Blog posts

Meet the CSEP Team Series: Dr Joachim Taiber

We’d love to hear a bit about you — could you share your background and professional experience?

My name is Joachim Taiber and I was born and raised in Germany.

All my academic training was performed in Switzerland at ETH Zurich where I studied Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science resulting in a PhD degree for technical sciences. After my studies I spent some time in a software start up in Zurich and then joined BMW Group in Munich to work as an automotive engineer. This career path led me to work in the US to engage in the development of an automotive engineering campus in South Carolina where BMW was a key investor which resulted in an academic engagement with Clemson University as a research professor. As a spin-off from working at Clemson University I led the development of the International Transportation Innovation Center (ITIC) which is an automotive proving ground for connected, automated and electrified vehicles. The center became the founding member of the International Alliance for Mobility Testing and Standardization (IAMTS) which I developed in the role of a managing director which brought me back to Europe as the organization is headquartered in Vienna. Imperial became a member of IAMTS which helped to develop the relationship to work with Dyson School of Engineering. I joined Imperial first as visiting professor in 2024 and became a advanced research fellow at CSEP shortly after where I am responsible for automotive affairs.

What are you working on right now, and what part of your work do you find most exciting?

I just completed working on the Automotive Sector Study and truly enjoyed learning more about the UK’s role how it could engage in transforming the future of mobility.

What drew you to work at CSEP, and how do you see your role contributing to its mission?

I was attracted by the opportunity to leverage my knowledge in the sector and contribute to its future in collaboration with colleagues that share my passion for mobility.

I’m particularly motivated by the chance to engage in mobility-related projects that create added value for the UK and its people as key source for innovation.

What do you hope to learn or gain from your time here?

I am eager to learn as much as possible for the excellent research and academic environment and help build meaningful relationships with industry and academic partners to work on transformative projects.

Do you have a favourite paper, study, book or project that has influenced your career path so far?

The Feynman lectures on physics.

Meet the CSEP Team Series: Dr Nigel Steward

 

Welcome to the CSEP team! Could you tell us a bit about yourself and your professional background?

I have recently joined the CSEP team after spending 36 years in industry where I worked in the fields of R&D, Energy and Climate Change, Supply Chain, and Technical Capability building, as well as Operations Leadership and Management where, I ran global businesses in Technology Transfer and Equipment Manufacturing, Electrode manufacturing for the aluminium industry, and Copper and Diamonds production. I am a Materials Scientist by training and studied for my degree and doctorate here at Imperial.

What projects are you working on currently and what part of your work is most exciting for you right now?

At CSEP we have been studying the HealthTech, Aerospace, Fine Chemicals, Telecom, Cyber Security, Automotive, BioPharma, Clean Energy, Data Centre, AI Assurance, and Insurance sectors. What I find exciting is learning about these sectors that are very new me, the new breakthroughs that are being made in technology, and business models and the market disruptions and opportunities that they bring. What I especially enjoy is learning from the brilliant academics and business leaders all over the country who are making these things happen. If all this wasn’t enough what brings the greatest satisfaction is seeing our business-led, sector growth strategies come to life and be delivered. Our first sector strategy plan has been created with the HealthTech Sector in collaboration with the Association of British HealthTech Industries (ABHI) and we have recently had success in seeing one of our growth actions being implemented. Making a difference in the world is what is most exciting.

What attracted you to working at CSEP?

When I retired from industry earlier this year, I was looking for something to do where I could put my skills and experience to good use for a greater good. The role of CSEP is to see how science, technology, market and business model disruptions can be used to find new growth pathways and competitive advantage for key sectors of the UK economy, all with the overarching goal of stimulating more growth for the UK economy. The work is very much aligned with the UK Government’s Industrial Strategy goals and aligned with my own goal of contributing to society in a meaningful way.

What specific research topics or areas are you most passionate about?

What I have always been most passionate about is learning and discovery and implementing what I have learned to make the World a better place. The work at CSEP offers these possibilities in bucket loads!

 

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.”

Using Sector Evidence and Expertise to Improve Medical Technology Regulations, Achieve Better Health Outcomes, and Grow the Economy: CSEP and the UK’s Life Sciences Sector Industrial Strategy

The Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance (CSEP) is a new institute based at Imperial College and funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation. CSEP strives to contribute to the UK’s Economic Growth by employing rigorous academic research, the latest scientific and engineering knowledge with bottom-up business informed analysis to create innovative, meaningful and actionable sector strategies to create growth in jobs and economic value add.

CSEP analysis has shown that the UK’s HealthTech sector is one of the country’s hidden gems. The UK HealthTech Sector contributes £13.5 Billion of Gross Value Add (GVA) to the UK economy annually and, since 2016 has grown at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 19%. Wages, turnover and exports associated with the sector have also grown over the 2016-2020 period at CAGR’s in the 14-19% range. Working in partnership with the Association of British HealthTech Industry (ABHI) and the broader HealthTech businesses community, an industry led strategy to further grow the sector has been created. The sector strategy contains a 6-point delivery plan, with clear actions, timelines and goals that ABHI with CSEP support have been executing this year. Roadshows have been held up and down and across the country to share the strategy and to seek further refinements and guidance from the sector.

This year, following the publication of that strategy and subsequent engagement with multiple departments across Whitehall, including briefings to policy teams and roundtables with decision-makers, it was heartening to see the Government in its landmark Life Sciences Sector Industrial Strategy incorporate three of the report’s key recommendations.

1) utilisation of the NHS as a strategic innovation partner

2) provision of greater export support for HealthTech SME’s

3) streamlining regulation and market access.

Of particular importance was the regulatory streamlining where there is an urgent need to reform the UK’s processes for regulating, approving and adopting medical technology and this was a key component of the CSEP/ABHI report. These changes will ensure that NHS patients will have access to the best life-saving technologies as soon as possible, and they also eliminate the need for duplicate approval process that introduce delays and additional costs to the sector and drive an accelerated growth of the HealthTech sector in the UK.

However, though significant and ambitious, and a welcome step from Government, demonstrating its commitment and intent with regards to the Life Sciences sector, the Life Sciences Strategy is just a roadmap. CSEP and ABHI are now engaging with Government and its relevant policy teams, as well as industry more broadly, to support the development of the implementation of the Sector Strategy and its specific proposals. CSEP researchers and academics are in regular dialogue with policy officials to provide evidence and expertise to inform the practical, real-life application of the changes that Government wants to see and will continue to carry-out cutting-edge research into the sector to monitor trends and performance metrics.

Together, these strategies signal a new era of collaborative, sustainable, and inclusive growth — where HealthTech doesn’t just treat illness, but powers national prosperity.


Authors: Dr. Nigel Steward and Professor James Moore, in collaboration with ABHI

From biopharma innovation to biopharma impact: Can the UK compete globally in 2025?

Author: Professor James Barlow

In 2024, the UK dropped out of the top ten countries in global manufacturing rankings.[i] The decline reflects long-standing structural weaknesses that stretch back decades, including a lack of coherent industrial strategy and inconsistent policies, inadequate adoption of innovation and productivity-enhancing practices, and insufficient investment in workforce training. These have left many of our manufacturing industries without a solid foundation for global competition. Compounding these challenges, geopolitical shifts have also led to other countries overtaking the UK – Russia’s surge in defence industry spending, a manufacturing boom in Mexico spurred by Chinese investment seeking to bypass US tariffs, and Taiwan’s continued dominance in semiconductor production.

Innovation without impact

Does this matter? According to a widely held narrative, the UK lies at the global scientific frontier in key technologies such as life sciences and advanced computing. Yet, the UK often struggles to translate this cutting-edge research into commercial success, limiting its ability to produce world-leading companies. There are also concerns that even the belief in the UK’s scientific performance may be misplaced. Recent research[ii] on some of the priority technologies described in the UK’s 2021 National Integrated Review (engineering biology, AI, and quantum computing) concluded that while the UK performs reasonably well despite low investment, there are real questions about our ability to remain competitive in the long term. Addressing this will require attention to the level, focus and nature of science funding in the UK. But it also requires an ability to turn scientific breakthroughs into companies that grow into global players.

Life sciences: opportunities to unlock growth

A case in point is life sciences, where the UK is recognised for its strengths. Much of this science feeds the biopharma sector, where the UK has two of the world’s largest companies, AstraZeneca and GSK. However, growth in biopharma gross value added (GVA) has stalled and the UK has fallen behind other competitor countries in international rankings.[iii] Moreover, much of our pharma manufacturing capacity has been transferred abroad and the environment for conducting clinical trials has been problematic for several years.

The potential for future growth in the sector is there. The Government’s proposed industrial strategy prioritises life sciences, including biopharma innovation. The UK could leverage its AI capabilities and the NHS’s extensive health data to accelerate drug development and enhance the flow of research breakthroughs into commercial applications. As well as AstraZeneca and GSK, around 500 smaller biopharma companies—three-quarters of which demonstrate measurable research output—indicate a strong foundation for growth.[iv]

A critical question is whether the UK can translate its scientific strengths into GVA for the UK economy. Small companies with promising products are often acquired by US and other foreign investors. While UK biopharma companies outperform their European peers in securing early-stage funding, they raise less late-stage growth financing. This makes it preferrable to seek acquisition by a large pharmaceutical company or possibly an IPO in the USA, where the average IPO size is significantly higher than in the UK.[v]

Between Q3 2023 and Q3 2024, there were 130 mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the UK pharmaceutical sector, valued at $15 billion, with most involving foreign buyers. [vi] This activity is not inherently detrimental – it can bring capital and global collaboration opportunities – but it also raises concerns about the UK losing control over innovative assets, intellectual property, and the ability to independently drive growth. There are also risks of job relocations and profits being redirected overseas. The volume of

M&A activity signals the need for a strategy that ensures the UK retains the economic benefits of its life sciences innovation.

Delivering an industrial strategy

The Government’s proposed industrial strategy offers some hope. We welcome the framework provided by the overarching eight sectors set out in the Green Paper. We also believe that it is right to concentrate on sectors – such as biopharma – rather than technologies, as productivity growth is a function of how technology is used by firms to generate value. The approach provides a clear departmental sponsor for each sector.

However, two dangers risk the industrial strategy being blown off track:

  • First, a limited understanding of the nature and dynamics of industries which are rapidly evolving because of technology innovation and changing markets. The eight sectors are very broad, comprising ecosystems of players spread across different industries. It is important that the next phase of the industrial strategy captures the distinctive features of each sector – the configurations of players and technology innovations that shape them. Some industries also form part of larger sectors that might currently be small in terms of their overall contribution to the UK economy but have significant growth prospects or the potential to drive growth elsewhere in the economy. These should not be neglected. Understanding the changing dynamics of sectors and ensuring that strategies are well-crafted (and industry-led) will increase the likelihood that they deliver the growth that is needed.
  • Second, there are dangers that the ambitions of the industrial strategy are undermined by other policies. Fifty economists and other experts recently warned that easing post-2008 rules designed to prevent excessive risk-taking, and giving the Financial Conduct Authority a remit to promote growth in financial services, could harm efforts to stimulate the wider economy.[vii] Research suggests that once a country’s financial sector grows past a certain point, it can lead to productive investment being crowded out [viii], misallocation of resources [ix], and undue influence by a powerful financial sector on policymaking. Studies [x] suggest that large financial sectors have negative effects on economies when private credit is the equivalent of at least 100% of GDP – in the UK, this averaged 160% since 2000. For businesses, especially SMEs such as the biopharma companies discussed earlier, a tangible outcome is that there has long been a shortfall in investment to finance their growth.

Being ‘open for business’ should not mean blindness to the consequences of losing control over promising UK technology companies. Ensuring there is coherence in both industrial and financial policy will be key to success in the growth agenda for the UK economy.

About Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance (CSEP) at Imperial College London.

The goal of CSEP is to help improve the competitiveness of the UK economy and drive economic growth by bringing together the UK’s leading experts from science, technology and business. Since we started work last January, we have begun an ambitious programme of research and engagement with industry and government to co-design strategies for our key industries. Amongst our activities for 2025, we will be launching new reports on the UK’s aerospace, automotive, data science, telecoms, and tidal energy sectors. We are continuing our research on productivity in the biopharma sector and running a series of regional events to develop a health technology industry strategy.

 

 

[i] UK manufacturing seen ‘chronic underinvestment’, but Labour’s industrial strategy could be a ‘beacon of hope’

[ii] Paul Nightingale, James Phillips. Is the UK a world leader in science?

[iii] The UK Biopharmaceutical Sector 2024. CSEP, October 2024.

[iv] The UK Biopharmaceutical Sector 2024. CSEP, October 2024.

[v] McKinsey. The UK biotech sector: The path to global leadership. 2021.

[vi] GlobalData – Deals Database.

[vii] Response to Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy Call for Evidence.

[viii] For example, by focusing on short-term returns and financial metrics such as dividend payouts rather than productivity-enhancing investment.

[ix] Because financial institutions engage in extracting value from the economy rather than creating it.

[x] By the International Monetary Fund and Bank for International Settlements. See Positive Money.

Supporting the UK’s strengths in aerospace will unlock growth

Author: Professor Rafael Palacios

The UK is one of five countries in the world with the capability to build its own aeroplanes. As an island nation we rely on aerospace more than other countries. So aviation technology here has always developed at pace. We have the third largest sector in the OECD by market share, after the US and France and a healthy pipeline of startup ranging from nanosatellites to large lighter-than-air vehicles. And the operations of companies like Rolls Royce, BAE Systems and Airbus stand as symbols of the sector’s future potential.

The pressure to accelerate development in aviation

Today, the defining challenge for the industry is net zero and producing the technical solutions and new business models to make net zero flight a reality in the second half of this century. There is no realistic future without flight. So the aviation industry is under enormous pressure to accelerate the development of sustainable fuels and more fuel-efficient aeroplanes, and to ramp up investment to support the pace of technological progress.

Transitioning to net zero will also mean defining new ways of working. To electrify road transport, consumers must shift their perspective to buy electric cars. But the way fleets are financed in aviation is business-to-business and much more complex. So transitioning to net zero flight will only happen if the UK government intervenes positively, introducing the economic incentives to create new business models, with companies reacting to that policy environment.

Aerospace regulation can drive growth and competition

In other words, the way to reduce the environmental impact of aviation is regulation. It cannot be left to the market. The UK’s Aerospace Technology Institute and industry-led Jet Zero strategy demonstrate that both government and business accept this. Defining a regulatory pathway to net zero is a key focus of work supported by the Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance, with policy recommendations that will help drive economic growth and competitiveness in the UK’s aerospace industry.[1]

Britain can make major gains in aerospace

We can be confident that the UK can make major gains in the sector in the coming decades. Aerospace engineering and innovation in the UK is thriving, whether it’s the Wing of Tomorrow made at Airbus or Rolls Royce producing the largest ever jet engine.

The UK is also pioneering new types of air travel, such as battery-powered air taxis. Imagine hopping on an air taxi from Heathrow to Gatwick to make a connecting flight or to finish your journey on the right side of London, avoiding road traffic and emissions. Vertical Airspace in Bristol is working on making that journey a reality.

Working towards new forms of sustainable aviation

The UK is rich with innovation in this area. Last November saw the flight100 project led by Virgin Atlantic, where a team of experts from Imperial and the University of Sheffield analysed a flight from London to New York to see if sustainable aviation fuel can be used with existing infrastructure while reducing carbon emissions. For these larger aircraft, it’s likely we will need to combine hydrogen with CO2 obtained from carbon capture to make e-fuels, a new form of sustainable aviation fuel.

These fuels are still very expensive, and in the medium-term we expect these fuels to be produced from biomass. Meanwhile, as we move to a hydrogen economy for uses where electric power is not possible, companies including ZeroAvia are developing hydrogen propulsion for smaller aircraft used in regional aviation. Given the UK’s expertise in AI and data science, we also need to see more innovative work applying these capabilities to accelerate development.

Partnership is essential for progress

There are also some areas with exciting potential, like the work Google and American Airlines have done to show that flying slightly different routes can reduce the climate impact of contrails. These trap large amounts of heat that would otherwise have left the earth’s atmosphere, and which might account for up to 35% of aviation’s global warming impact. Satellite analysis found the experiment reduced contrails by 54%, while only burning 2% more fuel.

We need to see more of this kind of strong partnership between academia, industry, government and finance. Our report will also show how we can put the right policy mechanisms in place to support this collaboration, from R&D and net zero to the business environment and access to investment. In the coming decade we have a golden opportunity to build, protect and capitalise on the UK’s aerospace capabilities. But we will only do this if we have a clear direction, informed by this research.

Professor Rafael Palacios is Director of The Brahmal Vasudevan Institute for Sustainable Aviation, a collaborative research centre at Imperial College for blue-sky thinking towards environmentally friendly aviation. He is a Professor in Computational Aeroelasticity as Deputy Head of the Department of Aeronautics in the Faculty of Engineering. He has been a consultant for Facebook and Airbus in the design of solar-powered aircraft. He is an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.

The Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance at Imperial College London investigates how to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy and drive economic growth. It is a joint initiative between Imperial’s Faculty of Engineering and the Imperial College Business School, bringing together the UK’s top engineers, scientists and economists with the UK’s science and technology industries to co-design globally competitive strategies for major global challenges such as net zero.

[1] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/sectoral-economic-performance/

 

Partnerships between universities and industry will make UK AI a success

Author: Dr. Juan Bernabé-Moreno, Director of Scientific Research in Europe, IBM

As IBM’s Director of Scientific Research in Europe, I know what a huge opportunity the AI Revolution represents for the UK economy. But translating that potential into economic growth and scientific progress requires close collaboration between technology companies and universities. That’s why I was delighted last month to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between IBM and Imperial College London, committing us to work together over the coming years on the application of AI technologies to global problems including climate change.

AI is one of the UK’s best opportunities for growth

No technology has ever advanced as quickly as AI. Already it has begun to revolutionise every sector in every country. The UK is well positioned to perform well in this incredibly competitive market, boasting some of the world’s most advanced computer technology and a great deal of high-quality, centrally-held data. Many of the world’s leading experts in AI and its applications work at British universities. In addition, the UK’s regulatory framework allows for significant space for innovation.

But the UK is not yet making the most of its strengths. Industry and academia are not working closely enough together, which slows down innovation in an area where the UK needs to move fast.

By bringing IBM and Imperial together, the MoU marks a major step towards turning the UK’s enormous potential in the field of AI into success.

To apply the power of AI we must first understand it

The MoU’s primary goal is to pool our engineering, computing, and machine learning resources to address climate and sustainability challenges. Our generative AI technologies are developing so quickly that not even we can foresee the full extent of their possible applications. That’s where we value the partnership with institutions like Imperial.

You only need to look at the number of successful spin-outs Imperial generates to see what a practically-minded institution it is. Imperial students and researchers start with problems, then work out ways to solve them. In our climate and sustainability efforts, IBM will provide cutting-edge technologies, and Imperial will provide students and postdoctoral researchers will find ways to apply them to solve specific problems.

Let’s say, for example, that we wanted to map the areas of the UK most at risk of flooding because of extreme weather events. IBM would provide Imperial with foundation models which are trained on satellite images, climate forecasting and a myriad other relevant data. An Imperial team would fine-tune that model into a specialist model for flood detection, which they would then share with IBM.

Collaborations like this are how IBM, Imperial, and the UK more broadly will make major gains in AI over the coming years, generating jobs, economic growth, and – most importantly – solutions to the existential challenges the world faces.

Collaboration beyond our partnership

But AI is too important a technology to be in just a few hands. So the MoU between IBM and Imperial also formalises a shared commitment to collaboration and openness beyond our partnership in all our future work on AI.

IBM and Imperial will work together with our AI Alliance partners to define industry-wide frameworks for everything from hardware and application to policy making and regulation. Imperial produces some of the most advanced research and policy thinking on the ethics and implications of AI, while IBM bring industry experience. Together, we will be a powerful voice for ethical practices in AI on the world stage.

To that end, the MoU also commits IBM and Imperial to participate together on EU projects. Earlier this year, the UK rejoined Horizon Europe: the EU’s key funding programme for research and innovation aimed at addressing global challenges and driving economic growth. By joining forces, IBM and Imperial can place climate, sustainability and AI at the centre of Horizon’s agenda.

I am confident that the work IBM and Imperial do together over the coming years will contribute to making Britain a true world-leader in AI. This MoU would not have been possible without the work of Imperial’s Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance to identify the sectors where the College can make the most difference. It is a testament to Imperial’s entrepreneurial problem-solving spirit, and something I would like to see embraced across higher education.

Dr. Juan Bernabé-Moreno is the Director of IBM Research in Europe. He leads three labs in Ireland and the UK, working on cutting-edge science and technologies in the areas of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, multi-cloud, and semiconductors. Dr. Bernabé-Moreno is also responsible for the Accelerated Discovery Strategy for Climate and Sustainability, leading a team of researchers across seven global research labs to explore how the convergence of AI, quantum computing and hybrid cloud can accelerate the discovery of sustainability and climate solutions. He holds a PhD in Computer Science from University of Granada and is the recipient of several patents.

The Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance at Imperial College London investigates how to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy and drive economic growth. It is a joint initiative between Imperial’s Faculty of Engineering and the Imperial College Business School – bringing together the UK’s top engineers, scientists and economists with the UK’s science and technology industries to co-design globally competitive strategies for major global challenges like net zero, economic competition and technological disruptions.

Unleashing the Potential of UK MedTech

Authors: Professor James Moore Jr, Yunus Kutlu

We have no shortage of innovative ideas or talented people in MedTech in this country. But in my eleven years as a professor of medical device design at Imperial, I’ve seen countless good ideas go to waste. At the Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance, we are investigating why this is and what industry, government and academia can do to change it.

MedTech’s outsize contribution to the UK economy

MedTech is any technology that a clinician might use to improve or to save a patient’s life – from pacemakers to prosthetic limbs, MRI scans to plasters. The UK sector, which is mostly SMEs, employs 163,00 people and has an annual turnover of £36 billion.[1]

Despite being half the size of Biopharmaceuticals in terms of jobs, MedTech contributes £13.5 billion to the UK economy annually, about the same as Biopharma’s £15 billion. Its annual growth rate between 2016 and 2020 was 19% – far higher than Biopharma’s 3%.[2]

But the MedTech sector’s remarkable vitality is in spite – not because – of government policy. Regulatory uncertainty, scarce funding, and ineffective NHS procurement processes make it extremely difficult for MedTech inventions to develop into viable businesses.

The Peezy: a breakthrough device now withdrawn from the UK

Forte Medical’s Peezy device, invented in the UK but now only available in the US, is a dispiritingly typical example.[3]

NHS GP Dr Vincent Forte invented the Peezy and founded Forte Medical with his sister Giovanna in 2002. The Peezy is a cheap-to-produce device which makes midstream urine samples easier to collect. Forte Medical made a prototype, secured a patent, then ran real-world trials which showed that the Peezy radically reduces the risk of contamination, and therefore the unnecessary prescription of antibiotics. The potential benefits to the NHS were enormous.

Yet twenty-two years since the invention of the Peezy, NHS doctors are still sending female patients – sometimes heavily pregnant, sometimes elderly and frail – to surgery toilets with tiny sample vials and near impossible-to-follow instructions. Due to siloed budgets, resistance to change and lack of incentives for adoption, Forte Medical has withdrawn completely from the UK NHS market.

I see similar stories time and again. In just over a decade at Imperial, I have helped ten spinout companies form out of my department. One has been highly successful at securing investment. Two or three are just about managing. The rest have foundered. This doesn’t inspire our students to pursue biomedical engineering and develop MedTech devices.

The policy solution: certainty, funding, and procurement

But it’s a story we can change. With focused industry/government interventions, the UK can unleash the full potential of UK MedTech.

First and most pressingly, MedTech companies need regulatory certainty.

Because the UK represents only 3% of the global market, UK MedTech companies prioritise exports. Post-Brexit, the UK adopted its own regulatory framework, based on the EU’s Medical Device Directive (MDD) and overseen by the MHRA. But the EU’s ongoing transition to the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) means that 70% of UK-made devices will soon be noncompliant. It may also lead to some life-saving technologies being unavailable to NHS patients.

The MHRA should align regulations with those of the MDR and the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Outside those frameworks, there are opportunities to make the UK a more desirable destination for clinical trials of cutting-edge technologies. The Treasury should increase MHRA’s budget to that end.

Second, MedTech companies need better access to funding.

While the MedTech sector produces more university spinouts than Biopharma, the underlying research funding base for MedTech is only one fifteenth the size of the funding available to Biopharma. Sources of grant funding for MedTech SMEs are limited to Innovate UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), where only about half of the applications determined to be viable actually get funded. Private investment is scarce and concentrated towards established companies.

So the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) should increase funding for NIHR and Innovate UK to a sufficient level that all viable projects can receive funding.

Finally, MedTech companies need the NHS to overhaul its innovation and procurement culture. The NHS’s ineffective procurement processes make it difficult for MedTech firms to access the UK market. It also prevents UK patients from reaping the benefits of the NHS’s position as an ideal testing ground for new technologies.

Universities must push for tailored support for MedTech spinouts

The government must do more to support the UK’s special position as a market primed for MedTech innovation. There are more MedTech spinouts than any other type of university spinout.

University innovation and entrepreneurship programmes should also provide tailored support for MedTech spinouts. Imperial’s new venture fund, Science Capital, will provide Imperial’s entrepreneurs access to capital and proof-of-concept funding to realise the full potential of their businesses.

MedTech is a key research area for both the White City Deep Tech Campus and the Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance, who sponsored our analysis of the UK MedTech sector.

The detailed policy recommendations in the resulting report should form a central input to a government wishing to develop a growth strategy for the country – they show how these industries could increase the UK’s global competitiveness and value added per capita. If the recommendations are implemented, there’s almost no limit to the good that MedTech can do – not only for the UK economy but for patients all around the world.[4]

Professor James Moore is the Bagrit Chair in Medical Device Design at the Department of Bioengineering, and co-author of ‘Sectoral Systems of Innovation and the UK’s Competitiveness: The UK MedTech Sector’ published by the Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance. He does research on the lymphatic system, initiated two degree programmes in MedTech entrepreneurship and has co-founded five MedTech startup companies.

The Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance at Imperial College London investigates how to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy and drive economic growth. It is a joint initiative between Imperial’s Faculty of Engineering and the Imperial College Business School –bringing together the UK’s top engineers, scientists and economists with the UK’s science and technology industries to co-design globally competitive strategies for major global challenges: like net zero, economic competition and technological disruptions.

[1] 348-IMP-Public-Affairs-3-reports_Medtech_AW_DIGITAL_SINGLES_Sept23.pdf (imperial.ac.uk), p. 17.

[2] 348-IMP-Public-Affairs-3-reports_Medtech_AW_DIGITAL_SINGLES_Sept23.pdf (imperial.ac.uk), p. 9.

[3] Peezy Midstream UK – Forte Medical (forte-medical.co.uk)

[4] 348-IMP-Public-Affairs-3-reports_Medtech_AW_DIGITAL_SINGLES_Sept23.pdf (imperial.ac.uk)

Making Britain a global leader in telecoms regulation

Authors:
Professor Eric Yeatman, Professor Chris Tucci & Dr Marika Iivari.

Telecoms is vital national infrastructure that allows us to communicate with people virtually anywhere, whether we are on the go, at home, or at work. In Britain, the industry is well-established and a handful of major players dominate the market. The sector employs 200,000 people, double that of Germany, and provides £38 billion in GVA to the UK economy annually.[1] The industry is also changing with the arrival of 5G and ultimately 6G and the convergence of telecoms with technology such as AI. This presents an opportunity to make the British economy more productive and competitive. But we can only grasp it with the right environment for telecoms companies to succeed.

Using telecoms to drive UK competitiveness and growth

Imperial’s Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance (CSEP), which launched in January 2024, explores ways to improve Britain’s economic competitiveness and drive economic growth.[2] It looks at areas such as competition and technological disruption that demand a joint business, innovation and policy response. Telecoms is an area that we believe has the potential to transform the British economy’s growth outlook. I co-authored a report which examined the industry in detail and provided a list of policy recommendations.[3]

The value of connections a thousand times faster

When we think of telecoms we might picture home broadband boxes and mobile phones or the masts and cables that support this technology. Yet telecoms is about much more than that. It is almost impossible to run a small business without an internet connection, let alone a hospital or a government department. Telecoms is the enabler for practically every other part of an advanced economy. While it represented 20% of the digital sector’s growth between 2010 and 2019, which in turn contributed £150.6 billion to the British economy in 2019.[4]

Telecoms, then, should not be measured by its GVA alone. As 5G is adopted as the next generation technology standard for cellular networks, and more things come online, this will be even more the case. 5G offers speeds 100 times greater than 4G and downloads much faster than WIFI, but also provides other advantages including support for real-time applications such as autonomous vehicles and virtual reality. Its speed, reliability and new capabilities will mean that for a growing number of systems, such as energy grids, transport networks and hospitals,  the internet will  not just be a means of communication but will be a core part of how they are controlled and managed. 5G adoption will go hand in hand with AI adoption and these technologies will converge to create a new, more powerful, kind of internet.

Productivity gains of £159 billion but an unbalanced investment burden

The rewards are potentially vast. The Department for Science Innovation and Technology predicts productivity gains of £159 billion between now and 2035 on account of 5G.[5] This technology will have other significant uses in Britain, too, whether in reducing carbon emissions or making public services more efficient. This is before we consider 6G, a technology that is expected to come online by the next decade.

None of this is achievable without telecoms companies, but the long-term profitability of the industry is the concern of our report. While companies have invested billions in infrastructure, such as 5G base stations, they can struggle to generate a return on their investment. Meanwhile companies that depend on this infrastructure, such as Amazon, Meta and Google, generate vast profits. Telecoms operators provide the investment burden, but it is non-UK based big tech companies that take the lion’s share of the rewards, with only a handful of major customer-facing content providers based in Britain.

The UK can grasp the rewards with the right regulation

That is not to say British telecoms companies haven’t explored other avenues for growth. In 2022, for instance, BT invested nearly £100 million in the development of business-to-business and business-to-government products that bring together 5G and the internet of things, cloud and edge computing, and AI. The same year, Vodafone and Ericsson partnered in a trial to experiment with virtual reality and network slicing which provided users with an enhanced cloud gaming experience. Yet telecoms companies will not fully grasp opportunities like these without the right regulatory environment. Nor will Britain. It is incumbent, then, on policymakers to change this.

Our report contains thirteen recommendations. Broadly speaking, they refer to deeper collaboration between industry, academia and government to support business innovation; new regulations that include both an international role for Britain in new standard setting and measures to protect the country’s vital telecoms infrastructure and guarantee its strategic autonomy; and the need to consider the broader social and environmental applications of new technologies, particularly where regulation is concerned. The recommendations are spelled out in detail in the report.

The telecoms industry is changing, with the potential to unlock billions for the British economy. Our approach to collaboration and regulation must change too.

Professor Eric Yeatman is a Professor of Electrical Engineering at Imperial College London and co-author of ‘Sectoral Systems of Innovation and the UK’s Competitiveness: The UK Telecommunications Sector’. He is an expert in micro-technologies for sensing, communications and other applications, and has published over 350 papers and patents in these and related areas.   He is Chair and co-founder of I-X, Imperial College’s multi-faculty initiative in AI, and was the co-founder and Chairman of Microsaic Systems. He was awarded the Royal Academy of Engineering Silver Medal in 2011, and was made a Fellow of the Academy in 2012.

The Centre for Sectoral Economic Performance at Imperial College London investigates how to improve the competitiveness and productivity of the UK economy and drive economic growth. It is a joint initiative between Imperial’s Faculty of Engineering and the Imperial College Business School – bringing together the UK’s top engineers, scientists and economists with the UK’s science and technology industries to address the major global challenges facing economies such as net zero, economic competition, and technological disruptions.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dcms-sectors-economic-estimates-monthly-gva-to-december-2022/using-annual-estimates-from-summed-monthly-gva-data-digital

[2] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/sectoral-economic-performance/

[3] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/research-and-innovation/the-forum/public/Sectoral-Systems-of-Innovation_Telecommunications_June-2023.pdf

[4] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dcms-economic-estimates-2019-gross-value-added/dcms-economic-estimates-2019-provisional-gross-value-added

[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-wireless-infrastructure-strategy/uk-wireless-infrastructure-strategy#:~:text=By%20transforming%20our%20economy%2C%20widespread,every%20corner%20of%20the%20country.