Europe remains one of the world’s leading biotech research centers. However, it risks losing the economic and industrial benefits of its own innovation if it cannot help companies grow, attract investment and continue production on the continent, according to Frédéric Druck, Secretary General of ‘Bio.be‘ – the Belgian federation representing companies active in the biotechnology and life sciences industry.
“If you’re looking for €100 million in later clinical stages, it’s very difficult to raise it in Europe. In Belgium, it wouldn’t be possible,” Druck told Euractiv in this interview, pointing to what he sees as one of Europe’s biggest structural weaknesses in biotech.
As Brussels advances the EU Biotechnology Act, Belgium’s biotech sector sees the legislation as a test of whether Europe can still compete against the financial might of the US and China.
NV: Why has the Biotechnology Act become such a strategic issue for Europe?
FD: Because biotechnology is no longer only about health policy. It is industrial policy, competition policy and sovereignty policy all rolled into one.
Europe has a long history in chemistry, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and biopharma. Belgium is a very good example of this. We have scientific, clinical and industrial excellence concentrated in a relatively small ecosystem. But for years, Europe was seen primarily as a market, while the US and China were building industrial strategies around biotechnology.
The US followed a market-driven strategy. China strategically decided to invest massively in key technologies, build infrastructure and recruit talent from around the world, including Europe and the US. Twenty or thirty years later, they are now competing directly with us.
NV: Europe remains scientifically strong. Where does the problem begin?
FD: Europe is very good at research and development. That is not the issue. The problem is scaling. At a certain stage, companies can no longer grow in Europe. Then they have to cross the Atlantic to find investors or industrial partners. What we would like to have is more anchoring of our innovation here in Europe.
In the end, if industrialization happens elsewhere, we lose sovereignty over what we are doing for the future. This is why the Biotechnology Act is so important.
NV: Why is access to capital becoming such a defining issue for biotech companies?
FD: Biotechnology is a capital intensive industry. Companies burn money for years before they have products on the market. Smaller biotech companies cannot yet generate revenue, so they are completely dependent on investors. Meanwhile, the US built deep biotech funding ecosystems decades ago.
Twenty years ago, I saw the competition between the East Coast and the West Coast in the USA. They were raising more than 1 billion a year on each coast, investing in biotech companies. Europe still has fragmented capital markets and a different culture around risk. Investors in the US understand the risk of biotech and are prepared to support companies for long periods. This is one of the main structural changes.
NV: How has pharmaceutical innovation changed in recent decades?
FD: Twenty or twenty-five years ago, big pharmaceutical companies mostly innovated from within. They worked in silos. Then came open innovation. Large companies began to build bridges with biotech companies and academia. Now, many disruptive innovations come from smaller biotech players.
At the same time, the patent cliff is accelerating partnerships and acquisitions because big pharma companies need new technologies and pipelines. You can also see this in Belgium. Smaller companies can suddenly become strategically important if they have promising clinical data or a breakthrough platform.
NV: What should Europe prioritize first in the Biotechnology Act?
FD: The first thing Europe needs to do is simplify regulation. Biotechnology and biopharma are among the most regulated sectors in the world. Regulation is needed, of course, but today there are too many overlapping rules and too much red tape.
For smaller biotech companies, this can become overwhelming. Their focus should be on developing technologies, hiring talent and raising capital, not spending too much time navigating administrative complexities.
We need more predictability and confidence in the future. Investment decisions are made years in advance. The investments we see today in Belgium were often made before the COVID-19 period.
NV: Why is clinical trials becoming such a strategic issue for Europe?
FD: Because clinical trials are the beginning of everything. Once clinical trials arrive, ecosystems develop around them. You create scientific expertise, manufacturing know-how, specialized service providers and talent pools. This is exactly how Belgium built strong ecosystems in vaccines, advanced therapy medicinal products and nuclear medicine. Europe absolutely needs to speed up clinical trial approvals if it wants to remain competitive.
Our objective for the Belgian industry is to reduce approval timelines to a maximum of 75 days for multinational trials. China is moving extremely fast. The US is also faster. Europe cannot afford to go too slowly.
NV: The Biotech Act also includes incentives related to intellectual property and manufacturing. Do you support those measures?
FD: Yes, especially the extension of the additional protection certificate for highly innovative medicines. Developing new biotech products is extremely expensive. Companies need mechanisms that allow them to recoup those investments. We support the principle, although we believe that the criteria should probably be simplified.
We also strongly support measures that strengthen manufacturing capacity in Europe. Biomanufacturing and CDMOs are strategically important. During crises or pandemics, they become essential because they can quickly adapt production lines. Europe must ensure that these capacities remain anchored here.
NV: Could the Biotechnology Act change Europe’s trajectory yet?
FD: The signal that Europe is sending now is extremely important. Companies are already deciding where to place future investments, production platforms and innovation ecosystems. The Biotechnology Act alone will not solve everything. But it can inspire confidence that Europe wants to remain competitive in biotech.
Investors are watching closely. And if Europe succeeds in simplifying regulation, improving access to capital and speeding up clinical trials, then we still have tremendous capacity to build.
(VA, BM)
