Life science competitiveness indicators report, May 2016
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 2016

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  2 
Ministerial Foreword
I am delighted to introduce the second in the annual series of Life Science Competitiveness Indicators. Since the launch 
of the UK Life Science Strategy in 2011, Government has secured £6bn of inward investment, leading to 17,000 jobs. 
Today, the UK has one of the strongest and most productive health and life sciences industries in the world, and this report 
helps to show why.    
The report includes a set of internationally comparable metrics of UK performance relative to competitor countries. 
The data shows the continued strength of the sector: in 2015 the UK received the highest level of life science foreign direct 
investment projects in Europe, second only to the US and increased on the previous year. It also highlights our other areas 
of comparative strength: a strong academic science base and clinical research environment and high levels of health and life 
sciences industry productivity. And I am pleased that the most recent data for the UK shows an increase between 2014 and 
2015 of 17 per cent in pharmaceutical exports and 3 per cent in medtech exports – underlining this Government’s export 
ambitions. We are on track to increase total life science trade and exports from £30bn to £40bn by 2020.
As the Prime Minister set out when launching the Life Science Strategy, we are not complacent. Alongside the UK’s areas 
of strength, the report also shows where we face significant competition from other countries, particularly the United States 
and Germany, for inward investment, exports and skilled workers. Our ambition remains for the UK to be the best place 
in the world to develop and launch innovative medicines, technologies and diagnostics, benefiting patients and boosting 
growth, and we are making good progress toward that. We are particularly well placed to lead in emerging areas of global 
competition – for example, in genomics, where the UK’s science base provides a boost for biopharmaceutical industries. 
Government actions currently under way, such as the Early Access to Medicines Scheme and our wide-ranging Accelerated 
Access Review, should also ensure the UK remains well placed to respond to international competition, but this is an area 
we must keep under active review. 
George Freeman MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Life Sciences 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  3 
Introduction
This Office for Life Sciences (OLS) report brings together international comparisons of a set of indicators on the competitiveness 
of the life science environment in the UK. It is the second time OLS have published this report. It complements the other annual 
OLS publication – Strength & Opportunity – which provides a more detailed analysis of the life science industry landscape in 
the UK only. 
Improvements made since the 2015 publication include:
•	
Adding narrative text to describe trends
•	
Incorporating supplementary data into the narrative in some cases to support up to date understanding of the UK 
position
•	
Publishing a spreadsheet with underlying data for the majority of indicators (where data is from a proprietary source this 
has not been possible).
As with most internationally comparable data, it takes time for the data to be collated and updated. In some cases we have 
used UK specific data to provide a more up-to-date picture of the UK position. Internationally comparable data limitations mean 
that, while this is the most complete picture we can provide, the set of indicators cannot be looked at in aggregate to provide an 
overall country ranking. Each indicator should be considered individually. 
The data is mostly sourced from published data sets. The web links and caveats are provided where this is the case, along with 
the data in the accompanying spreadsheet. 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.
The choice of indicators was informed by engagement with life science sector stakeholders, including trade associations, life 
science companies, research organisations, regulators and government bodies. We have selected comparator countries on 
advice from stakeholders, however, in some cases this choice has been limited by data availability. 
We would like to thanks all of those who have contributed to the development of this report.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  4 
Table of contents
Overview: Performance of UK Life Science Sector and  
Contribution to UK Economy 
5
Overview: Competitiveness of UK Life Science Environment 
6
Indicators for UK industry 
7
Chart 1A: Number of people employed in manufacture  
of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations 
8
Chart 1B: Number of people employed in manufacture  
of medical technology products 
9
Chart 2: Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing 
10
Chart 3A: Exports of medical technology 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) – 2015 
17
Chart 6B: Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in life sciences  
– amount raised in 2015 (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: 2014 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
34
Uptake of New Medicines
35
Chart 17A: Uptake of new medicines – NICE approved
36
Chart 17B: Uptake of new medicines – non-NICE approved
37

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  5 
Overview: 
Performance of UK Life Science Sector and Contribution to UK Economy
Chart 1B: Number of people employed in manufacture of medical technology products
C
hart 1
B: Bar 
graph. 
2010-20
14. Dis
cussed on page 9.
Source: Eurostat – Data Explorer, Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
Chart 3A: Exports of medical technology products
C
ha
rt
 3
A:
 B
ar
 g
ra
ph. 2010-2014. Discussed on page 11.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en
Chart 5A: Life sciences foreign direct investment projects
C
ha
rt
 5
A:
 Ba
r g
raph. 2011 -2015. Discussed on page 15.
Source: fDi Markets, from The Financial Times Ltd. http://www.fdimarkets.com/explore/?p=sector
Chart 6A: Share of global life science Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) – 2015
Chart 
6A: doughnut chart.
 Discussed
 on page
 6A.
Source: S&P Capital IQ http://www.spcapitaliq.com/

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  6 
Overview: 
Competitiveness of UK Life Science Environment
Chart 7B: Number of companies receiving private equity investment
C
ha
rt
 7
B:
 Ba
r g
rap
h. 
201
0-2
014
. Discussed on page
 2
0.
Source: European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (EVCA)
http://www.evca.eu/research/activity-data/annual-activity-statistics/ 
Chart 8: Number of science graduates
Chart 8: Bar graph.
 
2009-2
013. D
iscuss
ed on p
age 21.
Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) 
http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=EDULIT_DS
Chart 9: Government spend on health research and development
Ch
ar
t 9: 
Bar g
raph.
 2009-20
14. Di
scussed
 on page 23.
Source: OECD Research & Development statistics http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?r=xx-xxxx-xxxx
Chart 12A: Share of global life science Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) – 2015
Chart 
12A: B
ar grap
h. 2008-20
12. D
iscus
sed on
 page 2
6.
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  7 
Indicators for UK industry

Chart 1A: 
Number of people employed in manufacture of basic 
pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations
Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  8 
C
hart 1
A: Bar
 graph
 showi
ng the 
number 
of peop
le employed
 in ma
nufactu
re of basic
 phar
maceut
ical 
products
 and pharmaceutical prepa
rati
ons,
 201
0-20
14.
•	 UK pharmaceutical employment reduced from 
approximately 48,000 to approximately 37,000 
between 2010 and 2014. To note, there is limited 
data for UK in specific years due to unavailability 
from Eurostat.
•	 Germany had the highest level of employment 
amongst the selected comparator countries 
throughout 2010 to 2014.
•	 The Strength & Opportunity (S&O) annual 
publication provides a more complete and up-
to-date picture of UK trends in life science sector 
employment. The S&O report includes supply chain 
companies, which are an important part of the 
sector and are excluded here.
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: Categories used are NACE_ R2 “C21 Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical 
products and pharmaceutical preparations”.

Chart 1B: 
Number of people employed in manufacture of medical 
technology products
Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  9 
C
hart 1
B: Bar 
graph s
howing 
the num
ber of people employed in
 manufa
cture o
f medical t
echnol
ogy pro
ducts 2010-
2014.
•	 Employment in manufacture of medical technology 
in the UK fell from approximately 48,600 to 
approximately 40,200 between 2011 and 2014.
•	 In 2014, the UK had the third highest employment 
of the selected comparator countries. To note, there 
is limited data for UK, Ireland and France in specific 
years due to unavailability from Eurostat.
•	 Germany consistently had the highest employment 
among selected comparator countries throughout 
2010 to 2014.  
•	 The data used here is limited to the definitions 
available through international comparisons and 
probably shows a partial picture of the sector.
•	 The Strength & Opportunity (S&O) annual 
publication provides a more complete and up-
to-date picture of UK trends in life science sector 
employment. The S&O report includes supply chain 
companies, which are an important part of the 
sector and are excluded here.
Source: Eurostat – Data Explorer, Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry, 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database 
Notes: Categories used are NACE_ R2 “C266 Manufacture of irradiation, electromedical 
and electrotherapeutic equipment” plus “C325 Manufacture of medical and dental 
instruments and supplies”. 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  10 
Chart 2: 
Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing
C
har
t 2:
 Lin
e gr
aph 
showing Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical
 manufa
cturing 200
9-2014.
•
In the UK, the gross value added for pharmaceutical
manufacturing has reduced by 26% between 2009
and 2013.
•
In 2013, the UK had the fifth highest gross value
added for pharmaceutical manufacturing compared
to selected comparator countries.
•
Switzerland saw a notable increase between 2009
and 2013, and Ireland saw a notable reduction from
2010 to 2013.
•
Most recent data for the UK only shows an increase
in pharmaceutical GVA of 1.5% on the previous year
(ONS).
Source: Comparator countries’ data from Eurostat National Accounts data 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/national-accounts/data/database
Notes: Categories used are “541 Medicinal and pharmaceutical products” and “542 
Medicaments including veterinary medicaments”. Data is in current prices

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  11 
Chart 3A: 
Exports of medical technology products
C
ha
rt
 3
A:
 B
ar
 g
ra
ph showing exports of medical technolog
y pro
ducts
 2010
-2014.
• Between 2010 and 2014, exports of pharmaceutical 
products in the UK grew from $34.2 billion to 
$34.5 billion, a compound annual growth rate of 
approximately 0.2%.
• In 2014, the UK ranked seventh out the 12 
comparative countries in value of pharmaceutical 
product exports.
• Exports from Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, the 
US, France, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all 
grew between 2010 and 2014.
• Up-to-date UK data, available from ONS, shows a 
17% rise in pharmaceutical exports between 2014 
and 2015 (ONS).
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” and “542 
Medicaments including veterinary medicaments”. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  12 
Chart 3B: 
Exports of medical technology products
C
h
ar
t 
3B
: 
Ba
r 
graph showing exports of medical techno
logy 
produ
cts 2010-20
14
.
• Between 2010 and 2014, exports of medical 
technology products in the UK grew from $3.7 
billion to $4.4 billion, a compound annual growth 
rate of approximately 3.8%.
• In 2014, the UK ranked ninth out of the 12 
comparator countries in value of medical technology 
product exports. The UK had a similar level of 
exports to France, Ireland and Switzerland.
• The US had the highest value of exports in 2014 
with an annual growth rate of approximately 3.1% 
between 2010 to 2014.  
• Up-to-date UK data, available from ONS, shows 
a 3% rise in medical technology exports between 
2014 and 2015 (ONS).
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center 
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en 
Notes: Categories used are UNCTAD STAT “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  13 
Chart 4A: 
Imports of pharmaceutical products
Chart 4A: Bar graph showing imports of 
p
ha
rm
ac
eu
ti
ca
l 
pr
oducts 
2010-
2014.
•	 Imports of pharmaceutical products rose steadily in 
the UK from $24.3 billion in 2010 to $34.7 billion in 
2014, a compound annual growth of approximately 
7.4%.
•	 In 2014, the UK had the fourth highest value of 
imports of pharmaceutical products after the US, 
Germany and Belgium. 
•	 The US had the highest value of imports among 
selected comparator countries in every year 
between 2010 and 2014.
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  14 
Chart 4B: 
Imports of medical technology products
C
h
ar
t 
4B
: 
Ba
r graph showing imports of medical tech
nology 
products 20
10-20
14.
•	 Imports of medical technology products in the UK 
rose since 2011. The compound annual growth rate 
between 2010 and 2014 was approximately 3.4%.
•	 In 2014, the UK had the eighth highest value of 
imports among selected comparator countries. 
The UK had a similar level of imports to France and 
Belgium. 
•	 Imports of medical technology products have also 
grown steadily in the US between 2010 and 2014. 
The US consistently had the highest level among 
the selected comparator countries.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en
Notes: Categories are from UNCTAD STAT “774 Electro-diagnostic apparatus for medical science 
etc.” and “872 Instruments and appliances, n.e.s, for medical”. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  15 
Chart 5A: 
Life sciences foreign direct investment projects
C
ha
rt
 5
A:
 Ba
r g
raph showing life sciences foreign direct in
vestm
ent project
s 201
1-2015
.
•	 The number of life science FDI projects in the UK 
rose from 30 in 2011 to 54 in 2015.  
•	 In 2015, the UK ranked second in number of FDI 
projects among selected comparator countries.
•	 The US have consistently ranked first among 
selected comparator countries between 2011 and 
2015, with 154 projects in 2015.
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. Data is provided to the 
Office for Life Sciences, by UK Trade & Investment for the purposes of the Competitiveness 
Indicators publication.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  16 
Chart 5B: 
Life sciences foreign direct investment –  
capital expenditure
Chart 5B: Bar graph showing life 
s
cie
nce
s f
ore
ign
 di
rec
t inv
estment - c
apita
l expe
nditure
, 2011-
20
15.
•	 There has been an upward growth in life science 
foreign direct investment capital expenditure in the 
UK between 2011 and 2015. The compound annual 
growth rate was approximately 6%.
•	 In 2015, the UK had the third highest level of capital 
expenditure among selected comparator countries 
behind Switzerland and the US.
•	 US life sciences foreign direct investment capital 
grew from £2 billion in 2011 to £2.6 billion in 2015, 
with significant growth experienced between 2013 
and 2015.
Source: fDi Markets, from The Financial Times Ltd.
http://www.fdimarkets.com/explore/?p=sector 
Notes: Values are for the year that projects were announced. Data is in current prices. 
Data is provided to the Office for Life Sciences, by UK Trade & Investment for the purposes 
of the Competitiveness Indicators publication.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  17 
Chart 6A: 
Share of global life science Initial Public Offerings  
(IPOs) – 2015
Chart 
6A: Doughnut chart 
showing sh
are of g
lobal life s
cience In
itial
 Public 
Offerings (IPOs) 2015.
• In 2015, the UK had a 3% share of global life science 
Initial Public Offerings (IPOs).   
• The UK’s share of global life science IPOs in 2015 
was equal to France and India.
• The US had the largest global share of life science 
IPOs in 2015, with 36%.
• The UK’s share of global life science IPOs fell in 2015 
from 4.1% in 2014 [2015 LSCI Report: page 17].
Source: S&P Capital IQ http://www.spcapitaliq.com/ 
Notes: Numbers refer to the country in which the IPO was launched, not the domicile of 
the IPO Company. ‘Others’ are Belgium, Japan, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Ireland, 
New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, and Canada.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  18 
Chart 6B: 
Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in life sciences –  
amount raised in 2015 (where known)
Chart 6B: Bar graph showing Initial Publ
i
c O
ffe
rin
gs 
(IP
Os)
 in l
ife s
cienc
es, a
mount r
aised i
n 2015
 (where k
nown). Vari
ous c
ountr
ies. Most am
ount rais
ed in US
, leas
t in F
in
land.
•	 Approximately £107.1 million was raised in UK Initial 
Public Offerings (IPOs) in life sciences in 2015, 
compared to approximately £257 million raised 
in 2014.
•	 In 2015, the UK ranked tenth among selected 
comparator countries.
•	 The US raised the largest amount of IPOs in life 
sciences in 2015, with approximately £2.6 billion 
raised.
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
Chart 7A: Bar graph showing private equity investment, tot
a
l i
nve
stm
ent
 20
10 
- 2
01
4.
•	 The amount of private equity investment in the UK 
fell from approximately €1.4 billion to approximately 
€0.8 billion between 2010 and 2014. However, this 
grew slightly between 2013 and 2014.
•	 In 2014, the UK had the third highest level of private 
equity investment among selected comparator 
countries.
•	 France experienced significant growth between 
2013 and 2014.
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
C
ha
rt
 7
B:
 Ba
r g
rap
h s
how
ing
 nu
mber of companies r
ec
eiving priv
ate eq
uity 
investm
ent 201
0 - 20
14.
•	 The number of companies receiving private equity 
investment in the UK fell from 122 in 2010 to 97 in 
2014. However there was an increase in the most 
recent year, from 94 in 2013 to 97 in 2014.
•	 In 2014, the UK had the third highest number of 
companies receiving private equity investment 
among selected comparator countries.
•	 In 2014, Germany had the highest number of 
companies, despite seeing a decline from 206 in 
2010 to 191 in 2014. France had notable annual 
compound growth rate of approximately 4.2% 
between 2010 and 2014.
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
Chart 8: Bar graph 
s
howing
 numbe
r of s
cience 
graduat
es 2009
 - 2013
.
•	 The number of science graduates in the UK 
steadily grew from approximately 86,000 in 2009 to 
approximately 128,000 in 2013.
•	 In 2013, the UK ranked second in number of 
science graduates among selected comparator 
countries.
•	 The US consistently ranked first among selected 
comparator countries between 2009 and 2013.
Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) 
http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=EDULIT_DS
Notes: Germany has not been included due to data being unavailable. Due to the 
implementation of the new International Standard Classification of Education, some 
countries are in the process of addressing reclassification issues and have temporarily 
withheld historic data.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  22 
Research and Development Indicators

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  23 
Chart 9:  
Government spend on health research and development
Ch
ar
t 9: 
Bar g
raph 
showing 
govern
ment sp
end on health research and developmen
t
 
2
0
0
9 
- 
20
14
.
•	 UK government spend on health research and 
development grew between 2010 and 2014 from 
just under to just over $2.6 billion.
•	 In 2013, the UK ranked second in terms of 
government spending on health research and 
development among selected comparator 
countries, behind only the US.
•	 The US spend fell from approximately $40 billion 
in 2009 to approximately $29 billion in 2014. This 
is still significantly more than the other comparator 
countries.
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. 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  24 
Chart 10:  
2014 non-industry spend on research and development
Chart 10: Doughnut chart showin
g 2014 non-industry spend on researc
h and development. 
•	 In 2014:
–	 41% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
AMRC member charities. 
–	 27% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
the Medical Research Council and 
–	 32% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
the National Institute for Health Research.
•	 In 2013:
–	 43% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
AMRC member charities. 
–	 25% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
the Medical Research Council and 
–	 32% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
the National Institute for Health Research.
Source: Association of Medical Research http://www.amrc.org.uk/publications
Notes: Spend by health departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 
not illustrated.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  25 
Chart 11:  
Pharmaceutical industry spend on research and 
development in the UK
Chart 11: Line graph showing phar
m
a
c
e
u
t
ical
 ind
ustr
y sp
end 
on r
esea
rch 
and 
deve
lopm
ent in the UK 2003 - 2014.
•	 Between 2003 and 2011, there was steady growth 
in pharmaceutical industry spend on R&D in the UK. 
However, since 2011, there has been a decline from 
a peak of around £5 billion to just under £4 billion 
in 2014.
•	 The compound annual growth rate between 2003 
and 2014 was approximately 1.9%.
•	 Internationally comparable data on pharmaceutical 
industry spend on R&D is not available, so only UK 
data is presented here.
Source: ONS BERD survey 2014 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-
tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-386019
Notes: Data is not available for medical technology industry spend.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  26 
Chart 12A:  
Share of life science academic citations
Chart 
12A: B
ar grap
h showing 
share
 of l
ife sc
ience a
cademi
c citat
ions 
2008-2
01
2.
•	 The UK’s share of life science academic citations 
remained stable at 12% between 2008 and 2011. 
In 2012, this grew to 13%. 
•	 In 2012, the UK ranked second among selected 
comparator countries.
•	 The US ranked first among selected comparator 
countries throughout 2008 to 2012, with 44% of 
citations in the most recent year.
•	 This chart is reprinted from the 2015 Competitiveness 
Indicators report, as updated data has not yet been 
published.
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  27 
Chart 12B:  
Share of top 1% (most cited) life science citations
Chart 
12B: B
ar grap
h showing 
share
 of t
op 1% 
(most c
ited) 
life sc
ience
 citat
io
ns
 20
08-
201
2.
•	 The UK’s share of the top 1% (most cited) life 
science citations grew from 17% in 2008 to 19% 
in 2012.
•	 In 2012, the UK had the second highest share 
among selected competitor countries.
•	 The US consistently ranked first among selected 
comparator countries throughout 2008 to 2012.
•	 This chart is reprinted from the 2015 Competitiveness 
Indicators report, as updated data has not yet been 
published.
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  28 
Regulatory Indicator

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  29 
Chart 13:  
Instances where MHRA is in lead role in EU regulatory 
procedure
C
har
t 1
3: 
Bar
 ch
art
 sh
owing instances where MHRA is 
in lead role in EU reg
ulatory procedur
e 2008-2015.
•	 The MHRA is a leading regulator of choice for 
scientific advice and centralised procedures.
•	 In 2015, the MHRA was: 
–	 Rapporteur/Co-rapporteur in 14% of Centralised 
Procedures; 
–	 Scientific Advice Co-ordinator in 24% of cases; 
and 
–	 Reference Member State in 44% of 
Decentralised Procedures involving the UK.
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 medicine 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)
Chart 14: Bar graph showing share of
 p
at
ien
ts 
rec
rui
ted
 to
 gl
oba
l s
tu
dies (
all tri
al pha
ses) 2010-2014
.
•	 The share of patients recruited to global studies in 
the UK rose from 1.6% in 2010 to 2.7% in 2014. 
•	 Over the last few years, the UK has been working to 
increase opportunities for patient participation in life 
sciences industry studies. 
•	 This is now making significant impact, with recent 
data from the National Institute for Health Research 
(NIHR) showing that the number of patients 
recruited to commercial contract studies increased 
from 13,987 in 2010/11 to 34,885 in 2014/15, with 
the support of the NIHR Clinical Research Network 
(NIHR). 
•	 In addition, the UK has increased its share of 
European trials, with the UK being represented 
in 30% of total EU trials in 2015, based on data 
from the EudraCT database. This is the highest 
proportion since 2006 (MHRA and EudraCT). 
Source: This material is reproduced under a licence from CMR International.
Notes: You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or 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)
Char
t
 1
5: 
Bar
 gr
aph
 sh
owi
ng
 time 
from co
re pac
kage received 
to f
irst
 pat
ient
 enrolled in country (all trial phases) 2010-2014.
•	 In 2014, time from core package received to first 
patient enrolled in the UK was around 35 days 
below the peak in 2011.
•	 The UK has put into place several initiatives to 
reduce start up times for studies with the life 
sciences industry: 
–	 NHS organisations are nationally benchmarked 
for study set up times and first participant 
recruitment. 
–	 Use of standardised model Clinical Trial 
Agreements and Costing Templates are 
supporting rapid negotiations around site setup. 
–	 Specific resources have been embedded in 
the NHS to improve set up times and ensure 
consistent study delivery.
•	 This is now making significant impact. Data from 
the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) 
shows that the proportion of NHS sites set up within 
40 days increased from 24% in 2011/12 to 83% 
in 2014/15 with the support of the NIHR Clinical 
Research Network (NIHR).
•	 Since 2013, 52 studies have achieved recruitment 
of the first global patient in the UK, demonstrating 
that the UK is globally competitive in the set up and 
rapid recruitment of participants (NIHR).
Source: This material is reproduced under a licence from CMR International.
Notes: You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or part without the written 
consent of CMR International.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  33 
Demand-side Indicators

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  34 
Chart 16:  
Dashboard of NICE Technology Appraisal publication
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 
Uptake of new medicines
•	 The next two charts show the UK uptake per capita of new medicines compared to a group 
of comparator countries.
•	 Chart 17A shows the UK per capita uptake of 40 new medicines launched between 2009 to 
2014 and approved (recommended or optimised) by NICE. Medicines rejected by NICE are 
not included in the analysis.
•	 Chart 17B shows the per capita uptake of 31 medicines launched in the UK between 2009 
and 2014, and not assessed by NICE.
•	 The UK is compared to the average uptake in a group of comparator countries (Australia, 
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, 
Sweden, Switzerland, USA).
•	 While adjusting for population size, this analysis does not adjust for other important factors 
which might drive the levels of use, such as the number of patients with relevant clinical 
conditions for different treatments. 
•	 The analysis does not take into account different levels of expenditure on medicines in 
different countries, which is likely to affect uptake. 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  36 
Chart 17A:  
Uptake of new medicines – NICE approved
Ch
art 
17A:
 gra
ph s
howi
ng uptake of new 
medicines, NICE approved, between 2009 and 201
4.
•	 Chart 17A shows international comparison of UK per 
capita uptake of a selection of medicines launched 
between 2009 and 2014 and approved by NICE.
•	 Vertical lines show uptake of the individual 
medicines in their 1st, 2nd, etc. years after launch 
for the UK compared to other countries. 
•	 Percentages reported in each year are the average 
(median) rate of uptake in the UK relative to 
comparison countries (see previous slide for list).
•	 A value below 100% means the UK per capita 
consumption is below the average for the 
comparison countries. For example in the 
3rd year after launch the medicines were used in 
the UK at 56.7% of average usage in the 
comparator countries. 
•	 This year (2016) uptake in years 1 to 4 is higher when 
compared to the previous year’s data (2015 data).
•	 Caution is required when interpreting this data 
as adjustments for a number of important factors – 
such as level of expenditure on medicines – are not 
taken into account.
•	 Caution is required when interpreting this data. 
Medicines launched in 2014 will appear in ‘Year 1’ 
group, those launched in 2013 will appear in Year 
1 and Year 2 from launch, etc. By 5th year after 
launch, a number of medicines will have dropped 
out of the data set and therefore the analysis is 
highly sensitive to choice of medicines included.
Source: IMS Health, courtesy of the Office of Health Economic

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  37 
Chart 17B:  
Uptake of new medicines – non-NICE reviewed
Ch
art 
17B:
 gra
ph s
howi
ng upt
ake of
 new medicines, n
on-NIC
E revi
ewed, 
betwe
en 20
09 an
d 201
4.
• Chart 17B shows international comparison of UK per 
capita uptake of a selection of medicines launched 
between 2009 and 2014 not reviewed by NICE.
• Vertical lines show uptake of the individual 
medicines in their 1st, 2nd etc. years after launch for 
the UK compared to other countries.
• Percentages reported in each year are the average 
(median) rate of uptake in the UK relative to 
comparison countries (see previous slide for list).
• A value below 100% means the UK per capita 
consumption is below the average for the 
comparison countries. For example in the  
3rd year after launch the medicines were used in  
the UK at 55.5% of average usage in the 
comparator countries. 
• Caution is required when interpreting this data 
as adjustments for a number of important factors – 
such as level of expenditure on medicines – are not 
taken into account.
• Caution is required when interpreting this data. 
Medicines launched in 2014 will appear in ‘Year 1’ 
group, those launched in 2013 will appear in Year 
1 and Year 2 from launch, etc. By 5th year after 
launch, a number of medicines will have dropped 
out of the data set and therefore the analysis is 
highly sensitive to choice of medicines included.

BIS/16/236