‘A dark day for U.K. science’ as Britain votes to break with EU

LONDON – There is alarm, concern and even heartbreak across the biotech and pharma industry and among leading scientists at the vote to leave the EU.

“This is not the outcome the Bioindustry Association wanted,” Steve Bates, CEO told BioWorld Today.

“Key questions about the regulation of medicine, access to the single market and talent, intellectual property and the precise nature of the future relationship of the U.K. with Europe, are now upon us,” Bates said.

He was echoed by Mike Thompson, CEO of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, who said, “This creates immediate challenges for future investment, research and jobs in our industry in the U.K.”

Similarly, member of parliament Nicola Blackwood, chair of the house of commons science and technology committee, said, “It is vital that the government moves quickly to reassure our scientists and their collaborators in Europe that the U.K. remains firmly open for business as a willing and reliable partner.”

The committee will now be looking into the consequences of the vote for British science and the impact of the loss of EU R&D funding, Blackwood said. Earlier this month, the science and technology committee published an investigation into the effect of EU regulation on life sciences, which concluded the government needed to put in place a contingency plan to protect the sector in the event of a vote to leave. (See BioWorld Today, June 13, 2016.)

U.K. scientists of international stature gave some very personal reactions to the referendum result, in which 17.4 million voted to leave the EU vs. 16.3 million in favor of remaining, on a turnout of 72 percent.

“I am heartbroken and I have great concern for the future of British science,” said Anne Glover, former EU chief science adviser and now vice principal of Aberdeen University. “Our success in research and resulting impact relies heavily on our ability to be a full part of the EU science arrangements, and it is hard to see how they can be maintained upon a British exit,” she said.

For Paul Nurse, nobel laureate and director of the U.K.’s new translational science institute, The Francis Crick, the vote to leave is “a poor outcome and so bad for Britain. British scientists will have to work hard in the future to counter the isolationism of a British exit if our science is to continue to thrive, he said.

Venki Ramakrishnan, president of the U.K.’s most prestigious science body, the Royal Society, said EU R&D money is an essential supplement to national funding of science. “We must make sure that research ….  is not short-changed and the government ensures that the overall level of science is maintained,” he said.

Ramakrishnan added, “Any failure to maintain the free exchange of people and ideas between the U.K. and the international community, including the EU, could seriously harm U.K. science.”

Paul Boyle, vice chancellor of Leicester University, said, “This is a shocking result for the nation and its universities and a dark day for U.K. science. We need to offer support to our European colleagues and students who are working and studying in the U.K., and we need to begin campaigning immediately to protect the science budget.”

NEGOTIATING THE EXIT

With no country having left the EU before, there is some uncharted territory to cross in negotiating withdrawal under article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty. The next step will be for the U.K. government to notify the European Commission of its intention to leave, which will start the gun on a two-year countdown to negotiate the terms.

It is not clear as yet if the U.K. will cut itself off completely, or will have some form of associated membership like that held by Norway and Switzerland. However, that would involve adhering to the EU principle of free movement of labor, and with migration being one of the main issues in the referendum, it seems unlikely such a condition would be acceptable.

The prime minister, David Cameron, who called the referendum and led the remain campaign announced he will stand down within the next three months, as soon as a successor is chosen by the Conservative Party. It will be up to the new prime minister to trigger article 50.

Until the withdrawal negotiations are complete, the U.K. remains as a full member of the EU on exactly the same terms as today.

Both Bates and Thompson want to see a taskforce set up with industry representation to work with government on setting out terms for negotiating the U.K.’s exit.

As an EU agency, the EMA will have to be relocated from London, but Thompson hopes it will be possible for the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to maintain its status vis a vis its European counterparts and that medicines in the U.K. will continue to be regulated within the EMA framework.

“I know from talking to colleagues in Europe how highly they regard the MHRA; that’s why it gets more files to review than any other agency, and they do want MHRA still on side,” Thompson told BioWorld Today.

Bates agreed, saying, “The MHRA plays a crucial role in EU medicines regulation. It has got expertise and capabilities of global renown and has provided key thinking and leadership and engaged in the development of new ideas. It is important that this goes on, and that is recognized by others.”

Source