Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Policy implications for post-Brexit biotech

Nature Biotechnology volume 35, pages 710–711 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor:

Reviewing the three pathways, even the 'soft' Brexit option (the Norwegian model) fails to achieve status quo pre-Brexit. Under this arrangement, Britain would renounce EU membership before rejoining the European Economic Area (EEA) as a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) affiliate. The arrangement would require consent to contentious EU policies (including 'freedom of movement' rules), while necessitating payment of considerable fees in exchange for EU marketplace access. This option seems increasingly unlikely, given that triggering Article 50 signifies a 'harder' stance toward Brexit (i.e., exiting the single market). Rejoining as an EFTA affiliate additionally obligates UK-based EU regulatory bodies (like the London-based European Medicines Agency; EMA) to relocate to EU-member states and strips the UK of any influence over EU regulation. In anticipation, several countries are actively courting the EMA to be its future home1,2.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: UK 'Brexit' pathways.

References

  1. Cressey, D. & Abbott, A. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20153 (2016).

  2. Anonymous. Nature 544, 6 (2017).

  3. European Commission. Swiss participation in Horizon 2020. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-hi-swiss-part_en.pdf (EU, 2017).

  4. Matthes, J. & Busch, B. Vox http://voxeu.org/article/meta-analysis-economic-impact-brexit (2016).

  5. Pain, N. & Young, G. Econ. Model. 21, 387–408 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Abraham, J. Lancet 360, 1498–1502 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lang, A. House of Commons Library http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06522#fullreport (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mossialos, E., Simpkin, V., Keown, O. & Darzi, A. LSE http://www.lse.ac.uk/LSEHealthAndSocialCare/impacts/news/NHS-and-EU-Referendum-briefing.pdf (2016).

  9. Gibney, E. Nature 540, 16–17 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cressey, D. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20434 (2016).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California San Diego, School of Medicine, Global Public Health and Anesthesiology, San Diego, California, USA

    John Annaloro & Tim K Mackey

Authors
  1. John Annaloro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim K Mackey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim K Mackey.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Annaloro, J., Mackey, T. Policy implications for post-Brexit biotech. Nat Biotechnol 35, 710–711 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3930

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3930

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing