Life science competitiveness indicators 2015
Source: data.gov.uk (2022-05-13)

Life science sector data. This annual report includes charts on the UK life science sector, and how it compares to other countries. Areas covered include:
UK industry
research and development
regulatory environment
clinical research
In March 2022, metric 3 was amended to “Industry spend on pharmaceutical research and development in the UK”. This edit reflects the inclusion of all spend on pharmaceutical research and development by all businesses, not only pharmaceutical companies.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  1 
Life Science Competitiveness Indicators
March 2015

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  2 
Preface
This report brings together in one place a set of competitiveness indicators covering a range of aspects of 
the life science environment in the UK and other countries. They are intended to give a broad understanding 
of the UK sector, and how it compares internationally. 
The choice of these indicators was informed by Technical and Steering Groups made up of a range of life 
science sector stakeholders. These included representatives from trade associations, life science sector 
companies, research organisations, regulators and government bodies. Comparator countries have been 
selected on the basis of data availability, and advice from the Technical and Steering Groups as to the most 
appropriate comparators. In some instances where a comparison was considered desirable, it has not 
been possible as data for particular countries was not available or was not considered reliable.
There are a range of other UK specific data sources that were not used because internationally comparable 
data could not be identified. These limitations mean that, whilst this is the fullest picture we are currently able 
to provide, the set of indicators cannot be looked at in aggregate to provide an overall country ranking. Each 
indicator should be considered on its own merits and the caveats relating to data sources (which may be 
constantly updated) should be considered in each case. This report does not make any assessment of the 
relative importance of different factors for competitiveness, which is at least partly a subjective judgement. 
For the most part, the data on which these indicators are based is drawn from already published data. 
Wherever possible a link is provided to the data, or to the publication from which the chart has been 
reproduced. In a few instances it has been necessary for data to be sourced commercially or obtained 
directly from the organisation holding it. In these cases the supplier is clearly credited against relevant 
charts. In cases where the data is from a proprietary source, we have not been able to reproduce the 
underlying data tables.
This is the first publication of these indicators. The intention is to further develop the indicator content and 
data sources for future publications.
We would like to thank all those who have contributed to these indicators, or supplied data for this publication.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  3 
Table of contents
Overview: Performance of UK Life Science Sector and 
Contribution to UK Economy
4
Overview: Competitiveness of UK Life Science Environment
5
Indicators for UK industry
6
Chart 1A: Number of people employed in manufacture 
of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations
7
Chart 1B: Number of people employed in manufacture 
of medical technology products
8
Chart 2A: Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing
in European competitor countries
9
Chart 2B: Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing in UK
10
Chart 3A: Exports of pharmaceutical products
11
Chart 3B: Exports of medical technology products
12
Chart 4A: Imports of pharmaceutical products
13
Chart 4B: Imports of medical technology products
14
Chart 5A: Life sciences foreign direct investment projects
15
Chart 5B: Life sciences foreign direct investment – capital expenditure
16
Chart 6A: Share of global life science Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) – 2014
17
Chart 6B: Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in life sciences 
– amount raised in 2014 (where known)
18
Chart 7A: Private equity investment – total investment
19
Chart 7B: Number of companies receiving private equity investment
20
Chart 8: Number of science graduates
21
Research and Development Indicators
22
Chart 9: Government spend on health research and development
23
Chart 10: 2013 non-industry spend on research and development
24
Chart 11: Pharmaceutical industry spend on research 
and development in the UK
25
Chart 12A: Share of life science academic citations
26
Chart 12B: Share of top 1% (most cited) life science citations
27
Regulatory Indicator
28
Chart 13: Instances where MHRA is in lead role in 
EU regulatory procedure
29
Clinical Research Indicators
30
Chart 14: Share of patients recruited to global studies (all trial phases)
31
Chart 15: Time from core package received to first patient enrolled in
country (all trial phases)
32
Demand-side Indicators
33
Chart 16: Dashboard of NICE Technology Appraisal publication timeframes 34
Chart 17: Uptake of new medicines
35

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  4 
Overview: Performance of UK Life Science Sector and Contribution to UK Economy
Chart 5B: Life sciences foreign direct investment – capital expenditure
Bar 
char
t 5B
.
Source: fDi Markets, from The Financial Times Ltd.
Notes: Values are for the year that projects were announced. Data is in current prices.
Chart 1A: Number of people employed in manufacture of basic pharmaceutical 
products and pharmaceutical preparations
B
ar cha
rt 1A.
Source: Eurostat – Data Explorer, Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry, 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=sbs_na_ind_r2&lang=en
Notes: Selected Category in NACE_R2 “C21 Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products 
and pharmaceutical preparations”. Data not available for some countries in certain years.
Chart 1B: Number of people employed in manufacture of medical technology products
Bar 
char
t 1B
.
Source: Eurostat – Data Explorer, Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry, 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
Notes: Categories in NACE_ R2 “C266 Manufacture of irradiation, electromedical and electrotherapeutic 
equipment” plus “C325 Manufacture of medical and dental instruments and supplies”. Data not available for 
some countries in certain years.  
Chart 2B: Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing in UK
G
r
ap
h 
2B
.
Source: : UK data from ONS National Accounts, The Blue Book 2014 Edition dataset time series “KKF7: mGDP 
manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations” http://www.ons.gov.uk/
ons/rel/naa1-rd/united-kingdom-national-accounts/the-blue-book--2014-edition/index.html
Notes: UK data (Chart 2B) has been taken from a separate source from the comparator countries as it is not 
currently available broken down at this level through Eurostat.  The medical technology sector is defined by 
two three-digit categories (C266 and C325) and National Accounts data is not available at this level. Data is in 
current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  5 
Overview: Competitiveness of UK Life Science Environment
Chart 8: Number of science graduates
Bar 
char
t 8.
Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) 
http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EDULIT_DS
Notes: Data not available for some countries in certain years. 
Chart 12B: Share of top 1% (most cited) life science citations
Bar 
char
t 12
B.
Source: International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base – 2013
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance-of-the-uk-research-base-international-
comparison-2013
Notes: In cases of co-authorship, citations are allocated to all participating countries (so totals may be more 
than 100%).
Chart 9: Government spend on health research and development
Ba
r 
chart
 9.
Source: OECD Research & Development statistics http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?r=xx-xxxx-xxxx
Notes: Government budget appropriations or outlays on R&D in Health. 
Chart 7A: Private equity investment – total investment
Bar 
char
t 7A
.
Source: European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (EVCA) 
http://www.evca.eu/research/activity-data/annual-activity-statistics/]
Notes: Data is based on country of portfolio company. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  6 
Indicators for UK industry

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  7 
Chart 1A: 
Number of people employed in manufacture of basic 
pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations 
B
ar cha
rt 1A.
 Compa
rison 
between
 German
y, Spai
n, F
ranc
e, I
taly
, Ne
therlands and 
the United 
Kingd
om ove
r the
 period
 2008 - 2012.
Source: Eurostat – Data Explorer, Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry, 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=sbs_na_ind_r2&lang=en
Notes: Selected Category in NACE_R2 “C21 Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical 
preparations”. Data not available for some countries in certain years.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  8 
Chart 1B: 
Number of people employed in manufacture of medical 
technology products
Bar 
char
t 1A
. Co
mpar
i
son be
tween G
ermany,
 Spain,
 France
, Italy, Netherlands, the
 United Kin
gdom a
nd Swit
zerland ove
r the
 perio
d 200
9 - 2013.
Source: Eurostat – Data Explorer, Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry,
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
Notes: Categories in NACE_ R2 “C266 Manufacture of irradiation, electromedical and electrotherapeutic 
equipment” plus “C325 Manufacture of medical and dental instruments and supplies”. Data not available for some 
countries in certain years.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  9 
Chart 2A: 
Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing 
in European competitor countries
G
rap
h 2A
. Co
mpar
ison
 between Ge
rmany
, Spai
n, Fr
ance, It
aly 
and 
the 
Neth
erla
nds 
over
 the
 period 2005 - 2012.
Source: Comparator countries’ data from Eurostat National Accounts data 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/national-accounts/data/database
Notes: UK data (Chart 2B) has been taken from a separate source from the comparator countries as it is not currently available 
broken down at this level through Eurostat.  The medical technology sector is defined by two three-digit categories (C266 and C325) 
and National Accounts data is not available at that level. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  10 
Chart 2B:
Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing in UK
G
r
ap
h 
2B. 
Chan
ges 
over
 the
 per
iod 
2005
-201
3. 
Source: UK data from ONS National Accounts, The Blue Book 2014 Edition dataset time series “KKF7: mGDP manufacture of basic 
pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations”
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/naa1-rd/united-kingdom-national-accounts/the-blue-book--2014-edition/index.html
Notes: UK data (Chart 2B) has been taken from a separate source from the comparator countries as it is not currently available 
broken down at this level through Eurostat.  The medical technology sector is defined by two three-digit categories (C266 and C325) 
and National Accounts data is not available at this level. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  11 
Chart 3A: 
Exports of pharmaceutical products
Bar 
char
t 3A
. Co
mpar
i
so
n 
be
tw
ee
n 
Be
lg
ium
, France, G
erman
y, Ir
eland
, Italy
, Japan
, Spai
n, Swit
zerland, the United Kingdom and the Unites States over the period 2009 - 2013.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center  
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en
Notes: Categories used are [541] Medicinal and pharmaceutical products excluding 542, and [542] Medicaments including 
veterinary medicaments. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  12 
Chart 3B: 
Exports of medical technology products
Bar 
char
t 3B
. Co
mpar
is
on 
between Bel
gium,
 Fran
ce, G
ermany,
 Irelan
d, Ita
ly, Jap
a
n
, 
Sp
ai
n,
 S
wi
tzerland, the United Kingdom and the Unites States over the period 2009 - 2013.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center   
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en
Notes: Categories used are [774] Electro-diagnostic apparatus for medical science etc. and [872] Instruments and appliances, 
n.e.s, for medical, etc. Data in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  13 
Chart 4A: 
Imports of pharmaceutical products
Bar 
char
t 4A
. Co
mpar
is
on 
between Bel
gium,
 Fran
ce, G
ermany,
 Irelan
d, Ita
ly, Jap
a
n,
 S
pa
in
, 
Sw
it
zerland, the United Kingdom and the Unites States over the period 2009 - 2013.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center 
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en
Notes: Categories used are [541] Medicinal and pharmaceutical products excluding 542, and [542] Medicaments including 
veterinary medicaments. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  14 
Chart 4B: 
Imports of medical technology products
Bar 
char
t 4B
. Co
mpar
is
on 
between Bel
gium,
 Fran
ce, G
ermany,
 Irelan
d, Ita
ly, Jap
a
n
, 
Sp
ai
n,
 S
witzerland, the United Kingdom and the Unites States over the period 2009 - 2013.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center 
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en
Notes: Categories used are [774] Electro-diagnostic apparatus for medical science etc., and [872] Instruments and appliances, 
n.e.s, for medical, etc. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  15 
Chart 5A: 
Life sciences foreign direct investment projects 
Bar 
char
t 5A
. Co
mpar
i
so
n 
be
tw
een
 th
e Uni
ted States,
 the 
United
 Kingdo
m, Germ
an
y, Ireland, F
rance, Japan, Switzerland and Italy over the period 2009 - 2013.
Source: fDi Markets, from The Financial Times Ltd.
Notes: Numbers are for the year that projects were announced.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  16 
Chart 5B: 
Life sciences foreign direct investment – capital expenditure 
Bar 
char
t 5B
. Co
mpar
ison 
between the
 Unit
ed Sta
tes, th
e Unite
d 
Kingdom, Germ
a
ny,
 Ir
ela
nd,
 Fr
anc
e, 
Jap
an,
 Sw
itzerland and Italy over the period 2009 - 2013.
Source: fDi Markets, from The Financial Times Ltd
Notes: Values are for the year that projects were announced. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  17 
Chart 6A: 
Share of global life science Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) – 2014
US 71.7%
China Hong Kong 7.6%
China 6.7%
UK 4.1%
Sweden 2.7%
France 2.2%
Brazil 1.5%
New Zealand 1.0%
Other:
Japan 0.9%
South Korea 0.6%
Singapore 0.5%
Australia 0.2%
Finland 0.2%
Norway 0.1%
Source: S&P Capital IQ
Notes: Numbers refer to the country in which the IPO was launched, not the 
domicile of the IPO Company.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  18 
Chart 6B: 
Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in life sciences – amount raised in 
2014 (where known)
Bar chart 6B. Comparison between the Uni
t
ed 
Sta
tes
, C
hin
a Hon
g Kon
g, Ch
ina, 
the U
nited 
Kingdom
, Sweden,
 France, 
Brazil, New
 Zeal
and, Japan,
 South
 Korea
, Sing
ap
ore, 
Australia, Finl
and and Norway in 2014.
Source: S&P Capital IQ
Notes: Values refer to the country in which the IPO was launched, not the domicile of the IPO Company.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  19 
Chart 7A: 
Private equity investment – total investment 
Bar 
char
t 7A
. Co
mpar
i
son
 be
twe
en 
the
 Fr
anc
e, 
Ger
man
y,
 Ireland, I
taly,
 Spai
n, Swit
zerland
 and t
he United Kingdom over the period 2009 - 2013.
Source: European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (EVCA) 
http://www.evca.eu/research/activity-data/annual-activity-statistics/]
Notes: Data is based on country of portfolio company. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  20 
Chart 7B: 
Number of companies receiving private equity investment 
Bar 
char
t 7B
. Co
mpar
i
so
n 
be
tw
een
 th
e F
ran
ce,
 Ge
rma
ny, Ireland, Italy,
 S
pain, Switz
erland
 and 
the Uni
ted Kin
gdom over the period 2009 - 2013.
Source: European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (EVCA)
http://www.evca.eu/research/activity-data/annual-activity-statistics/]
Notes: Data is based on country of portfolio company.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  21 
Chart 8: 
Number of science graduates 
Bar 
char
t 8.
 Com
pari
son 
betw
een 
the 
Belg
i
um, Fr
ance, 
German
y, Irel
and, It
aly, Ja
pan, N
etherl
ands, 
Spain, 
Switzerland
, the
 United Kin
gdom 
and t
he Unit
ed Stat
es ove
r the p
eriod 2008 - 2012.
Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)
http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EDULIT_DS
Notes: Data not available for some countries in certain years.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  22 
Research and Development Indicators

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  23 
Chart 9: 
Government spend on health research and development
Ba
r 
chart
 9. C
ompar
ison bet
ween t
he Belg
ium,
 Fra
nce,
 Ger
many
, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom and the U
n
i
t
e
d
 S
ta
te
s over the period 2008 - 2012.
Source: OECD Research & Development statistics
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?r=xx-xxxx-xxxx
Notes: Government budget appropriations or outlays on R&D in Health.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  24 
Chart 10: 
2013 non-industry spend on research and development
National Institute of 
Health and Research – £959m
Association of Medical Research
Charities Member Charities – £1,294m
Medical Research Council – £767m
Source: Association of Medical Research Charities
http://www.amrc.org.uk/sites/default/files/doc_lib/AMRC-annual-review-2013-14.pdf
Notes: Expenditure by Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research will also be captured by Indicator 9.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  25 
Chart 11: 
Pharmaceutical industry spend on research and development 
in the UK
Graph 11. Changes over the period
 
2
0
0
2
-
2013.
Source: ONS BERD survey 2013 
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit1/bus-ent-res-and-dev/2013/stb-berd-2013.html
Notes: Data is not available for medical technology industry spend. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  26 
Chart 12A: 
Share of life science academic citations
Bar 
char
t 12
A. C
ompa
rison 
betwee
n the C
anada, Chi
na, G
erman
y, Fra
nce, th
e Unit
ed King
dom, 
Italy,
 J
ap
an,
 Ru
ssi
an 
Fed
era
tio
n a
nd 
the United States over the period 2008 - 2012.
Source: International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base –2013
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance-of-the-uk-research-base-international-comparison-2013 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  27 
Chart 12B: 
Share of top 1% (most cited) life science citations
Bar 
char
t 12
B. C
ompa
rison 
betwee
n the C
anada, Chi
na, G
erman
y, Fra
nce, th
e Unit
ed King
dom, 
Italy,
 J
ap
an,
 Ru
ssi
an 
Fed
era
tio
n a
nd 
the
 Un
ite
d S
tates over the period 2008 - 2012.
Source: International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base – 2013
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance-of-the-uk-research-base-international-comparison-2013
Notes: In cases of co-authorship, citations are allocated to all participating countries (so totals may be more than 100%).

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  28 
Regulatory Indicator

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  29 
Chart 13: 
Instances where MHRA is in lead role in 
EU regulatory procedure
B
ar 
cha
rt 
13.
 Co
mpa
ris
on between Centra
lised Procedures Rappor
teur, Scient
ific Advice Co-o
rdinator and
 UK Decentralised Proc
edures over the period 2
008-
2014
.
Source: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
Notes: The chart illustrates the proportion of work the UK has undertaken in three key areas of European regulatory activity. As the work 
of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) within the areas covered by these indicators is collaborative, no 
direct comparison with the other 27 Member States is made and the UK’s position in the leading role is shown as a percentage of all work 
undertaken.
Each new medicinal product seeking approval in Europe through the Centralised Procedure has a Rapporteur and a co-Rapporteur 
appointed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to lead the assessment process. The Decentralised Procedure requires the applicant 
company to select a Reference Member State (RMS) to lead the assessment of the medicine during the procedure. 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  30 
Clinical Research Indicators

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  31 
Chart 14: 
Share of patients recruited to global studies (all trial phases)
Bar 
char
t 14
. Co
mpar
ison between t
he Uni
ted Ki
ngdom, 
th
e 
United States, Germany, France, Pola
nd
 a
nd 
the
 Cz
ech
 Re
pub
lic over the period 2008 - 2012.
Source: This material is reproduced under a licence from CMR International.
Notes: You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the written consent of CMR International.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  32 
Chart 15: 
Time from core package received to first patient 
enrolled in country (all trial phases)
Bar 
char
t 14
. Co
mpar
ison between t
he Uni
ted Ki
ngdom, 
th
e 
Unit
e
d 
Sta
tes
, G
erm
any, France, Poland and the Czech Republic over the period 2008 - 2012.
Source: This material is reproduced under a licence from CMR International.
Notes: You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the written consent of CMR International. 
“Core package received” refers to receipt of final documentation relating to the clinical study by the local operating company 
or their representative.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  33 
Demand-side Indicators

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  34 
Chart 16 
Dashboard of NICE Technology Appraisal publication timeframes
Source: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – Technology Appraisal Programme
Notes: 
MA: Marketing Authorisation
ACD: Appraisal Consultation Document
FAD: Final Appraisal Determination
Dials address forecast and actual 
timeframes for different stages of the 
NICE Technology Appraisal process. 
Full details of the process, including 
descriptions of the separate stages can 
be found on the NICE website (http://
www.nice.org.uk/About/What-we-do/
Our-Programmes/NICE-guidance/NICE-
technology-appraisal-guidance). Red and 
Green zones on dials relate to whether 
milestones have been attained within 
existing targets for NICE performance.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  35 
Chart 17 
Uptake of new medicines
Year 1
11.4%
UK uptake per head/all country uptake per head
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
Years from launch
Year 2
31.9%
Year 3
50.7%
Year 4
50.7%
Year 5
90.2%
Source: IMS Health, courtesy of the Office of Health Economics
Notes: The chart shows the per capita uptake 
of twenty-eight new medicines launched in 
the UK between 2007 to 2012 and approved 
(recommended or restricted) by NICE, compared 
to the average in a group of comparator countries 
(Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, 
France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, 
New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and 
USA). The vertical lines represent uptake of the 
medicines in their 1st, 2nd etc. years after launch. 
Thus medicines launched in 2012 will only appear 
in the ‘Year 1 from launch’ group, those launched 
in 2011 will appear in both the ‘Year 1 from launch’ 
and ‘Year 2 from launch’ groups and so on. The 
medicines launched in 2007 will appear in all five 
year groups.
The percentage number reported in each year is 
the median rate of uptake in the UK relative to the 
international average in that year; in other words 
half of the medicines have a higher UK relative rate 
of use, and half have a lower UK relative rate of 
use. A value below 100% means that the UK per 
capita consumption of the new medicine(s) is below 
the international average. For example, medicines 
in their 3rd year after launch (and subsequently 
approved by NICE) were used in the UK at a level 
which was on average 50.7% of the average usage 
in the comparator countries. Caution is required 
in the 5th year after launch as the median rate of 
uptake reported (90.2%) is based on only five data 
points (medicines) and is therefore highly sensitive 
to the choice of medicines included.

BIS/15/249