Unleashing Europe’s biotech prowess requires radical reinvention

Bill Anderson is the CEO of Bayer.

Europe was once the epicenter of progress. After centuries of the Dark Ages, a radical new way of acquiring knowledge — the scientific method — cemented the continent’s place at the apex of civilization.

Problem is, that was around 400 years ago.

Today, Europe is home to strong research universities and prodigious talent, but it has been losing ground, particularly to the U.S. and China. In the 1990s, for example, half of all new medicines originated in Europe — now, the figure’s down to one in five. And the life sciences is just one of many such industries.

Europe must reverse this trend, and now is the time to act.

We stand on the precipice of a new world order, with increasing trade uncertainty and multipolarity, and it’s not yet clear how things will shake out. In this period of flux, Europe’s leaders rightly want to elevate science and innovation to the heart of its economy. But for this to become a reality, its member countries need to step up their game in terms of simplifying regulation.

Starting a business in Italy or Greece, for example, can take months due to needless hurdles like in-person meetings, notary fees and bank account setups. It’s no wonder that advances in AI are almost exclusively happening in the U.S. and China. The biotech revolution attracts 75 percent of its talent in the U.S. and Asia, and Brazil is at the forefront of agricultural innovation. Meanwhile Europe is all too often sitting on the sidelines, asking “what’s allowed?” rather than “what’s possible?”

Here’s the thing: Europe can produce world-changing innovation. In fact, some of today’s pioneering startups, like CRISPR Therapeutics, emerged from Europe. But thanks to a more accommodating regulatory environment, proximity to research hubs and access to venture capital, these companies have expanded heavily in the U.S.

This isn’t to say the U.S. is without problems, or that Europe should try to refashion itself into Silicon Valley. In fact, Europe publishes about twice as many scientific articles as the U.S., and is home to multiple research hubs that foster international collaboration. However, we need a distinctly European course correction to once again unleash Europe’s innovative spirit.

I am confident that with the right mindset and conditions, this can be done — but not if we continue down the path of business — or rather, bureaucracy — as usual. As last year’s Draghi report on EU competitiveness stated: “The only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.”

I’ve personally had the rare privilege of working and living in five different European countries, including in Germany for the last two years, as the CEO of Bayer — a 160-year-old life sciences company headquartered in Germany. And we’ve now kicked off the most radical transformation since the company’s founding.

Upending decades of tradition is not for the faint of heart, but sometimes it’s essential. And here are a few lessons worth bearing in mind, whether modernizing a company or a continent:

Firstly, it’s time to simplify regulations and embrace the new technologies required to solve our biggest challenges, just like the U.S., Canada and other countries have already done. The U.K., for example, passed a bill allowing the development and marketing of gene-edited crops in 2023.

As last year’s Draghi report on EU competitiveness stated: “The only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.” | Teresa Suarez/EFE via EPA

On this front, we welcome the EU’s increased openness toward gene editing in agriculture, which carries tremendous potential to help farmers adapt to climate change. For instance, Italy showed courageous leadership last year, breaking with two decades of policy to allow the first field trial of a gene-edited crop, which scientists developed to improve the rice plant’s resistance to a prevalent fungus. The rest of the continent ought to follow this lead.

Next, Europe also needs investment. While innovation in Europe has grown, prices for pharmaceuticals have decreased. And why is it that one of the most advanced continents, with a market of 450 million people, is seen less and less as a place to invest for developing the drugs of tomorrow? We need to change that.

Everyone deserves reliable and affordable access to medicines, and everyone has a role to play. Investing in research and development (R&D) is the beating heart of the life sciences — and it comes at an enormous financial cost: More than 90 percent of pharmaceutical research ends in failure. But without R&D, our industry would be dead on arrival and have little to offer patients. So, it’s time for Europe to step up and view paying fair prices for new pharmaceutical innovation as an investment in the future — not just another cost to be minimized.

At Bayer, we operate in a new model called “dynamic shared ownership,” where employees enjoy the autonomy to make decisions, share resources and direct their focus toward the biggest priorities. And we’re seeing the model pay off already, with rapid growth in our pharmaceuticals business — together, our two biggest launch medicines have grown 80 percent in sales year over year, and one is now a blockbuster.

The truth is, the expat scientists who come to Europe won’t have an easy time translating their discoveries into impactful products and therapies without systemic changes. Supporting scientists also requires robust IP protection, a speedier regulatory framework and a better environment for high-risk, high-reward investors.

Any innovative life sciences company in Europe would welcome these dramatic changes to the status quo. And as the world’s economic order shifts, it’s Europe’s turn to level the playing field.

In 50 years, will we look back on 2025 as the moment our continent rose to the challenge and opened its arms to the future? Will we celebrate the biotech hub of Berlin as we now do Boston, with scientists flocking there to start companies, test cures for diseases and develop tools to help farmers feed the world? Or will we utter a collective sigh, pondering what could have been?

It’s time to decide.