December 1, 2014

0 min read

The Ebola media frenzy has reminded the public how selfish our industry is. But, somehow, that doesn’t sound quite right...

Access All Areas
Business Practice Trends & Forecasts
Access All Areas

December 1, 2014

0 min read

The 2014 Access to Medicine index shows progress – but companies remain “conservative”

Care to ‘Patent Dance’?
Business Practice Trends & Forecasts
Care to ‘Patent Dance’?

December 1, 2014

0 min read

Amgen accuses Sandoz of snubbing its advances in a complex biosimilar dispute

The Medicine Maker
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.