U.S. FDA requirements for early-stage trials, particularly safety margins, are considered ill-suited for genetic medicines, prompting companies to look abroad. The UK is emerging as a preferred destination, with its regulator, the MHRA, actively creating incentives and faster pathways to attract these innovative clinical programs.
Related Insights
While the UK's world-class universities provide a rich pipeline of scientific talent for biotechs, the country's clinical trial infrastructure is a significant hurdle. Immense pressure on the NHS creates delays in site opening and patient recruitment, creating a fundamental friction point in the biotech value chain.
A significant disconnect exists between the FDA leadership's public statements promoting flexibility and the stringent, delay-prone reality faced by companies. For areas like gene therapy, firms report feeling the "rug was pulled out," suggesting investors should be skeptical of the agency's accommodating PR.
To overcome regulatory hurdles for "N-of-1" medicines, researchers are using an "umbrella clinical trial" strategy. This approach keeps core components like the delivery system constant while only varying the patient-specific guide RNA, potentially allowing the FDA to approve the platform itself, not just a single drug.
US biotechs increasingly use sites like Australia to accelerate development, as Create Medicines did by moving from concept to clinic in under 12 months. What was once viewed with suspicion is now a key strategy to generate data faster and more cheaply, competing with the speed of China's ecosystem.
In a novel move, the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) published guidance for personalized mRNA immunotherapies that includes a section specifically for caretakers and physicians. This demonstrates a shift towards patient-centricity directly within the formal regulatory framework.
An ideologically driven and inconsistent FDA is eroding investor confidence, turning the U.S. into a difficult environment for investment in complex biologics like gene therapies and vaccines, potentially pushing innovation to other countries.
To de-risk clinical programs from recruitment and activation hurdles within the UK's strained NHS, companies like Resolution Therapeutics run an equal number of trial sites in other countries, like Spain. This geographic diversification provides a valuable real-time benchmark and a hedge against single-country operational delays.
Top biotech VC Bob Nelsen contends the U.S.'s competitive edge is eroding because of slow, burdensome FDA processes. He points to Australia's model, where human trials can be approved in days, as the standard the US must adopt to compete with agile global players like China.
Amidst growing uncertainty at the US FDA, biotech companies are using a specific de-risking strategy: conducting early-stage clinical trials in countries like South Korea and Australia. This global approach is not just about cost but a deliberate move to get fast, reliable early clinical data to offset domestic regulatory instability and gain a strategic advantage.
The industry's negative perception of FDA leadership and regulatory inconsistency is having tangible consequences beyond investment chilling. Respondents report actively moving clinical trials outside the U.S. and abandoning vaccine programs. This self-inflicted wound directly weakens America's biotech ecosystem at the precise moment its race with China is intensifying.
