Join us for an in-depth conversation with Chua Keng Hock as we explore the challenges, strategies, and future prospects of the biopharma industry in today's ever-evolving landscape.

• The Global Biopharma Resilience Index shows a decline in the overall industry resilience compared to the previous year. What factors contributed to this decline, and what are the main vulnerabilities that the industry still faces?

I can share several factors that have contributed to this decline. Globally, performance across three of the five pillars of the index — talent pool, R&D ecosystem, and government policy and regulation — has weakened. 

The pillar that has suffered most globally, over the past two years is the R&D ecosystem, which fell from 6.54 in 2021 to 5.22 in 2023. Only 25 percent of surveyed executives rated their R&D partners as excellent. 

The 2023 data shows that globally, talent pool resilience fell to 5.60 from 6.27 in 2021. The drop in the talent pool score may reflect a swing back from the high talent mobility of the “Great Resignation”, leading to a squeezed labor market and talent shortages in 2023.

Also, globally, government policy and regulation declined to 6.08 from 6.96 in 2021 when the COVID-19 pandemic spurred many countries to grant quicker approval to life-saving vaccines and drugs. 90% of our interviewees said their country needs to do more to support the delivery of cell and gene therapies.

You see vulnerabilities remain and hamper the resilience and potential of the industry. Among them, a siloed R&D culture that limits researchers access to one another’s findings is a great roadblock to accelerating development, reducing risk, and improving health outcomes for patients. Also, the industry still faces challenges hiring and retaining three types of talent - manufacturing talent for GMP-certified or equivalent facilities, R&D talent and digital technology talent. This problem is exacerbated by the increasing blend of AI modeling with research, which means that many companies are looking for a more specific skillset than ever before. 

• The survey reveals that supply chain resilience and manufacturing agility have improved over the last two years. Can you provide more details on the specific measures or investments that have contributed to these improvements?

That’s correct. Globally, supply chain resilience has improved slightly since 2021, growing from 6.72 in 2021 to 6.84 in 2023. I’m glad to share with you that in APAC, Singapore (7.52), India (7.30) and China (7.15) are all above the 2023 global average. This could be due to the industry-wide efforts to balance the benefits of a global supply chain with the risk of shortages following the disruption of the pandemic. Cytiva, among others, announced an investment of 1.5 billion USD in 2021 to expand our capacity globally.

The manufacturing agility pillar has also improved from 6.50 in 2021 to 6.65 in 2023 globally. Advanced digital technologies such as AI, robotics, and automation have the potential to better help manufacturers to scale up or down on demand. 33% of respondents say that it has become more affordable to manufacture biopharmaceuticals and 35% say it’s easier to access the specialist talent required. 

In Asia Pacific, the enhanced infrastructure, an influx of funding from both private investors and governments and an improving regulatory environment are attracting US- and UK-based companies to build and expand their presence in the region. For instance, Moderna have announced plans to establish subsidiaries in Singapore, Malaysia, and China. 

It’s notable that Singapore achieves the score of 10 for the sub-pillar of import/export data, which can be attributed to the Major Exporter Scheme (MES), which offers major exporters working capital savings on imports. Beyond Asia, only Sweden and Switzerland have a score of 10 for this sub-pillar. 

And thanks to its fast-paced development of digital infrastructure and Industry 4.0, China is the only surveyed APAC country that outperforms the global average in manufacturing agility, with a score of 6.85. 20% of surveyed executives in China reported that they’re well adapted to provide necessary support for the roll out of cell and gene therapies, which doubled the number of the global average. 

• Switzerland, the US, and the UK were rated highest in the survey. What are the key strengths and practices of these countries that have led to their high performance? Are there any specific strategies that other countries can learn from them?

Yes, we continue to see a correlation between high performing countries and high income per capita. Switzerland and the US, for example, are able to develop a long-term roadmap that aligns government policy and biopharma regulations. For example, they closely aligned international and domestic regulations. 

Switzerland, the highest performing country in the Index, through Swissmedic, the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products, allows expedited drug approvals and streamlines international data use in the local drug-approval process. The organization works closely with international partners to accelerate market access for innovative therapies and is supporting “regulatory harmonization” as a priority for the next three years. 

In the US, the FDA’s Project Orbis makes concurrent international drug approvals a reality, although its scope presently remains limited to high-priority oncology projects. 

In the UK, the government has announced that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency will implement rapid sign-off for medicines and technologies approved by other trusted regulators, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan – signaling that policy initiatives on fostering innovation are designed to translate into clear regulatory guidelines.

• On the other hand, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates ranked lowest in the survey. What are the main challenges these countries face in terms of supply chain resilience and domestic manufacturing capabilities? Are there any recommendations to help them improve their rankings?

Ranking towards the bottom of the Index were Thailand (5.36), Saudi Arabia (5.20) and the UAE (5.17). While these countries have made strides in domestic biopharma manufacturing, they remain heavily import-dependent. Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE import around 80% of their pharma products. 

In the area of talent, Thailand can tackle the brain drain by adopting more flexible policies when it comes to recruiting talent from overseas. A bright spot is that in April this year, the Thai prime minister has announced a combined effort to nurture the country’s start-up ecosystem and to elevate the life sciences industry as one of the country’s top growth pillars and propel Thailand to become a high-value medical and health hub.  With the right policies and regulatory frameworks in place to support the rapid development/scaling up of new ideas, I’m optimistic that Thailand will improve their biopharma resilience in coming years.

• Talent pool and R&D ecosystem received lower scores in 2023 compared to 2021. What are the main factors contributing to these lower scores, and what actions can be taken to address the challenges in sourcing talent and enhancing collaboration in the R&D sector?

Biotech advances are continuing to create surges in demand for highly qualified staff. However, nearly 25% of pharma executives globally report that it’s a substantial challenge to find and retain manufacturing talent. The data from biopharma leaders show that the top three most difficult skills to attract, find and retain are manufacturing talent for GMP certified or equivalent facilities, R&D talent, and digital/technology talent.

To help address the need for training and education, Cytiva developed the Fast Trak™ Education and Training Program, which is available at six centers globally – three of which are in APAC. Cytiva has also collaborated with regional clusters to create tailored education training experiences, including the Testa Center in Sweden, the Guangzhou Bioprocess Academy in China, The National Institute of Bioprocessing Research and Training (NIBRT) in Ireland, the Jefferson Institute of Bioprocessing in the US, and the National Horizon Center in the UK.

Countries can also nurture the R&D ecosystem through closer collaboration between government, academia and business. In APAC, we have initiated the BioChallenge competition in Southeast Asia and “Think Big” and “Think Early” programs in China to invite industry experts and investors to nurture early innovations in the research and development period and accelerate their journey to commercialization. 

In particular, it’s important to make sure the right policies and regulatory frameworks are in place to support the rapid development and scaling up of new ideas. For this we can look to the US, Switzerland and the UK for best practices. 

• The survey highlights that government policy and regulation play a crucial role in industry resilience. What are some of the key policy areas where improvements are needed to better support the biopharma sector? Are there any specific examples of countries that have implemented effective policies or regulations?

To better support the biopharma sector through policy and regulation, we can look at the examples of countries with the highest biopharma resilience scores such as Switzerland, Sweden, the UK, the US and in APAC, Singapore. I’ve touched on the long-term roadmap that aligns government policy and biopharma regulations adopted by the US, Switzerland and the UK earlier. I’ll share examples from Singapore and Sweden now.

In Singapore, the Pharma Innovation Programme Singapore (PIPS) brings together a consortium of experts from industry, academia, the public sector, and government agencies to harness new manufacturing technologies and data analytics. This effort has played a significant role in the country moving seven positions up the Global Biopharma Resilience Index from 2021 to 2023. 

In Sweden, public–private partnerships such as Vinnova and Business Sweden offer funding and support to companies looking to collaborate with Swedish research institutions. A robust system for intellectual property (IP) rights helps protect companies’ investments.

• In the survey, 50% of respondents mentioned their country's moderate to high dependence on the import of many components of drug production. What are the potential risks associated with such dependence, and how can countries address this issue to enhance their supply chain resilience?

The risks of such dependence could be catastrophic on the health outcomes of populations. To avoid experiencing a stockout or period of insufficient supply, countries can explore nearshore and onshore manufacturing, to establish or strengthen domestic manufacturing operations, in order to stabilize supply. However, beyond that, having a supportive regulatory and trade environment that helps countries pivot quickly between different products, can help ensure a level of protection for the smooth flow of essential health products and a diversified supply chain that can absorb shocks as and when they happen.