A senior Sanofi executive has criticised the UK’s attractiveness for pharmaceutical investment, amid warnings of decline in research and development and upcoming policy challenges that threaten the nation’s standing as a global biotech hub.
A senior executive at the French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi has voiced stark concerns over the UK’s position as a hub for drug development and sales, warning that Britain is “not a good place” for such crucial activities. Paul Naish, Sanofi’s UK head of market access, described the nation as being “at a critical point,” highlighting significant hurdles including high operational costs and an uncompetitive market environment for medicines.
Naish’s candid remarks come amid troubling signals from the pharmaceutical sector about the UK’s declining attractiveness for investment. The recent decision by Merck (known as MSD outside the US) to abandon its £1 billion research centre under construction in London has been a major blow to Britain’s life sciences ambitions. This project was seen as a key pillar supporting the government’s vision of the sector as one of the “crown jewels of the economy.” Sanofi itself has scaled back its clinical trials in the UK by 50% over the past couple of years despite having a large pipeline of new drugs, pointing to a broader trend of retreat by major industry players.
The challenges are partly rooted in funding and pricing frameworks that have not kept pace with the needs of modern pharmaceutical innovation. NHS expenditure on medicines has fallen to 9% of the total healthcare budget, compared to significantly higher rates in Germany (14%), the US (15%), and southern European countries like Italy and Spain (17%). Meanwhile, the pricing thresholds established by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have remained frozen since 1999, creating an environment where pharmaceutical companies struggle to justify the investment required for development and market access.
Sanofi’s experience mirrors wider issues faced by the UK life sciences sector. The company recently closed its Cambridge labs, shifted work to Boston, and paused any plans to expand UK clinical trials pending clear government action. Naish cited internal government disagreements, with the Department of Health caught between limited budgets and a lack of compelling advocacy for increased investment, while departments responsible for business and science express concern but little resolution. He called for a “proper plan” from the Treasury in coordination with other departments to elevate spending on medicines closer to international norms.
Industry voices like AstraZeneca’s UK president Tom Keith-Roach and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry have echoed calls for reform, including raising pricing thresholds in line with inflation and reducing clawback rates—where companies pay back between a quarter and a third of revenues to the NHS—down to levels seen in other European countries. The current physician-level clawback policy is widely viewed as an impediment to sustained pharmaceutical investment in the UK.
This growing unease has tangible consequences. Other major firms have shown signs of hesitation: Eli Lilly, a US pharmaceutical company, has put its planned London gateway lab—a key incubator for biotech innovation—on hold, opting not to sign leases until the UK’s commercial environment improves. Similarly, AstraZeneca cancelled a £450 million vaccine production expansion in Liverpool earlier this year, blaming cuts in government support which further illustrate the impact of policy uncertainty on critical infrastructure investments.
The UK’s ambition to be a global “science and technology superpower” is under threat from a decline in research and development investment, which has fallen by almost 20% since 2014. The UK’s share of global R&D has slipped from 4.2% to 3.4%, underscoring the risk of falling behind other nations in fostering innovation-led growth.
Against this backdrop, the government is reportedly seeking to re-engage with pharmaceutical companies to renegotiate drug pricing and market access terms, following a refusal by industry leaders to accept Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s latest NHS drug pricing proposals. However, concrete progress remains uncertain, and prominent scientists warn that continued outflows of investment could further erode the UK’s standing.
In summary, despite Britain’s outstanding universities and world-class scientific talent, the pharmaceutical sector is grappling with a challenging economic, regulatory, and political landscape. Without a clear, committed governmental roadmap to increase investment and reform pricing structures, the UK risks losing its competitive edge as a leading centre for drug development and innovation.
📌 Reference Map:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative is fresh, with the earliest known publication date being 12 September 2025. The Guardian article is original and not recycled from other sources. The report is based on a recent press release from Sanofi, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found. The content has not appeared elsewhere within the past 7 days. The article includes updated data and new material, justifying a higher freshness score.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
The direct quotes from Paul Naish, Sanofi’s UK head of market access, are unique to this report. No identical quotes appear in earlier material, indicating potentially original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Guardian, a reputable organisation known for its journalistic standards. The report is based on a recent press release from Sanofi, a legitimate company with a verifiable public presence.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and align with recent developments in the pharmaceutical sector. The report is consistent with other reputable outlets covering similar issues, such as AstraZeneca’s concerns over NHS spending rules ([telegraph.co.uk](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/25/nhs-rules-risk-depriving-britain-new-medicine-astrazeneca/?utm_source=openai)) and Sanofi’s previous warnings about the UK’s life sciences sector ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/15/the-uk-is-at-the-back-of-the-race-of-turtles-sanofis-boss-on-the-need-to-develop-new-medicines?utm_source=openai)). The language and tone are appropriate for the region and topic, and the structure is focused on the main claim without excessive or off-topic detail.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative passes all checks with high scores, indicating it is fresh, original, and from a reliable source. The claims are plausible and consistent with other reputable outlets, and the language and tone are appropriate.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
