Category: Uncategorised

CSEP Cross-Institutional Partnerships: Brunel University of London

Who are the key people or teams involved from each side?

The collaboration brings together expertise from both the Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance (CSEP) at Imperial College London and the Brunel Interdisciplinary Power Systems (BIPS) Research Centre at Brunel University London.

From Brunel’s side, the work is led by Dr Marko Aunedi, Senior Lecturer and Principal Investigator on the project, and Research Fellow Dr Daniil Hulak. Marko’s expertise in modelling and optimisation of low-carbon energy systems and Daniil’s background in power-system economics are combined to investigate the system integration of the tidal stream resources in the context of the GB electricity system.

What is the main research topic or project focus under this collaboration?

The collaboration focuses on advancing analytical and optimisation techniques to understand the potential role of tidal stream generation within the future GB power system. One significant part of the research has been dedicated to tidal resource assessment based on multiple geospatial and oceanographic datasets, including GEBCO bathymetry and TPXO tidal data. Our work combines the assessment of tidal energy resources combined with the seabed and technical constraints, access conditions, and other financial considerations. In parallel, we have developed an open-source power system optimisation model to investigate the operational and economic implications of integrating tidal energy across multiple future scenarios. This includes a range of sensitivity analyses around the availability of renewable energy sources, deployment of flexibility options, and specific regional conditions.

How does this research align with CSEP’s mission?

This collaboration directly supports CSEP’s mission to help improve the competitiveness of the UK economy and drive sustainable economic growth by advancing understanding of an emerging technology sector with potential for global impact. Tidal energy represents a field where the UK has strong natural resources, established research capabilities and the possibility to build international leadership. Our ambition is to provide quantitative evidence on system integration benefits of tidal energy resources that could support their efficient integration into the zero-carbon generation mix.

How does this project contribute to sustainability, innovation or social good?

Although tidal power generation remains less mature than wind and solar technologies with a significantly lower installed capacity, it offers some comparative advantages to variable renewable technologies because of fully predictable generation profiles, which could help to improve the resilience of the future GB power system and the sensitivity to extreme weather events. Our research aims to address a core challenge: how to integrate tidal stream resources effectively and cost-efficiently into a low-carbon energy system dominated by variable renewable energy sources. By building the analysis on detailed real-life datasets, the project provides an evidence-based assessment of locations and circumstances where tidal energy could deliver the greatest system-level benefits. Early findings indicate that certain UK coastal zones may offer particularly favourable combinations of tidal resource quality, system value and connection feasibility, suggesting that targeted deployment in these areas could support both decarbonisation and system stability. These results have the potential to inform future policy discussions, guide investment decisions and support the UK’s broader Net Zero ambitions by informing the energy policy and providing efficient investment signals.

What are the expected outcomes or impacts of this collaboration?

A key outcome of the collaboration is the generation and exchange of knowledge in the area of tidal energy integration across academic institutions, industry partners and policymakers. This includes ongoing discussions with stakeholders such as the Marine Energy Council, Guernsey Electricity and other sector representatives. The research outcomes are also being prepared for presenting in peer-reviewed publications to disseminate the project findings among the academic and research communities.

CSEP Cross-Institutional Partnerships: The Centre for Emerging Technology and Security (CETaS)

What is the primary research theme guiding this collaboration?

This project analyses the current UK AI assurance marketplace specifically for the defence and national security (D&S) sector. A thriving AI assurance sector has the potential to enable AI adoption and become a key driver of economic growth in the UK. We were keen to describe the current state of AI assurance within D&S organisations, highlighting strengths, challenges and possible mitigations to enable safe and effective AI adoption. Ultimately, the paper provides lessons from the D&S sector to assist the growth of a robust AI assurance marketplace across the broader UK economy.

Can you outline the ways this project supports CSEP’s goals?

This research is aligned with CSEP’s mission of improving UK competitiveness as it will be essential in the coming years to focus on the role of AI to boost economic growth. By partnering with CETaS and its expertise on AI and Defence and National Security (D&NS) topics, this project will demonstrate both centres’ commitments to advancing robust economic growth and AI safety as mutually reinforcing goals. We also anticipate synergies with other CSEP projects, such as UK’s cybersecurity or future collaboration on a sector plan for growing assurance in D&S for national benefit.

 How might the research influence policy, industry, or society?

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has identified growing the UK’s third-party AI assurance sector as a key priority within the AI Opportunities Action Plan. A thriving assurance marketplace would also help deliver the UK Government’s mission to kickstart economic growth through the adoption of AI technology, as stated in the UK’s Prosperity Mission. This research helps to support the UK government’s AI ambition by identifying: (i) key drivers of demand and approaches to AI assurance in this sector, (ii) supply and demand limitations, and (iii) recommendations to grow a thriving and robust AI assurance marketplace.

Are there any early findings or achievements that stand out?

We found it interesting that there is strong recognition across defence and security (D&S) for AI assurance, yet the level of maturity across organisations varies widely. We identified significant pockets of excellence where good practice is well established, but there remains an open question about how much to focus on in-house or external assurance moving forward. D&S also provides critical lessons for other UK sectors, such as articulating sector specific requirements, developing initiatives to upskill key stakeholders, and creating certification schemes for AI assurance providers.

 

Is the UK biopharma sector at risk of sleepwalking into decline?

James Barlow


For years, the UK has traded on its reputation as a “life sciences powerhouse.” This narrative isn’t entirely false: we have world-class universities, our basic science is strong, and the NHS provides a unique testbed for clinical research. Yet behind the rhetoric, the biopharma sector is facing real and immediate challenges.


Global pharma companies – including Merck, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly – have recently announced plans to pause or withdraw R&D and manufacturing investment from the UK. Promising British start-ups are often sold overseas before they can scale. Access to innovative drugs is often slower than comparable countries.


Unless government and industry change course, the UK risks becoming a country that generates world-class ideas and early-stage companies but leaves others to capture the economic and health benefits. Innovative drugs will take longer to reach NHS patients. Manufacturing jobs and investment will migrate abroad. The narrative of “life sciences powerhouse” will become a hollow slogan, masking a reality of decline.


The reasons for Big Pharma falling out of love with the UK have partly been framed in terms of a “Trump effect”, the emphasis on domestic manufacturing, and partly on an uncompetitive drug pricing regime in the UK after changes to the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access (VPAS).


The UK’s difficulties don’t exist in isolation. Across Europe, the biopharma sector is losing ground. Public R&D spending on pharma is less than half that of the US, and private investment is just a quarter of American levels. Regulation is slower and more complex: median approval times for new medicines are nearly 100 days longer than in the US. Fragmented access to health data makes it harder to run efficient trials or fully exploit AI in drug development. The Draghi report has already highlighted Europe’s need to unlock secondary health data and accelerate digitisation, yet progress is slow. Meanwhile, the US continues to dominate private capital flows and China is rapidly translating R&D into patents and new biopharma products.


The UK’s self-inflicted weaknesses


But the UK is not just sharing Europe’s malaise – it may also be amplifying it through its own domestic weaknesses. Several structural issues make the UK a less attractive place for biopharma investment:


1. Start-up strength, scale-up failure.
The UK outperforms its European peers in early-stage funding. But when it comes to growth capital, the pipeline runs dry. Company valuations are low, making the USA a more attractive location for scaling. Promising small UK biopharma firms are often acquired by overseas investors, most commonly from the USA. In short, the UK funds the cost of discovery; others reap the rewards of commercialisation.[1]


2. Clinical trials – a squandered advantage?
The NHS’s voluminous health records could be a global asset for clinical trials. Instead, trial capacity is limited, recruitment slow, and approval pathways often cumbersome. Some other countries are easier and faster places to run trials. What should be a UK strength is in reality a weak spot.


3. Pricing that discourages investment.
The UK is very good at securing low drug prices for the NHS. But from an investor’s perspective, the pricing model looks increasingly hostile. The VPAS is seen as punitive by global pharmaceutical companies, compared to similar schemes in other countries. Companies don’t see a fair reward for their R&D risk and the UK risks being deprioritised as a launch market for new drugs.


4. A complacent narrative.
Successive governments have promoted the UK as a global life sciences powerhouse. While it is true that our science remains competitive, the long-term indicators are less encouraging. Patent filings, research output, and overall R&D intensity show that China and other emerging players are catching up fast.


What needs to happen now


Global pharma companies are not sentimental. They will locate their R&D and manufacturing where conditions are most favourable. Switzerland offers stability, the US offers capital depth, China offers scale and political backing. In contrast, the UK’s science base is still strong, but the downstream environment – scaling finance, trial efficiency, regulatory predictability, and pricing – does not match. Put simply, the UK is no longer seen as offering the right balance of opportunity and reward.


We still have assets worth fighting for, but this requires political will. Policymakers must:


• Continue to improve the environment of drug trials. This includes ensuring NHS data is more readily accessible to help provide real world evidence for R&D and virtual trials.
• Support scale-ups, not just start-ups. Provide the right tax and investment landscape to build deeper pools of growth capital so that UK firms can mature into global leaders, rather than being sold abroad.
• Reform drug pricing. Be bold – move beyond penny-pinching and embrace value-based pricing models that align rewards with outcomes.
• Face reality. Stop hiding behind “life sciences powerhouse” rhetoric and treat life sciences as a strategic national priority.


The remedies aren’t just the responsibility of government alone. The biopharma sector can’t simply sit back and wait for policy changes – it needs to:


• Be more ambitious. Aim to scale from a UK base rather than defaulting to acquisition as an exit.
• Engage proactively with the NHS. Build the evidence base for adoption as innovative technologies are being developed and not after they have been launched; work with clinicians to overcome the system’s inherent risk aversion.
• Tell the value story better. Demonstrate clearly how new drugs save money and improve outcomes, not just what they cost.


A wake-up call


If we keep congratulating ourselves on our science while ignoring the cracks in our industrial base, we will drift into decline. Biopharma is too important to the UK’s economy and health system to be allowed to wither. The choice is clear: act boldly now or accept second-tier status tomorrow.

 

This blog draws on recent interviews James gave to Nature and CNN’s Marketplace Europe about the state of the UK and European health tech industry.


CSEP’s work on the biopharma and health technology sectors


We have published reviews of the competitiveness of the UK’s biopharma (Biopharmaceutical_Sector_2024_Brochure_Nov2024.pdf) and health technology (348-IMP-Public-Affairs-3-reports_Medtech_AW_DIGITAL_SINGLES_Sept23.pdf) sectors, with recommendations for business and government. In collaboration with the ABHI, we have developed a UK healthtech sector strategy, available here: Lores_Screen_View_Only_HealthTech_Report_Oct2024_v4-FINAL.pdf


CSEP is currently investigating the R&D productivity of UK biopharma and whether this has changed in recent years as new technologies such as AI have become more widely used. Another project is investigating the “long tail” of around 500 smaller biopharma companies and their potential for growth. These projects will be completed in 2026.

 

[1] More information on the slippage in the UK’s scientific performance and on the challenges faced by small biopharma companies seeking to grow can be found in the CSEP blog “From biopharma innovation to biopharma impact: Can the UK compete globally in 2025?”

UK HealthTech Roadshow Unites Industry, Academia, and Government to Shape MedTech’s Future

The government has placed growth at the heart of its mission and in June of this year
published its Industrial Strategy. One important issue raised by the Industrial Strategy is
the need to better understand the relationship between national sector strategies and
the regional areas where firms are located.

The high-level Sector Plans identified the most important city regions and clusters for
the given sector. In addition, regional authorities are developing ambitious Local Growth
Plans which are supposed to dovetail with the Industrial Strategy Sector Plans. These
local plans need to tackle the critical issues that are constraining growth across sectors
including poor transport connections, skills shortages and housing.

If a sector is to drive growth, it will need to scale up across the regions which means
there needs to be some consistency across locations. For example, there should not be
a diFerent export strategy for HealthTech firms in Yorkshire compared to those in
Scotland; there needs to be one national export strategy for the sector. However,
national sector strategies will have to consider the advantages and disadvantages faced
by each location which will impact multiple sectors. Hence it is critical that national
sector strategies dovetail with regional strategies to support growth across multiple
sectors rather than generating a host of competing strategies which has sometimes
been the case across the UK.

With that in mind, a nationwide series of regional roundtables, jointly hosted by the
Association of British HealthTech Industries (ABHI) and the Centre for Sectoral
Economic Performance (CSEP) at Imperial College London, has brought together
leaders from industry, academia, and government to address the challenges and
opportunities shaping the UK’s £13.5 billion HealthTech sector.

Spanning events in Edinburgh, Oxford, Manchester, and Cardiff, the roadshow
highlighted the sector’s economic strength, innovation potential, and pressing need for
structural reforms to boost productivity, manufacturing, and global competitiveness.

 

A Sector with Global Potential – and Persistent Barriers

According to CSEP’s research, the UK HealthTech industry employs more than 150,000
people and contributes £13–15 billion in Gross Value Added (GVA) annually—on par
with the biopharma sector, despite receiving 15 times less research funding.

University spinouts in HealthTech rival those in pharmaceuticals, underscoring the
sector’s innovation eFiciency.

However, productivity per employee lags global leaders such as Singapore and
Denmark, and the UK remains a net importer of medical technologies. Much of the
country’s manufacturing capacity has migrated overseas, particularly to the US and
Switzerland, limiting domestic economic returns.

 

Three NHS Strategic Shifts Driving Urgency

Speakers, including ABHI’s Richard Phillips and Imperial’s Professor James Moore Jr.,
stressed that NHS sustainability hinges on three strategic shifts:

1. Care closer to home and in the community
2. Digital transformation
3. A stronger focus on prevention

Delivering on these priorities will require rapid adoption of innovative health
technologies—an area where the UK has historically excelled in invention but lagged in
deployment.

 

Policy and Investment Reforms Proposed

Daniel Green, a MedTech entrepreneur and policy adviser, outlined a set of cost-neutral, sector-specific proposals to stimulate growth:

• Expand SEIS/EIS limits for life sciences, raising the SEIS cap from £250,000 to
reflect the capital intensity of MedTech ventures.
• Reform EMI share schemes so tax benefits remain valid after employees leave,
accommodating long development timelines.
• Enhance R&D tax credits for UK-based clinical trials to reverse the UK’s decline
in global rankings (from 4th to 10th).

Attendees agreed these reforms would improve access to capital, attract talent, and
encourage companies to conduct trials domestically.

 

Local Insights from the Regions

• Edinburgh: Participants called for better alignment between NHS priorities and
HealthTech innovation, with a focus on health equity and sustainability.
• Oxford: Discussions stressed the UK’s need to match its scientific strength with
faster adoption and value realisation in the health system.
• Manchester: Stakeholders showcased integrated health data initiatives and the
CityLabs innovation hub, which has created over 800 jobs and £150m in GVA.
• Cardiff: Former Welsh Economy Minister Vaughan Gething urged embedding
innovation as a core NHS function, with empowered local leadership and clear
priorities.

 

ABHI’s Role as the Sector’s Voice

ABHI, representing over 400 members (80% SMEs), acts as a bridge between industry
and policymakers, advocating for regulatory clarity, market access, and international
trade growth. Its trade missions span the US, Middle East, and beyond, helping UK
firms access new markets and align with global regulatory standards.

 

Next Steps – From Discussion to Delivery

The roadshow’s findings will feed into a collaborative HealthTech strategy co-authored by ABHI and CSEP, focusing on government policy reform, industry scaling
commitments, and academic innovation pipelines. Attendees were urged to provide
feedback to refine the roadmap.

“This is about more than funding requests,” Moore emphasised. “It’s about a shared
commitment—industry, government, and academia each playing their role—to make
the UK the best place in the world to develop, scale, and export health technologies.”