One of the most interesting aspects of recruiting for transatlantic biotech companies is that the strongest talent rarely sits in just one geography.
Over the last few years, I've worked with businesses operating across the US, UK and mainland Europe, and whilst the science is global, the expertise often isn't.
For Technical Operations, Manufacturing, MSAT, Quality and Regulatory Affairs, Europe continues to produce exceptional talent. The concentration of established pharmaceutical manufacturing across Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK means candidates often have experience taking multiple products from development through to commercial manufacture. The depth of GMP expertise—particularly around CMC development, technology transfer and commercial readiness—is difficult to match.
The US, meanwhile, continues to lead in venture-backed innovation, clinical development and commercial strategy. Candidates often bring experience from fast-moving, well-funded organisations where speed of execution and scaling novel therapies are critical. For many biotech companies, the strongest leadership teams combine European operational expertise with US commercial ambition.
What is becoming increasingly interesting, however, is how commercial strategy may begin to influence where companies choose to invest, hire and launch.
The renewed focus on Most Favoured Nation (MFN) pricing raises important questions about the order in which companies choose to launch new medicines. If US reimbursement becomes more closely linked to prices achieved in lower-priced international markets, some organisations may decide to delay—or in some cases avoid—launching products in those territories to protect the commercial value of the US market.
If that becomes a widespread strategy, the consequences extend far beyond commercial planning. European patients could face longer waits for innovative medicines, or potentially miss out altogether if manufacturers conclude that launching in certain markets no longer makes economic sense.
The UK already illustrates the challenge. Government data shows that only around 65% of new medicines approved between 2020 and 2023 became available to patients in England, while uptake of newly launched medicines during the first year is only around half that seen in comparable countries. Meanwhile, recent industry data found that 68% of pharmaceutical companies believe UK pricing policy is already influencing where they launch new medicines, with one in ten medicines expected not to launch to NHS patients at all, despite being available elsewhere in Europe.
Whether MFN pricing ultimately reshapes global launch strategy remains to be seen, but it is undoubtedly becoming part of strategic conversations across the industry. The commercial implications extend well beyond pricing—they influence manufacturing investment, supply chain strategy, organisational design and, ultimately, where companies choose to build their teams.
A recent assignment illustrates this perfectly. We supported a UK/US biotech in appointing a senior CMC consultant to lead Phase III manufacturing activities and support launch preparation. Although the business had operations on both sides of the Atlantic, they specifically wanted the individual based in the UK to strengthen their existing technical team and provide closer access to their European CDMO network. It was a reminder that, even in a global organisation, where you build capability still matters.
As more biotech companies balance scientific excellence with increasingly complex commercial realities, I expect these location decisions to become even more strategic.
I'd be interested to hear how others across biotech are seeing pricing, launch sequencing and talent strategy evolve. Are these conversations already influencing where your organisation chooses to invest and build capability?