Europe cannot afford to lose the race for biomedical innovation

Europe stands at a crossroads. For decades, it led the world in pharmaceutical research, delivering medical advances that have transformed the lives of millions. But that leadership can no longer be taken for granted. U.S. trade policies toward the pharmaceutical industry, including tariffs and Most Favoured Nation pricing, underscore the urgency of Europe’s response, while China is advancing at unprecedented speed. Fina Lladós The figures speak for themselves. Europe led the launch of new medicines in the 1990s but lost that lead to the U.S. in the following decade and, by 2024, to China as well. Over the past 20 years, the EU’s share of global pharmaceutical research and development investment has fallen significantly, while the proportion of clinical trials conducted in Europe has also declined sharply. This is particularly alarming in the fields that will shape the future of medicine. Advanced therapies, personalized treatments, and solutions for genetic diseases and certain cancers are increasingly being developed elsewhere. Every clinical trial that moves away and every patent filed outside Europe mean a real loss of knowledge, skilled jobs and opportunities for Europeans. This is not a theoretical risk. The pandemic exposed how reliance on external supply chains can threaten access to essential medical products, underscoring why the pharmaceutical industry is now recognized as strategic for Europe’s competitiveness, security and autonomy. A strong biopharmaceutical industry is therefore not only an economic asset; it is essential to health security and to Europe’s ability to respond to future crises. Every clinical trial that moves away and every patent filed outside Europe mean a real loss of knowledge, skilled jobs and opportunities for Europeans. Much of Europe’s declining appeal can be explained by developments across the Atlantic. The U.S. represents a much larger share of the global pharmaceutical market and has long offered stronger incentives for innovation, steadily attracting research investment. New measures to reinforce domestic production and draw further investment to the U.S. risk accelerating this trend. For Europe, the message is clear: strengthening our own regulatory and fiscal incentives for innovation is no longer optional — it is urgent, and it is entirely in our hands. Greater competitiveness also requires faster and fairer access to treatments by removing unnecessary restrictions. Access to innovation is not only an industry issue; it is also a societal one. Scientific investment must reach patients, because better health also strengthens the economy. Europe still has an exceptional scientific and academic base, but it has not always translated that knowledge into innovation that delivers wellbeing and social progress on the same scale. The priority now is to build a life-sciences ecosystem that translates research into tangible solutions for citizens. Developing a medicine takes 10 to 15 years, which is why companies need predictable regulation, legal certainty and policies that recognize the value of innovation. Spain illustrates this paradox clearly. It is Europe’s fourth-largest pharmaceutical market and a leader in clinical trials, yet patients still wait too long for approved treatments. Scientific excellence does not automatically translate into timely access; closing that gap is a challenge for all of Europe, not Spain alone. Developing a medicine takes 10 to 15 years, which is why companies need predictable regulation, legal certainty and policies that recognize the value of innovation. Intellectual property protection is central to this. Weakening it will not sustainably lower medicine costs; it will only reduce the incentive to research and develop new treatments in Europe. Europe’s competitiveness also depends on its ability to attract and conduct clinical trials, where scientific ideas become treatments and much of biomedical innovation’s economic value is created. Faster approvals,