top of page
Search

Biotech competitiveness will be decided less by scientific excellence than by how fast science can clear capital and regulation.

A new OECD comparison of the European Union and the United States makes one point impossible to ignore: the next phase of biotechnology leadership will not be won in the lab alone. It will be won in the operating system that moves discoveries into markets.

Both jurisdictions have world-class research ecosystems. But they do not convert science into commercial scale in the same way.


The United States still leads on the classic translation metrics. It files roughly twice as many biotechnology patents as the EU, venture capital is orders of magnitude higher, and its biotech start-up ecosystem remains materially larger. The OECD also shows that US start-ups file almost four times as many patents as their EU counterparts.


This matters because patents and venture capital are not vanity indicators. They are proxies for something more important: the ability to move academic knowledge into investable, defensible and scalable assets.

But the OECD document also complicates the usual narrative.


The European Union is not simply “behind.”


In biosolutions, it holds a serious industrial position. The report highlights that the EU leads in biomanufacturing capacity, and cites evidence that in precision-fermentation-derived protein production the EU hosts 47% of global capacity, versus 34% for the United States.


So the strategic picture is not “US strong, EU weak.”


It is more nuanced:

The US is stronger at financing and commercial acceleration.The EU is stronger at parts of industrial scale-up infrastructure, especially in biosolutions.

And both are still wrestling with the same structural bottleneck: regulatory design.


That is the real board-level insight from this document.

The OECD is explicit that regulatory fragmentation, complexity, weak pre-submission dialogue, and long approval timelines are not just compliance problems.

They shape whether investors fund, whether founders stay, and where companies launch first.

In other words, regulation is part of the capital stack.


You can see this clearly in food biotech and precision fermentation.

In the EU, the OECD cites evidence that the Novel Foods process averages 2.6 years, with some cases taking as long as 6 years, even though more than 86% of EFSA opinions are ultimately positive. In the US, GRAS-based pathways can allow companies to enter the market while review is still progressing.

That difference changes cash flow timing, investor confidence, and go-to-market sequencing. It is one reason some European firms choose to commercialize in the US first.

The same logic applies beyond food.


The report shows that greenfield FDI in biotechnology grew almost 5x in the EU and 6x in the US when comparing 2003–2013 with 2014–2024. It also shows growing job creation linked to this FDI. That is not just a funding story. It is a signal that jurisdictions with clearer scale-up conditions attract plants, talent and industrial commitment.


There is a second strategic implication here for policymakers and industry leaders.

If biosolutions can save up to 2.5 billion tons of CO2 equivalent annually by 2030, as cited in the report, then slow and incoherent commercialization systems are not only an economic drag. They are a climate and industrial policy drag as well.


So what should decision-makers take from this?

1- First, stop separating innovation policy from regulatory policy. The OECD’s conclusion is blunt: the two are “two sides of the same coin.” If approval pathways are unpredictable, capital becomes more expensive and scale-up is delayed.
2- Second, stop using publications and upstream science as the sole benchmark of biotech strength. A region can be scientifically excellent and still underperform commercially.
3- Third, competitiveness in biotechnology now depends on four linked conversion steps: science → IP → finance → regulatory clearance → market entry

Weakness in any one step devalues the entire chain.


For executives, investors and policy architects, that is the operating question for the next five years:

Are we funding biotechnology innovation, or are we funding the system that allows biotechnology innovation to reach the market?



Barraza-Botet, C., Nadal, D., Rosen, M., & Winickoff, D. (2026). A comparison of the innovation and regulatory environments for biotechnology and biosolutions across the European Union and the United States (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2026/02). OECD Publishing, Paris.


 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page