Is the engineering biology sector set to be turbocharged in the UK?
Published on 17th Jan 2025
A Lords report sets out recommendations for policy areas the UK must get right and calls for a national sector champion
The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has called on the government to take immediate policy action to seize the opportunities of engineering biology and maximise its contribution to the UK economy.
Engineering biology involves the use of synthetic biology and biotechnology to create new products and services derived from organic sources. For example, this could include developing fossil-fuel replacements, new vaccines or food such as cultivated meat. It is a fast-paced field of science that has the potential to affect a number of sectors.
The previous government produced its "National Vision for Engineering Biology" policy paper in 2023. The present government has expressed support for this vision and recognised engineering biology as one of four fast-growing areas of technology that the recently launched Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) is tasked with supporting.
Despite this, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee's report has warned that the UK's position at the forefront of this field has slipped compared to other countries. It says that unless the government takes immediate action, the UK risks seeing the economic and industrial benefits of engineering biology technology developed here being exploited overseas – the so-called "failure to scale" problem.
The House of Lords report sets out seven policy areas that the UK must get right to support the sector – strategy, skills, regulation, infrastructure, investment, adoption and governance. It also calls for a national sector champion for engineering biology to be appointed to coordinate this activity across government and sets out its recommendations – but will the government implement any of them?
Industrial strategy
The report calls for the government's industrial strategy to set out a clear plan for developing the sector. It notes that the previous government's vision for engineering biology was broadly welcomed by the sector but lacked specific outcomes. The report calls on the government to recommit to building on this national vision, setting out how engineering biology technology will be supported and put into application across sectors. The strategy should include specific metrics and outcomes with regular reporting on progress towards those targets.
The committee's report also recommends that the government commit at least the £2 billion in public funding that was promised in the 2023 paper over the next 10 years, with more detail on how that funding would be allocated to the areas of engineering biology the UK has the potential to excel at – research and development (R&D), infrastructure and skills. Providing longer-term certainty around funding is key and this could form part of the government's commitment to providing 10-year R&D budgets for key activities.
It is also advised that the government embed staff who understand the potential of engineering biology throughout the government, including in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, as well as in regulators and procurement offices. The government should also work with agencies such as the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, known as ARIA, and Innovate UK to identify opportunities to support novel technologies and lead the way in their adoption and meet sustainability goals through procurement.
The report highlights public procurement policy as a key area of focus, urging the government to incorporate it into its strategy. It suggests that procurement could serve as a "lever" to promote the development of innovative technologies; but it also identifies an issue with the UK procurement rules: contracts are only awarded for products that are ready for purchase. This creates a barrier for businesses that need funding to produce their novel products, as they are unable to bid for government contracts. Consequently, the report recommends that the government consider allocating a portion of its public procurement budget to support innovation.
Regulatory clarity
The report highlights that regulatory pathways for engineering biology products and technologies remain unclear – but clarity is needed to help drive responsible innovation. The previous government set up the Engineering Biology Regulators' Network (EBRN) to enable existing regulators to share capacity and collaborate to provide clarity and support to companies navigating the regulatory landscape. However, the EBRN has no public facing offer to companies, has not fulfilled its goals and its status is unclear since the creation of the RIO.
The EBRN and the RIO are welcomed by the House of Lords report, although it strongly underlines the need for both bodies to be sufficiently resourced to have a public offering that sets out "which categories of engineering biology map onto which regulators" and offers a "streamlined regulatory pathway" that is swift, effective and involves leading experts.
Gene editing is crucial to many categories of engineering biology and the Sunak government took steps to pursue a post-Brexit deregulatory approach to gene editing or "precision breeding" with the enactment of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. However, this legislation requires a new regulatory framework to be implemented by secondary legislation, which has not yet been introduced. The report calls for these to be introduced urgently. The government has confirmed that they will be introduced by the end of March 2025, which should provide some certainty for businesses.
Separately, the report emphasises the importance of standards, which are currently lacking in engineering biology, to the development of an industry. It encourages the government to engage with standard-setting organisations – such as the International Organization for Standardization – to ensure that the UK can play a leading role and is not disadvantaged by international standards and regulations.
Early-stage research infrastructure
The lack of investment in early-stage research infrastructure was highlighted as problematic. The report suggests that start-ups face a "chicken and egg" problem. Start-ups need proof of concept data for their inventions in order to obtain patent protection to access private funding, but they also need funding to access laboratories to produce the data. The report acknowledges that there is no suggestion that UK intellectual property law is not fit for purpose, but there are practical barriers to obtaining patent protection that should be addressed.
The House of Lords committee suggests that the government should consider providing additional funding to small and early-stage companies to obtain the data necessary to apply for patent protection as well as work with public sector research establishments and universities to make their laboratories accessible to start-ups and spin-outs for assembling such data. The committee goes further by suggesting that the number of patent applications supported should be added to the key performance indicators of these facilities.
Alongside practical patenting concerns, the report highlights the longstanding issue of scaling-up. Many companies struggle to grow once they reach a certain size, prompting them to move abroad to secure funding or to float on other stock exchanges. It calls on the government to introduce coordinated policy initiatives on areas of public and private investment – in particular, it is encouraged to pursue reforms to the financial sector, including the pension industry, to encourage investment in UK companies.
Osborne Clarke comment
The potential economic and sustainability advancements from engineering biology are numerous and far reaching. The UK has traditionally been seen as a leader of this field, but the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee warns that our position is slipping and urgent action should be taken not to lose further ground.
Although the government has recognised engineering biology as a priority area for the new RIO, the importance of the sector is not more widely recognised in the proposed industrial strategy. This seems to be a major oversight, which runs the risk of identified issues in the sector being ignored. Centring the engineering biology sector in the government's industrial strategy will require substantial investment, which could prove difficult as government spending is increasingly under pressure.
Unquestionably, greater regulatory clarity is needed urgently. This could potentially be given by the new RIO as it looks at what regulatory reform is required – but it is not yet operational and has not had its initial funding announced. The success of the RIO and its ability to offer a streamlined regulatory process will hinge on it receiving sufficient funding and having the resources, such as hiring individuals with relevant technical expertise and skills, to engage with industry.
The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has produced a thorough report, highlighting issues facing the sector. It will now be for government to decide whether it will meet the committee's calls to turbocharge the sector.
This Insight is part of a series on engineering biology. The next article in the series will consider the Regulatory Horizons Council's report on the governance of engineering biology.