Europe risks falling behind in health innovation as policymaking struggles to match the speed of global shocks. The continent’s regulatory culture, while rooted in good intentions, may be costing it ground in the global race for life sciences and biotechnology. That is the view of Lutz Dommel, CEO of RPP Group, speaking at the Health Policy Leaders Event at the European Parliament.
For sectors such as biotechnology and health innovation, where capital and scientific progress move rapidly, that speed gap risks becoming a competitiveness problem. While investment ecosystems in the United States often move quickly to support emerging technologies, Europe’s policy responses can take longer to materialise.
2026 will not reward the most beautiful legislation. It will reward those who protect what matters before it breaks.—Lutz Dommel, CEO, RPP Group
In a conversation following the event, Dommel elaborated on what this means for Europe’s life sciences ecosystem, pharmaceutical policy and the broader investment environment.
You stress the importance of speed. Is Europe moving fast enough to remain competitive in life sciences?
The question of speed is actually twofold. One issue is whether you start early enough or whether you are running behind others who are already advancing. Sometimes we would not even need to work at a higher speed if we simply started earlier.
If you start a marathon five minutes before the others, then you need a little less speed.—Lutz Dommel, CEO, RPP Group
What I observe in European politics is that we are often reactive rather than strategic. The Draghi report tried to address this and I think it was a very good piece of strategic work. But this mindset shift has not yet fully taken hold.
I would actually exclude the European Parliament here. In many cases it is quite forward-looking. But the Council, the member states and the European Commission still need to push further and shift from reacting towards leading.
Europe has a strong regulatory culture. Does this slow innovation?
In Europe there is a desire to regulate things perfectly. There are good reasons for that, patient safety is an obvious example. But the reality is also that for some patients solutions will arrive too late if regulation moves too slowly.
Artificial intelligence illustrates this challenge well. There is enormous potential in AI to discover new treatments, improve clinical trials and accelerate regulatory processes.
You might be interested
Many patients are waiting for breakthrough therapies. They need legislative frameworks that are both reliable and sufficiently fast.
The difficulty with AI is that it represents disruptive change rather than incremental change. Even experts struggle to predict what the technological landscape will look like in a few years. Regulation therefore needs to leave room for innovation and avoid over-regulation.
Some observers argue that pressure from the United States accelerated negotiations on the pharmaceutical legislation. Do you agree?
Yes, absolutely. Sometimes Europe needs pressure from outside to move faster. The topics addressed in the pharmaceutical legislation, competitiveness and intellectual property protection, were already present five years ago.
But we simply did not put them high enough on the political agenda. That is what I mean when I talk about velocity in defending what is important for Europe.
Are you satisfied with the outcome of the pharmaceutical reform?
Given the very divergent positions in the debate, I think the outcome represents a decent compromise.
Usually when everyone is a little bit unhappy, that is a good indicator that the compromise is relatively balanced. From that perspective I am satisfied.
Do I personally think it is courageous enough to make Europe the leading place for pharmaceutical innovation? No, I do not think so. I would personally have hoped for a somewhat more ambitious approach, including stronger and predictable incentives for innovation.
But I would not say the negotiations moved too fast at the end. Given the circumstances, the acceleration was necessary.
The EU is also preparing a Biotech Act. Is Europe moving quickly enough there?
We have already lost time. Biotechnology has been recognised as strategically important for Europe for many years. This discussion has existed for at least a decade among pharmaceutical companies, biotech entrepreneurs and patient organisations, particularly in the rare disease community.
The issue therefore is not only the speed of legislation today. The recognition of biotech as a strategic priority simply came relatively late.
Member states need to create an environment where innovators leaving university feel confident starting companies and investing in Europe rather than elsewhere.
Europe wants to position itself as a global hub for life sciences. Is that still realistic?
That is certainly the ambition. One advantage of arriving later is that you can observe what others are doing and copy certain approaches that work.
But there is one underlying factor that no European legislative act can change: Europe needs strong and resilient economies.
If the economic foundations are weak, we will struggle to attract both talent and biotech innovation. Member states therefore need to create an environment where innovators leaving university feel confident starting companies and investing in Europe rather than elsewhere.
So the main responsibility lies with the member states?
Yes. The European Commission and the EU cannot succeed without the member states creating the right economic conditions.
They need sustainable public finances and policies that support growth. Otherwise Europe will struggle to attract long-term talent and innovation.
Are there examples of countries doing this successfully?
Yes. If we look at economic growth and stability, Poland is an interesting example. Starting from a difficult position, Poland has transformed its economy into a growth engine.
The Baltic countries are also good examples. Spain has benefited from investment in education and younger generations. These policies create stronger economic foundations.
If you had to name one priority for Europe’s life sciences sector, what would it be?
Follow the money. Europe needs more investment in healthcare, in AI applications, in research, and in venture capital for young companies.
A stronger financial framework for innovation is probably the most important priority.
Could the next EU budget help deliver that?
I am relatively optimistic about the possibility of a ring-fenced health budget in the next Multiannual Financial Framework.
There are many important voices supporting this idea. But it will not happen automatically. Stakeholders and organisations need to push for it.
If such funding becomes reality, it could become a real game changer for Europe’s health and life sciences ecosystem.
For Dommel, the challenge ultimately comes back to anticipation. In a world shaped by geopolitical shocks and technological disruption, Europe’s success may depend less on writing better legislation, and more on recognising earlier what needs to be protected and moving fast enough to defend it.
