“If life science and medtech companies need to move to the US for capital, talent, customers, or faster commercialization, Europe has a strategic problem,” warns Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen, Chair of Healthcare Denmark.
The EU’s share of global health biotech venture capital has fallen to 7%, compared with 63% for the US and 14% for China. China’s share of global clinical trials has meanwhile risen from 5% to 18% in a decade. Why is Europe losing ground in one of its most strategic industries?
Europe is not losing ground because it lacks science. Europe has world-class universities, strong healthcare systems, excellent researchers, and a long tradition of pharmaceutical and medical innovation.
The challenge is that Europe is often too slow at translating science into scale. We have fragmented markets, complex regulatory pathways, slower access to capital, and too many barriers between research, healthcare systems, industry, and implementation.
In life sciences, competitiveness is no longer only about discovery. It is about the ability to move from discovery to development, from development to clinical validation, and from clinical validation to implementation at scale. That is where Europe needs to become much more ambitious.
You have argued repeatedly that Europe needs “a more competitive life science ecosystem”. What exactly do you mean?
A competitive life science ecosystem is one where excellent science can move faster into real-world impact.
That requires strong research environments, access to capital, predictable regulation, high-quality health data, close collaboration with healthcare systems, and a willingness to test, implement, and scale innovation in practice.
Europe should not try to copy the US or China. Our strength lies elsewhere: in trust-based societies, strong public institutions, universal healthcare systems, and a tradition of public-private collaboration. But we need to turn those strengths into a more coherent innovation engine.
Denmark, a country of just six million people, has become one of Europe’s most influential life science hubs. Pharmaceuticals now account for roughly 20% of Danish exports, while Novo Nordisk alone has at times accounted for more than half of the country’s goods exports and has significantly boosted national GDP growth. The sector includes more than 700 life science companies and one of Europe’s strongest biotech clusters around Copenhagen. What explains Denmark’s ability to build a life science ecosystem with such disproportionate global impact? What should Europe learn from it?
Denmark’s strength is not only the success of individual companies. It is the ecosystem around them.
We have a long tradition of collaboration between universities, hospitals, companies, foundations, and public authorities. We also have a healthcare system in which data, trust, and implementation capacity play important roles.
For a small country, you cannot compete on size. You compete on coherence, quality and the ability to bring actors together around common challenges. That is one of the key lessons from Denmark: life science competitiveness is not built by industry alone. It is built through a strong interaction between science, healthcare, regulation, capital, and public purpose.
Europe should look more closely at how we build ecosystems that are not only good at inventing, but also good at implementing.
Artificial intelligence is moving into drug discovery, diagnostics, and clinical decision-making. Which part of the life sciences value chain will AI disrupt most radically over the next decade?
AI will affect the entire value chain, but I believe the most important disruption will happen where science meets real-world healthcare.
Drug discovery will clearly change. Diagnostics will change. Clinical decision support will change. But the deeper question is how we use AI to make healthcare systems more sustainable, more precise, and more accessible.
The real challenge is not whether AI can generate insights. It can. The challenge is whether healthcare systems can implement those insights responsibly, safely, and at scale. That requires trust, governance, high-quality data, and new forms of collaboration between clinicians, researchers, companies, and public authorities.
You’ve been working as a Member of the Advisory Board at the School of Pharmaceutical Sciences in Tsinghua University. What did you learn from China’s approach to scientific ambition, speed, and state-backed innovation?
One clear observation is that ambition matters. China has shown a strong ability to set strategic priorities, mobilize resources, and move at significant speed.
Europe should not copy China’s model. Our societies are different, and our strengths are different. But Europe can learn from the level of ambition and the ability to think long-term about science, technology, and health as strategic assets.
For Europe, the question is how we combine democratic governance, trust, strong institutions, and high scientific quality with greater speed and execution power.
The US biotech market continues to attract European founders and investors. What conversations are you currently hearing from European startups that should worry policymakers?
Policymakers should listen carefully when founders say that Europe is a good place to do science, but a difficult place to scale.
If companies feel they need to move to the US to access capital, customers, talent or faster commercialization pathways, that is a strategic problem for Europe.
The concern is not mobility in itself. International growth is natural. The concern is if Europe systematically educates, funds, and matures companies in the early phases, but then loses the value creation when they scale. That should worry policymakers.
Manufacturing resilience became a huge issue during the pandemic. Today, amid rising geopolitical tensions, how vulnerable is Europe’s pharmaceutical supply chain?
The pandemic showed that resilience cannot be taken for granted. Europe remains dependent on global supply chains for critical inputs, manufacturing capacity, and certain medicines.
The answer is not full self-sufficiency. That would neither be realistic nor desirable. But Europe needs a much clearer understanding of strategic dependencies, critical vulnerabilities, and where we need stronger regional capacity.
Resilience is not only about manufacturing. It is also about data, regulatory coordination, procurement models, stockpiling, diversified supply chains, and public-private preparedness.
The European Health Data Space is to improve access to high-quality data for research. Is EHDS the project that the life sciences community is looking for?
The European Health Data Space is potentially one of the most important European health initiatives in many years.
If implemented well, it can improve access to high-quality health data for research, innovation, and better care. That is crucial for AI, personalized medicine, and health system transformation.
But the value of EHDS will depend on execution. It must build trust among citizens, provide clarity for healthcare professionals, enable usability for researchers and companies, and ensure strong governance across borders.
The ambition is right. The implementation will determine whether it becomes a real competitive advantage for Europe.
GLP-1 therapies have sparked extensive public debate about prevention, longevity, and the economics of chronic disease, while ChatGPT is changing the way people find and use health information. Are these turning points in how pharma companies operate?
They are turning points in two different ways. GLP-1 therapies show how medical innovation can reshape not only treatment, but also broader debates about prevention, chronic disease, health economics, and the role of healthcare systems.
Generative AI changes how people access, interpret, and use health information. That affects expectations toward healthcare professionals, companies, and public authorities.
For healthcare systems, pharma, and life sciences companies, this means innovation can no longer be viewed solely as a product. It must be understood in a broader system context: how it is used, how it is trusted, how it changes patient behavior, and how it affects healthcare delivery.
First countries in the EU reimburse so-called digital therapeutics. Does it mean that the pharma industry must now rethink its business model?
Yes, but not in a simplistic way.
Digital therapeutics and digital health tools do not replace pharmaceutical innovation. But they expand the understanding of what creates value for patients and healthcare systems.
In the future, value will increasingly come from combinations of medicines, diagnostics, digital tools, data, and care pathways. That means companies need to think more about outcomes, integration into healthcare systems, and partnerships with public providers.
The companies that succeed will be those that understand not only the science but also the system in which the innovation must work.
The pharma industry faces a bad reputation, often being accused of prioritizing maximum profits at the expense of patients. What must be done to begin to see pharmaceutical companies as drivers of progress in medicine?
Trust has to be earned continuously.
Pharmaceutical companies contribute enormously to medical progress, but they also operate in an area where public trust, pricing, access, and transparency matter deeply.
The way forward is not only better communication. There is a stronger alignment between innovation, patient value, and societal needs.
Companies need to be transparent, engage constructively with healthcare systems, contribute to sustainable access, and show that their innovations solve real problems for patients and societies.
In the end, reputation follows behavior. If the sector wants to be seen as a driver of progress, it must consistently act as one.
