Life sciences competitiveness indicators, 2018
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 
May 2018

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  2
Ministerial foreword
I am pleased to introduce the fourth annual Life Science Competitiveness Indicators report. Since last year’s publication, the 
UK has generated approximately £70.3bn in annual turnover, with a total of 5,700 new jobs across the sector, and today, 
the UK has one of the strongest and most productive health and life sciences industries in the world. In 2017, we published 
the first Life Sciences Sector Deal building on the ambitious Life Sciences Industrial Strategy paper. The Deal committed 
nearly £500 million of Government investment into UK life sciences, backed by investment from 25 organisations across the 
sector, that will build on the sector’s strengths, help to secure thousands of jobs and ensure that new innovative medicines 
and technologies are created in the UK.
Now, as we move closer to exiting the European Union, Government remains focussed and committed to identifying new 
opportunities presented to maintain and strengthen this position.  
This report includes a set of metrics which displays UK performance compared to a range of comparator countries. In 2017, 
the UK received the highest level of life science foreign direct investment projects in Europe, the highest in the past 7 years 
and only second to the United States. The UK also continues to attract significant private equity investment, with over 
€750m invested in 67 UK projects in 2016. I am pleased to say that the UK’s science base remains a key strength, punching 
well above its weight with 12% of total life sciences academic citations and 18% of the most-cited publications, the second 
highest share above China, Germany and Canada. The UK also remains a key location for clinical trials, remaining steady at 
a 3.1% share of patients recruited to global studies.
The sector continues to grow and Government has strong ambitions that more can be done. As part of the sector deal, 
we will increase investment in R&D to 2.4 per cent of GDP by 2027 and 3 per cent over the longer term – delivering an 
estimated increase of £80bn over the next 10 years. We have also set out plans for the Health Research Authority to speed 
up approvals for clinical trials. 
Through these commitments, we are ensuring that the UK remains a top tier global hub and the home of clinical research 
and medical innovation. Our ambition remains for the UK to be the best place in the world to develop and launch innovative 
medicines, technologies and diagnostics, for the benefit of patients and boosting growth.
Lord Henley
Parliamentary Under 
Secretary of State of 
the Department for 
Business, Energy and 
Industrial Strategy
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Parliamentary Under 
Secretary of State of the 
Department of Health 
and Social Care

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  3
Introduction
This Office for Life Sciences (OLS) report brings together a set of competitiveness indicators on the life science environment in 
the UK and presents how these compare internationally. This is the fourth report and is published on the same day as another  
annual OLS publication – Strength & Opportunity – which provides detailed analysis of the life science sector in the UK.
The 2018 publication seeks continuity with the 2017 publication through minimal changes, whilst aiming to set the data in 
context. Indicators have been reorganised into chapters aligned to the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy.  A new summary 
aims to draw out year-on-year and longer term trends alongside international comparisons. The choice of comparator 
countries has been reviewed for each indicator, balancing consistency across similar indicators with continuity from previous 
years. Data availability restricts comparator country choice for some indicators.
The choice of indicators was informed by engagement with life science sector stakeholders. There were no amendments to 
the construction of most indicators, with the exception of:
•	 Total industry R&D spend has been presented alongside pharmaceutical industry R&D spend to set in context (chart 3).
•	 The two academic citations indicators have been reintroduced following the first refresh of the underlying source data 
since 2012 (charts 6A & 6B).
•	 The previous NICE ‘dashboard’ has been redesigned to focus on the key messages – speed and volume of NICE 
Technology Appraisals– and improve readability (chart 14).
•	 The uptake of new medicines indicators have been presented in a new style to improve readability (charts 15A & 15B). 
The web links to public sources along with caveats, as appropriate, are provided for each indicator. The specific data used in 
this publication can be found in the accompanying spreadsheet. In the few instances where data is sourced commercially or 
obtained directly from the organisation holding it, the supplier is clearly credited but no web link is given. 
OLS would like to thank all those who have contributed to these indicators, or supplied data for this publication.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  4
Table of contents
Reinforcing the UK Science Offer
7
Chart 1: Government spend on health research and development
8
Chart 2: Non-industry spend on research and development
9
Chart 3: Pharmaceutical industry spend on research and 
development in the UK
10
Chart 4: Share of patients recruited to global studies (all trial phases)
11
Chart 5: Time from core package received to first patient enrolled in 
country (all trial phases)
12
Chart 6A: Share of life sciences academic citations
13
Chart 6B: Share of top 1% (most cited) life sciences academic citations
14
Growth and Infrastructure
15
Chart 7A: Number of people employed in manufacture of basic 
pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical products
16
Chart 7B: Number of people employed in manufacture of medical 
technology products
17
Chart 8: Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing
18
Chart 9A: Global exports of pharmaceutical products
19
Chart 9B: Global exports of medical technology products
20
Chart 10A: Global imports of pharmaceutical products
21
Chart 10B: Global imports of medical technology products
22
Chart 11A: Life sciences foreign direct investment projects
23
Chart 11B: Life sciences foreign direct investment - capital expenditure
24
Chart 12A: Share of global life science Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in 2017 25
Chart 12B: Amount raised in global life science Initial Public Offerings 
(IPOs) in 2017 (where known)
26
Chart 13A: Total private equity investment in biotech and healthcare
27
Chart 13B: Number of companies receiving private equity investment 
in biotech and healthcare
28
NHS collaboration
29
Chart 14: Speed and volume of NICE Technology Appraisals
30
Chart 15A: Uptake of new medicines - NICE approved
31
Chart 15B: Uptake of new medicines - Non-NICE reviewed
32
Skills
33
Chart 16: Percentage of graduates from tertiary education 
graduating from Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Statistics 
programmes, both sexes (%)
34
Regulation
35
Chart 17: Instances where MHRA is in lead role in EU regulatory procedure 36

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  5
Overview: Performance of UK Life Science Sector and 
Contribution to UK Economy
Chapter
#
Indicator
Current value (year)
Current rank amongst
selected countries
Reinforcing the UK 
Science Offer
1
Government spend on health research and development
$3.1bn (2015) 
2nd of 13
2
Non-industry spend on research and development
£3.6bn (2015/16) 
N/A
3
Pharmaceutical industry spend on research and development in the UK
£4.1bn (2016) 
N/A
4
Share of patients recruited to global studies (all trial phases)
3.1% (2016) 
4 of 10
5
Time from core package received to first patient enrolled in country (all trial 
phases)
202 days (2016) 
7 of 10
6A
Share of life sciences academic citations
12% (2014) 
2 of 19
6B
Share of most cited (top 1%) life sciences academic citations
18% (2014) 
2 of 19
Growth & 
Infrastructure
7A
Number of people employed in manufacture of basic pharmaceutical 
products and pharmaceutical preparations
40,500 (2016) 
6 of 12
7B
Number of people employed in manufacture of medical technology products
40,300 (2016) 
4 of 12
8
Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing
€9.2bn (2015) 
6 of 11
9A
Global exports of pharmaceutical products
$33.3bn (2016) 
5 of 18
9B
Global exports of medical technology products
$3.8bn (2016) 
12 of 18
10A
Global imports of pharmaceutical products
$33.4bn (2016) 
4 of 18
10B
Global imports of medical technology products
$5.1bn (2016) 
8 of 18
11A
Life sciences foreign direct investment projects
60 (2017) 
2 of 15
11B
Life sciences foreign direct investment – capital expenditure
£750m (2017) 
4 of 15
12A
Share of global life science Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) 
1% (2017) 
11 of 20
12B
Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in life sciences – amount raised (where known)
£22m (2017) 
16 of 20
13A
Private equity investment – total investment
€760m (2016) 
3 of 12
13B
Number of companies receiving private equity investment
67 (2016) 
5 of 12

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  6
Overview: Competitiveness of UK Life Science 
Environment Economy
Chapter
#
Indicator
Current value (year)
Current rank amongst
selected countries
NHS collaboration
14
Speed and volume of NICE Technology Appraisals – time from Marketing 
Authorisation to first NICE output
6.0 months (2017/18) 
N/A
14
Speed and volume of NICE Technology Appraisals – time from Marketing 
Authorisation to final NICE guidance
10.2 months (2017/18) 
N/A
15A
Uptake of new medicines – NICE approved  (relative uptake compared 
against average comparator uptake 3 years after launch)
70% (2012 to 2016) 
N/A
15B
Uptake of new medicines – non-NICE reviewed
56% (2012 to 2016) 
N/A
Skills
16
Percentage of graduates from tertiary education graduating from Natural 
Sciences, Mathematics and Statistics programmes, both sexes (%)
13% (2015) 
1 of 14
Regulation
17
Instances where MHRA is in lead role in EU regulatory procedure (%)
25% (2016) 
N/A

Reinforcing the UK Science Offer

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  8
Chart 1: 
Government spend on health research and development
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Spend ($m)
USA
UK
Germany
Japan
Canada
Spain
France
Italy
Netherlands
Sweden
Belgium
Ireland
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
29,000
31,000
33,000
Source: OECD Research & Development statistics
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?r=xx-xxxx-xxxx
Notes: Government budget appropriations or outlays on R&D Health
•	 UK government spend on health R&D was $3.1bn in 
2015, an increase of a fifth from 2012.
•	 The UK maintained its position as country with the 
second highest level of expenditure on health R&D 
behind the US.
•	 UK spend is more than double that of its competitors, 
with the exception of the USA. 
•	 Expenditure in the USA remained at an order of 
magnitude of over 10 larger than expenditure in 
comparator countries.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  9
Chart 2: 
Non-industry spend on research and development
AMRC member charities
Medical Research Council
National Institute for Health Research 
£1,594m
45%
£1,037m
29%
£928m
26%
Sources: AMRC , MRC and NIHR annual reports 2016
http://www.amrc.org.uk/publications
https://www.mrc.ac.uk/publications/browse/?keywords=annual+report&searchSectionID=4BC7DBBA-1972-4E8B-898B31A1B8A6EEB0
https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/documents/NIHR-Annual-Report-2015-16.pdf
Note: Spend by health departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland not illustrated 
•	 In 2015/16, AMRC charities contributed 45% of 
non-industry spend on R&D, with the MRC and NIHR 
contributed 26% and 29% respectively.
•	 Expenditure by AMRC member charities increased 
from £1,443m in 2015 to £1,594m in 2016. 
•	 All types of non-industry R&D spend increased 
between 2012/13 and 2015/16, with:
––
AMRC charities’ expenditure increasing by 23%
––
MRC spend increasing by 21%
––
NIHR spend increasing by 8%
•	 The relative contribution of each organisation  has 
remained roughly constant since 2012/13.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  10
Chart 3: 
Pharmaceutical industry spend on research and development in the UK
Spend (£bn)
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
12,000
15,000
18,000
21,000
24,000
Total industry UK R&D spend
Pharma industry UK R&D spend
•	 Pharmaceutical industry UK spend on R&D in 2016 
was £4.1bn.
•	 Pharmaceutical industry R&D spend represents a fifth 
of total industry R&D spend in the UK.
•	 Between 2005 and 2011, pharmaceutical industry 
UK R&D spend grew steadily to a peak of £4.9bn in 
2011, followed by a decline to £3.8bn in 2014. Spend 
grew by 8% in 2015 and stabilised in 2016.
•	 Pharmaceuticals’ share of total industry R&D spend 
in the UK increased from 25% to 29% between 2005 
and 2010. Pharmaceuticals’ share decreased from 
29% to 19% between 2010 and 2016 as a decline in 
pharma spend (by 23%) coincided with a substantial 
increase in total industry spend. (by 17%).
Source: UK Business Expenditure on Research and Development (BERD) 2016 survey, Office for National Statistics (ONS)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/researchanddevelopmentexpenditure/datasets/ukbusinessenterpriseresearchanddevelopment
Notes: Data is not available for medical technology industry spend

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  11
Chart 4: 
Share of patients recruited to global studies 
(all trial phases)
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Share of patients
recruited globally (%)
USA
Germany
Canada
UK
Spain
France
Italy
Australia
Netherlands
Switzerland
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
25
30
35
40
45
•	 The UK’s share of patients recruited to global studies 
in 2016 was 3.1%, slightly falling from a peak of 4.2% 
in 2015.
•	 The UK ranks fourth, behind the USA, Germany 
and Canada. The USA consistently outstrips other 
comparator countries with a share of 32.3% in 2016.
•	 From the EUdraCT database, the UK’s share of EU 
study applications in 2017 remained broadly constant 
at 28%, compared with 29% in 2016.
•	 The number of UK clinical trials of investigational 
medicinal products increased from 978 in 2016 to 
1000 in 2017. The number of first in human trials 
increased from 69 in 2016 to 104 in 2017.
•	 From the NIHR, the number of participants recruited 
to commercial contract studies increased from 
20,500 in 2012/13 to 34,648 in 2015/16, through the 
support of the NIHR Clinical Research Network.
Sources: Clarivate Analytics; EudraCT database; Medicines Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  12
Chart 5: 
Time from core package received to first patient enrolled in country 
(all trial phases)
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Number of days
USA
Spain
Australia
Italy
Germany
Canada
UK
France
Netherlands
Switzerland
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
•	 In 2016 the average time from core package being 
received to the first patient being enrolled in the UK 
was 202 days. 
•	 This represents an increase of 19 days (10%) from 
2015 but is 36 days quicker than the peak in 2014.
•	 The UK ranks seventh amongst comparator 
countries, although there is only 5 days between 
fourth and eighth.
•	 The USA was the quickest to enrol patients with an 
average time of 116 days in 2016, and consistently 
below 120 days since 2012.
•	 Data from the National Institute for Health Research 
(NIHR) shows that, in 2016/17, 73% of commercial 
contract studies were delivered to time and target 
by the NIHR Clinical Research Network, a 10% 
improvement on the previous year. 
•	 In 2016/17 the NIHR Clinical Research Network 
supported recruitment of 24 global and 4 European 
first patients into studies across a range of therapy 
areas.
Sources: Clarivate Analytics; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  13
Chart 6A: 
Share of life sciences academic citations
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
Share of citations (%)
USA
UK
China
Germany
Canada
Italy
France
Netherlands
Spain
Japan
Switzerland
Republic of Korea
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
36
38
40
42
44
•	 In 2014, the UK’s share of life science academic 
citations was 12%, with it ranking second amongst 
comparator countries, behind the USA.
•	 The UK’s share remained constant at 12% from 2005 
to 2014.
•	 Most countries’ share has remained steady from 
2005 to 2014 with the exception of:
––
USA, whose share declined from 48% to 39% but 
remains ranked first;
––
China, whose share rose from 3% to 11% and 
now ranks third.
•	 Countries with a share smaller than 3% include: 
Brazil, Sweden, India, Belgium, Singapore, Ireland 
and Russia.
Source: International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance-of-the-uk-research-base-international-comparison-2013

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  14
Chart 6B: 
Share of top 1% (most cited) life sciences academic citations
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
Share of citations (%)
USA
UK
Germany
China
Canada
France
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Switzerland
Sweden
Japan
0
5
10
15
20
50
55
60
•	 Share of top 1% of academic citations is an indicator 
of the quality of research.
•	 In 2014, the UK’s share of the top 1% of life sciences 
academic citations was 18%, with it ranking second 
amongst comparator countries, behind the USA.
•	 The UK’s share increased from 15% to 20% between 
2005 and 2012, followed by a decline to 18% in 
2014.
•	 Most countries’ share has remained steady from 
2005 to 2014 with the exception of:
––
USA, whose share declined from 62% to 55% but 
remains ranked first;
––
China, whose share rose from 2% to 10% and 
now ranks fourth, behind Germany.
•	 Countries with a share smaller than 4% are: Belgium, 
the Republic of Korea, Brazil, India, Singapore, Ireland 
and Russia.
Source: International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance-of-the-uk-research-base-international-comparison-2013

Growth and Infrastructure

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  16
Chart 7A: 
Number of people employed in manufacture of basic pharmaceuticals 
and pharmaceutical products
Germany
France
Italy
Switzerland
Spain
UK
Belgium
Ireland
Austria
Sweden
Netherlands
Finland
Number employed
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
•	 Employment in pharmaceutical manufacturing in the 
UK was 40,000 people in 2016. This is an increase 
of 3,000 from 2014, following a drop of 13,000 since 
2012.
•	 In 2016, the UK ranked fifth for pharmaceutical 
employment.
•	 Germany consistently had the highest employment 
among selected comparator countries throughout 
2012 to 2016.
•	 Note there is limited data for France, UK, Ireland and 
Finland in specific years due to unavailability from 
Eurostat.
•	 OLS’s ‘Strength & Opportunity 2017’ publication 
provides a more complete and up-to-date picture of 
trends in UK life science employment.
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: Not all years are available for each country 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  17
Chart 7B: 
Number of people employed in manufacture of medical technology products
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Number employed
Germany
Italy
France
UK
Ireland
Switzerland
Spain
Netherlands
Austria
Sweden
Belgium
Finland
0
15,000
30,000
45,000
60,000
75,000
180,000
195,000
210,000
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: Med Tech chart is compiled from figures for 266 (Manufacture of irradiation, electromedical and electrotherapeutic equipment) + 325 (Manufacture of medical and dental 
instruments and supplies)
•	 Employment in medical technology manufacturing 
in the UK was 40,000 people in 2016. Employment 
has remained steady since 2013, following a drop of 
5,000 between 2012 and 2013.
•	 In 2016, the UK ranked fourth for med tech 
employment.
•	 Germany consistently had the highest employment 
among selected comparator countries throughout 
2012 to 2016.
•	 These data are known to be underestimates as the 
categories do not capture the full breadth of medical 
technology. They are used to ensure like-for-like 
international comparisons.
•	 OLS’s ‘Strength & Opportunity 2017’ publication 
provides a more complete and up-to-date picture of 
UK life sciences trends.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  18
Chart 8: 
Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing
Switzerland
Germany
France
Ireland
Italy
UK
Spain
Belgium
Netherlands
Austria
Finland
Gross Value Added (€m)
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Source: Eurostat - Data Explorer National Accounts aggregates by industry
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do
Notes: Category used is “Manufacture of basic pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical products”. Data is in chain linked volumes (2005)
•	 Gross Valued Added (GVA) measures the contribution 
to the economy of an industry. It is calculated as 
either outputs minus inputs, or revenue (turnover) 
minus costs.
•	 In the UK, the GVA for pharmaceutical manufacturing 
was broadly flat between 2014 and 2015 at £9.2bn. 
•	 UK life sciences GVA represents 7.3% of UK total 
manufacturing GVA and 0.7% of the GVA for the UK 
economy as a whole. 
•	 For the latest year of data available, UK GVA ranked 
sixth.
•	 Switzerland and Germany continue to be two 
European countries with the most productive 
pharmaceutical manufacturing sectors.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  19
Chart 9A: 
Global exports of pharmaceutical products
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Exports ($bn)
Germany
Switzerland
USA
Belgium
UK
Ireland
France
Netherlands
Italy
India
China
Canada
Singapore
Japan
Republic of Korea
Mexico
Brazil
Russia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
•	 UK exports of pharmaceutical products had a value of 
$33.3bn in 2016.
•	 This is an 8% fall from a peak of $36.4bn in 2012, 
after a steady rise from $29.1bn in 2007. 
•	 In 2016, the UK ranked fifth, at a very similar level to 
Ireland. Germany has consistently shown the highest 
value pharmaceutical exports since 2012, with 
Belgium dropping into fourth behind Switzerland and 
the USA from 2015.
•	 The Republic of Korea, Canada, India, Switzerland 
and the Netherlands all experienced pharmaceutical 
exports growth of over 20% over 2012 to 2016.
•	 Up-to-date UK data, available from ONS, shows a 
2.5% rise in pharmaceutical exports between 2016 
and 2017.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
Notes: Categories used from UNCTAD are “541 Medicinal and pharmaceutical products”, “542 Medicaments including veterinary medicament”. Data is in current prices. 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  20
Chart 9B: 
Global exports of medical technology products
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
USA
Germany
Netherlands
China
Mexico
Belgium
Japan
Ireland
France
Singapore
Switzerland
UK
Italy
Republic of Korea
Canada
India
Brazil
Russia
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Exports ($bn)
•	 UK exports of medical technology products had a 
value of $3.8bn in 2016.
•	 This is a slight fall (by 3%) from a peak of $4.4bn in 
2014, after a steady rise from $3.5bn in 2007. 
•	 In 2014, the UK ranked 12th out of the 18 
comparative countries in value of medical technology 
exports. The UK had a similar level of exports to 
Singapore and Switzerland.
•	 Up-to-date UK data, available from ONS, shows a 
7.4% rise in medical technology exports between 
2016 and 2017.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
Notes: Categories used from UNCTAD STAT 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  21
Chart 10A: 
Global imports of pharmaceutical products
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Imports ($bn)
USA
Germany
Belgium
UK
Switzerland
France
Japan
Italy
China
Netherlands
Canada
Russia
Brazil
Ireland
Republic of Korea
Mexico
India
Singapore
0
20
40
60
80
100
•	 UK imports of pharmaceutical products had a value 
of $33.4bn in 2016, almost the same as UK exports 
at $33.3bn.
•	 UK pharmaceutical imports steadily increased from 
$20.9bn in 2007 to a peak of $34.7bn in 2014, and 
have since fallen slightly.
•	 In 2016, the UK had the fourth highest 
pharmaceutical imports, behind the USA, Germany 
and Belgium.
•	 The USA saw an increase of over $40bn in 
pharmaceutical imports between 2007 and 2016. 
China and Japan saw increases of $18bn and $16bn 
respectively during the same period, to over $20bn in 
2016.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en
Notes: Categories used are from UNCTAD “541 Medicinal and pharmaceutical products” “542 Medicaments including veterinary medicament”. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  22
Chart 10B: 
Global imports of medical technology products
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Imports ($bn)
USA
Germany
China
Netherlands
Japan
France
Belgium
UK
Italy
Canada
Mexico
Singapore
Republic of Korea
Switzerland
India
Russia
Brazil
Ireland
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
•	 The value of UK imports of medical technology 
products was $5.1bn in 2016.
•	 In 2016, the UK was 8th out of the 18 selected 
comparator countries, with a similar level of imports 
to Belgium. 
•	 The USA has consistently had the highest value of 
medical technology imports with a 2016 level nearly 
three-fold that of the second highest comparator 
countries ($30.5bn compared to Germany’s $10.6bn).
•	 The USA saw an increase of over $11bn in medical 
technology imports between 2007 and 2016. Other 
countries experiencing big increases during that 
period include China, the Netherlands, Germany, 
Japan and Belgium.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en
Notes: Categories used from UNCTAD STAT 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  23
Chart 11A: 
Life sciences foreign direct investment projects
Number of projects
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
USA
UK
China
France
Germany
Ireland
India
Japan
•	 There were 60 life science foreign direct investment 
projects in the UK in 2017, the highest in the past 7 
years and double the number in 2011.
•	 In 2017, the UK remained second for number of life 
sciences fDI projects, behind the USA.
•	 The US have consistently ranked first among selected 
comparator countries between 2013 and 2017, with 
141 projects in 2017.
•	 Countries with fewer than 20 life sciences fDI projects 
include: Switzerland, Canada, Russia, Australia, the 
Republic of Korea, Italy and Sweden.
Source: fDi Markets, from The Financial Times Ltd.
http://www.fdimarkets.com/explore/?p=sector
Notes: Numbers are for the year that projects were announced. 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  24
Chart 11B: 
Life sciences foreign direct investment - capital expenditure
Spend in pounds (£m)
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
USA
China
Ireland
UK
India
France
Germany
Japan
Switzerland
0
600
1,200
1,800
2,400
3,000
3,600
•	 The value of life sciences foreign direct investment 
capital expenditure in the UK was £747m in 2017, 
returning to 2015 levels following a dip to £296m in 
2016.
•	 In 2017, the UK ranked fourth in value of fDI, behind 
the USA, China and Ireland. 
•	 The USA life sciences foreign direct investment capital 
expenditure increased by 155% between 2013 
to 2017, whilst during the same period China fDI 
expenditure decreased by 50%.
•	 Countries with fDI capital expenditure of less than 
£400m include: Australia, Russia, Italy, Canada, the 
Republic of Korea and Sweden.
Source: fDi Markets, from The Financial Times Ltd.
http://www.fdimarkets.com/explore/?p=sector
Notes: Numbers are for the year that projects were announced.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  25
Chart 12A: 
Share of global life science Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in 2017
China 37%
USA 24%
Sweden 13%
Australia 6% 
Republic of Korea 4%
India 4%
France 3%
Taiwan 1%
Canada 1%
Japan 1%
UK 1%
Other 9%
China
37%
USA
24%
Sweden
13%
•	 In 2017, the UK had 2 life sciences Initial Public 
Offerings (IPOs) which equates to a 1% share.
•	 The UK’s share of global life science IPOs in 2016 
was similar to Canada, Taiwan and Japan.
•	 China (including Hong Kong) had the largest global 
share of life science IPOs in 2017, with 37%.
•	 The UK’s share of global life science IPOs dropped in 
2017 from 4% in 2016. 
Source: S&P Capital IQ
http://www.spcapitaliq.com/
Notes: Country is the country in which the IPO was launched, not the domicile of the IPO country. USA includes Over The Counter (OTC) and Pink Sheets stocks which are not 
traded on the stock exchanges.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  26
Chart 12B: 
Amount raised in global life science Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in 2017 
(where known)
Amount raised (£m)
USA
China
Switzerland
Sweden
Luxembourg & Brazil
Republic of Korea
India
France
Australia
Denmark
Canada
Norway
Argentina
Japan
Taiwan
UK
Pakistan
Turkey
Bangladesh
Poland
0
100
200
300
400
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
•	 UK Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in life sciences raised 
£22m in 2017. This compares to approx. £1.6bn 
raised in 2016, although it should be noted there is 
extreme volatility in these figures year-to-year.
•	 In 2017, the UK ranked 16th among 20 selected 
comparator countries. 
•	 The USA raised the largest amount of IPOs in life 
sciences in 2017, with approximately £2,840m. USA 
figures include Over The Counter (OTC) and Pink 
Sheets stocks which are not traded on the stock 
exchanges.
•	 Data on amount raised is not available for nearly half 
of IPOs launched in China (37 of 76) so total amount 
for China will be an underestimate. Chinese figures 
include Hong Kong. 
•	 The Swiss amount was raised from a single large 
listing.
Source: S&P Capital IQ
http://www.spcapitaliq.com/
Notes: Country is the country in which the IPO was launched, not the domicile of the IPO country.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  27
Chart 13A: 
Total private equity investment in biotech and healthcare
Investment (€m)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Austria
Belgium
Finland
Ireland
Switzerland
Netherlands
Sweden
Spain
Germany
UK
Italy
France
•	 The amount of private equity investment in the UK in 
2016 was €756m, remaining steady since 2013.
•	 In 2016, the UK ranked third behind France (€1.6bn) 
and Italy (€948m).
•	 Level of investment is volatile, with three countries 
ranking top in the past five years and year-on-year 
changes of up to over €1.0bn seen.
•	 Private equity is equity capital provided to enterprises 
not quoted on a stock market, originating from funds 
raised through private equity vehicles. It includes 
venture capital (seed, start-up and later stage 
venture), growth capital, replacement capital, rescue/
turnaround and buyouts.
Source: European Private Activity Statistics 2016, Invest Europe
https://www.investeurope.eu/research/invest-europe-publications/#s
Notes: Data is based on country of portfolio company. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  28
Chart 13B: 
Number of companies receiving private equity investment in biotech 
and healthcare
Number of companies
0
50
100
150
200
250
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Austria
Ireland
Belgium
Italy
Switzerland
Finland
Netherlands
UK
Sweden
Spain
Germany
France
•	 The number of companies receiving private equity 
investment in the UK decreased from 80 in 2015 
to 67 in 2016. This continues the decline from 111 
companies in 2012.  
•	 In 2016, the UK ranked joint fourth, behind France 
at 211, Germany at 139 and Spain at 68 (one more 
than the UK). France and Germany have consistently 
ranked top two.
•	 Private equity is equity capital provided to enterprises 
not quoted on a stock market, originating from funds 
raised through private equity vehicles. It includes 
venture capital (seed, start-up and later stage 
venture), growth capital, replacement capital, rescue/
turnaround and buyouts.
Source: European Private Activity Statistics 2016, Invest Europe
https://www.investeurope.eu/research/invest-europe-publications/#s
Notes: Data is based on country of portfolio company. Data is in current prices.

NHS collaboration

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  30
Chart 14: 
Speed and volume of NICE Technology Appraisals
Time from Marketing Authorisation to 1st NICE output
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2018/19
2017/18
2016/17
2015/16
2014/15
2013/14
2012/13
Non-Cancer
Cancer
All topics
Months
Time from Marketing Authorisation to final NICE guidance
Months
2018/19
2017/18
2016/17
2015/16
2014/15
2013/14
2012/13
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Non-Cancer
Cancer
All topics
•	 In 2017/18, the average time from Marketing 
Authorisation to 1st NICE output was 6 months, and 
to final NICE guidance was 10.2 months. 
•	 On average, 1st output is 3.4 months quicker than 5 
years ago, and final guidance is 5.7 months quicker. 
•	 Speed of appraisal output is affected by appeals, 
late referrals, additional committee meetings and 
companies negotiating timing of appraisal.
•	 NICE had a positive recommendation rate of 
82% between April 2012 and February 2018 
(recommended, optimised and CDF).
•	 Since NICE’s creation in 2000 it has given 762 
recommendations, arising from 507 Technology 
Appraisals.
Notes: CDF was introduced in 2016, re-appraisals of 
existing products have been excluded.  2018/19 data is 
forecasted.
Source: NICE
Recommendation 
categories
Total (April 2012 to 
February 2018)
Recommended
145 (47%)
Optimised
93 (30%)
CDF*
12 (4%)
Only in Research
3 (1%)
Not Recommended
53 (17%)
Total
306 (100%)
Target: 90% of Single Technical Appraisals should issue 
1st NICE output within 6 months

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  31
Chart 15A: 
Uptake of new medicines - NICE approved
Per capita uptake of medicines with a positive NICE recommendation 
against per capita uptake for 15 comparator countries
Years since launch
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2012-16
2011-15
Year 5
Year 4
Year 3
Year 2
Year 1
Median
•	 This indicator is a measure of relative uptake per 
capita for medicines first marketed between 2012 
and 2016 and recommended by NICE, alongside the 
same analysis for medicines launched during 2011 to 
2015. 
•	 Median UK uptake of NICE-approved medicines in 
the first year after launch was at 21% of comparator 
countries. This rose to 78% by year 5. A value of 
100% means UK per capita consumption is identical 
to the average uptake per capita for the comparison 
countries. 
•	 There were 60 medicines included for 2012-16, 
compared to 52 for 2011-15. Medicines are included 
only if UK sales were above £1m at list price in 2017 
and on sale for 12 months in at least 4 of the 15 
comparators.
•	 The analysis adjusts for population size, but not for 
need (no. of cases), standard clinical practice or total 
medicine spend in each country, which is likely to 
affect uptake. 
Positive Recommendation
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
2011-2015
20%
47%
70%
83%
80%
2012-2016
21%
47%
70%
79%
78%
Source: ABPI analysis of IQVIA data
Notes: Comparator countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, USA

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  32
Chart 15B: 
Uptake of new medicines - Non-NICE reviewed
Per capita uptake of medicines not reviewed by NICE against per capita 
uptake for 15 comparator countries
Years since launch
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2012-16
2011-15
Year 5
Year 4
Year 3
Year 2
Year 1
Median
•	 This indicator is a measure of relative uptake per 
capita for first marketed between 2012 and 2016 and 
recommended by NICE, alongside the same analysis 
for medicines launched during 2011 to 2015. 
•	 Median UK uptake of non-NICE reviewed medicines 
in the first year after launch was at 22% of 
comparator countries. This rose to 103% by year 5. 
A value of 100% means UK per capita consumption 
is identical to the average uptake per capita for the 
comparison countries. 
•	 There were 38 medicines included for 2012-16, 
compared to 33 for 2011-15. Medicines are included 
only if UK sales were above £1m at list price in 2017 
and on sale for 12 months in at least 4 of the 15 
comparators.
•	 The analysis adjusts for population size, but not for 
need (no. of cases), standard clinical practice or total 
medicine spend in each country, which is likely to 
affect uptake. 
Non NICE reviewed
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
2011-2015
24%
45%
57%
79%
99%
2012-2016
22%
44%
56%
71%
90%
Source: ABPI analysis of IQVIA data
Notes: Comparator countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, USA

Skills

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  34
Chart 16: 
Percentage of graduates from tertiary education graduating from Natural 
Sciences, Mathematics and Statistics programmes, both sexes (%)
Percentage (%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
  2015
  2014
  2013
  2012
  2011
Russia
Netherlands
Brazil
Belgium
Republic of Korea
Sweden
Spain
USA
Ireland
Italy
Switzerland
France
India
UK
•	 This indicator is a measure of upcoming talent and 
potential skills base for the life sciences. Tertiary 
education is an undergraduate degree or equivalent.
•	 The UK ranked first for the proportion of graduates 
from Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Statistics 
programmes.
•	 In 2015, 13.4% of graduates were from these 
programmes, roughly similar to the previous two 
years, following an increase of 4 percentage points 
between 2012 and 2013.
•	 No data was available for Germany. Countries with 
fewer than 4% include: Belgium, Brazil, Netherlands 
and Russia. 
Source: UNESCO, Education theme
http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=163#

Regulation

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  36
Chart 17: 
Instances where MHRA is in lead role in EU regulatory procedure
Percentage (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
UK Decentralised Procedures - Reference Member State
Scientific Advice Co-ordinator
Centralised Procedures Rapporteur/Corapporteur
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
•	 The MHRA is a leading regulator of choice for 
scientific advice and centralised procedures.
•	 The MHRA took a lead role in 25% of EU regulatory 
procedures in 2017.
•	 In 2017, the MHRA was: 
––
Rapporteur/Co-rapporteur in 9% of Centralised 
Procedures; 
––
Scientific Advice Co-ordinator in 19% of cases; 
––
Reference Member State in 42% of Decentralised 
Procedures involving the UK
•	 This corresponds to:
––
18 cases Centralised Procedures;
––
118 cases as Scientific Advice Co-ordinator;
––
165 UK Decentralised Procedure cases.
Source: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency 

Contact BEIS Email: xxx@xxx.xx
Phone: xx-xxxx-xxxx Web: www.beis.gov.uk