Orwellian echoes

Doing politics like it’s 1984 is bad for the life sciences business

Anyone observing the semantic and semiotic contortions currently being performed by UK political leaders over the definition of sex may be reminded of the state of war in which Oceania found itself in George Orwell’s 1984.

The recent landmark ruling by the UK’s Supreme Court – that the term “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not gender identity or acquired gender – might, to many outsiders, simply be stating the obvious. But for several years, politicians appeared to have been paralysed by indecision over the issue.

Now, in light of the court judgment, those same people have launched into full gaslighting mode, trying to convince a wearied and sceptical public that, of course, they never meant to imply that a person born with a penis has a cervix. I mean, that would just be plain daft, wouldn’t it?

Voters can be forgiven for feeling like Winston Smith, Orwell’s hero who lives in Airstrip One, a city in the super-state of Oceania, which, at the start of the book, is at war with neighbouring Eurasia, before the ruling party declares that, in fact, it has always been at war with Eastasia.

It’s not just voters who are blindsided by such manipulative political ‘leadership’; the ongoing debate has created a climate of uncertainty for healthcare providers and their suppliers, who must navigate the complexities of legal definitions made up in the minds of activists rather than Parliament, while striving to provide effective and consistent levels of care.

The NHS relies heavily on data to inform clinical practice, research and policymaking. However, its data systems were never designed to accommodate diverse or changing gender identities beyond the traditional binary.

The issue of gender self-identification poses significant practical challenges for data collection, as forms and databases may not offer options that accurately reflect the current lexical orthodoxy around an individual’s gender identity. After all, these systems were designed to reflect and quantify objective reality, rather than pseudo-religious ‘feelings’.

As a result, researchers and policymakers may be working with incomplete or inaccurate data, potentially skewing analyses and hindering the development of effective healthcare strategies.

Political decision-making has always had the potential to negatively impact life sciences companies.

Populist government policies like high revenue clawback rates on medicines have created concerns about the UK becoming an outlier in global pricing, potentially discouraging investment (how does someone behind a desk in the Department of Health decide what is or is not an excessive profit margin?).

The uncertainty surrounding post-Brexit regulations and supply chains further adds to the challenges faced by the industry.

Beyond local market access, the UK’s life sciences sector grapples with underperformance in key areas. Despite its strong history and institutional advantages, the UK persistently lags other nations in attracting foreign direct investment, conducting clinical trials and boosting exports.

The reasons behind this lag are controversial and opaque. It may well be that reduced research and development funding, due in part to decreased access to Horizon funding and uncertainty about what might ultimately replace it, hampers innovation.

Never mind the noise about immigration; genuine concerns also linger about potential workforce shortages at all levels, particularly in medical, scientific, engineering and care staff, impacting the sector’s ability to not just thrive but, in some circumstances, to actually function.

Whatever the issues are, they must be addressed, as this is crucial for the UK to maintain its standing in the global life sciences landscape and ensure the continued success of this vital industry.

Beyond UK policymaking, our life sciences industry, with its focus on innovation and its reliance on a complex regulatory framework, is particularly vulnerable during periods of global uncertainty, which is why President Trump, in escalating his trade war to include the sector, could be so damaging to the physical and financial health of people in nations that will be affected.

Expectations that the UK-US trade deal would provide clarity on pharmaceutical exports – one of the UK’s largest sectors – proved optimistic. While the UK became the first nation to reach an agreement with the US since Trump’s tariff announcement in April, the deal fell short of the “full and comprehensive” arrangement that had been promised.

The initial agreement, as described by the US Trade Representative’s office (USTR), primarily focused on the automotive sector, reducing US car tariffs from 27.5% to 10% and eliminating levies on steel and aluminium. Notably, pharmaceuticals were absent from discussions.

Trump has yet to impose tariffs on medicines, making it premature to expect the pharmaceutical industry to be included in this stage of negotiations. The UK government acknowledged this limitation, stating that further discussions would continue on unresolved sectors, including pharmaceuticals and remaining reciprocal tariffs.

The interplay between politics and business will continue to be a constant, with political decisions often having profound and far-reaching consequences for industries, particularly those operating in highly regulated sectors like life sciences. Try mining for coal or making steel in the UK, and you will see what I mean.

The life sciences industry, encompassing pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and medical devices, is particularly susceptible to the vagaries of political decision-making.

The industry’s very existence hinges on navigating a complex web of regulations, approvals and funding mechanisms, all of which are subject to the shifting sands of political will.

While some political interventions are well-intentioned and ultimately beneficial, others can create confusion, delays and indecision, stifling innovation and hindering progress.

While the issue of gender recognition is undoubtedly complex and multifaceted, the lack of clarity over a long period of time from people who should probably have known better regarding the application of the actual law as it applies to sex and gender identity has created uncertainty within life sciences.

This involves everything from the application of actual science, data collection and analysis in the real world, to boards tying themselves in semantic knots trying to avoid the wrath of what are, in effect, faith-based pressure groups.

Voters, well informed or otherwise, affected by poor political decision-making have the option to do something about it at the ballot box.

Businesses don’t have that recourse, and they can only wait and hope that the interests of voters and their customers who – in the case of the life sciences industry are one and the same – coincide.