By Alessandro Gallina, Senior Policy Manager, EPHA; Jaisalmer De Frutos Lucas, Policy Manager, EPHA; and Sara Bertucci, Policy Manager, EPHA
The European Commission’s new “Choose Europe for Life Sciences” Communication lays out an ambitious strategy to boost Europe’s competitiveness and innovation capacity in life sciences. While this vision is welcome, EPHA highlights that it risks falling short by overlooking prevention, health promotion, and equity; elements that are critical to achieving sustainable health and economic impact.
The European Commission’s Communication “Choose Europe for Life Sciences” outlines an ambitious and timely vision: to position the EU as the global leader in life sciences by 2030. It recognises the transformative power of life sciences to drive innovation, boost competitiveness, and improve public health and health outcomes, while also supporting sustainability and green transitions.
There is much to welcome. The strategy rightly emphasises Europe’s leadership in research and innovation and the critical role of high safety and quality standards to build public trust. It also aims to strengthen Europe’s resilience against health threats, with investments in research, skills, and cross-sector collaboration. From a public health perspective, these directions are essential to maintain and improve the health and equity of Europe’s populations.
However, the strategy overwhelmingly focuses on advanced therapy medicinal products and diagnostics. While the Commission’s plan highlights prevention as a general enabler for healthy societies, it fails to integrate primary prevention and health promotion as central pillars of its life sciences roadmap. Similarly, the strategy neglects the social and commercial determinants of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and mental health.
On regulation, key area of the commercial determinants of health, the strategy’s drive for “innovation-friendly” and accelerated approvals must be balanced by robust public health and environmental safeguards. Speed-to-market objectives, for example through the planned Biotech Act, could risk diluting protections, especially in the absence of clear measures to prevent industry capture of regulatory processes. There is no mention of regulatory measures to further characterize ultra-processed foods, alcohol or tobacco consumption, despite these being among the biggest drivers of chronic disease. The references to “healthy diets” remain vague, disconnected from the regulatory action that is needed to shape healthier food environments. All the examples under the health domain are focused on medical and healthcare-related innovations, including the “silver economy” discussion which is framed around ageing care, not the prevention of age-related NCDs. References to climate-health links are welcome but lack actionable prevention frameworks, such as those addressing heat-related illnesses.
In addition, the plan is limited when treating equity in research and data. Its vision for data and AI governance is limited to technical infrastructure via the cooperation of Member States and EU institutions, while it should be broadened to involve all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, patients, and communities – to address ethical challenges, data fragmentation, and ensure fair, equitable use of these technologies. Furthermore, its funding approach remains heavily reliant on short-term grants, while failing to secure long-term, stable, non-competitive support for public-interest research, surveillance, and fundamental science.
The Communication also includes a strong emphasis on strengthening innovation, yet only a vague mention of improving research conditions, particularly around fundamental research, surveillance, and independent public-interest science. A better understanding of the barriers to accessing existing solutions, rather than focusing solely on developing new products, could deliver more equitable and effective results. This strategy should go beyond patents and new products to include a 21st-century-proof approach for measuring and assessing research impact, one that values the quality of evidence and real-world outcomes, like reducing disease burden or improving health equity, rather than quantity of publications or intellectual property. This could help meet the overall objective of positioning the EU as the most attractive place for life sciences by 2030, fostering a research environment that prioritises meaningful societal impact over traditional metrics.
It is encouraging to see the Commission endorse a holistic One Health approach. Ideally, this should be extended beyond its current focus on infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to fully integrate NCD prevention and mental health promotion. NCDs account for around 90% of deaths in the EU, but their burden extends far beyond mortality: they are also the leading drivers of chronic morbidity, disability, and lost productivity, placing enormous and preventable strain on health systems and public budgets. Strengthening research on primary prevention could not only save lives but also generate substantial cost savings for health systems, improve workforce and civil society participation, and enhance Europe’s economic resilience.
On health and climate change, the Communication’s focus is on supporting investments in surveillance tools, prevention, and low-carbon technologies. However, its references to prevention remain broad and lack concrete operational frameworks. To succeed, the approach must move beyond top-down solutions. Tackling the climate-health nexus requires integration across disciplines and sectors, something only possible through broad collaboration. Civil society and academia must be recognised as key partners in ensuring interventions are inclusive, evidence-based, and grounded in real-world needs. The proposed global research collaboration must also prioritise equity, supporting voices from the Global South and ensuring funding reaches those most affected. A stronger health equity lens is essential to ensure resources are directed toward communities most exposed to climate-health risks, both within Europe and globally. Sustained, long-term investment will be critical to building meaningful and lasting knowledge, innovation, and resilience.
Lastly, the strategy proposes to invest just €2 million in building public trust and fighting disinformation, which is clearly inadequate to counter the scale of misinformation in contested fields like gene editing, vaccines, or advanced biotechnologies.
Life sciences can indeed offer enormous potential for healthier, more resilient and competitive societies. But to truly harness this potential, Europe needs a strategy that places health promotion, disease prevention, and equity at its very core, alongside scientific and industrial excellence and competitiveness. Only then will its vision be complete, and Europe’s leadership in life sciences will serve the wellbeing of everyone, today and for generations to come.
Acknowledgments
EPHA would like to thank its members who provided valuable feedback on this opinion piece for their thoughtful contributions and insights, namely Dr. Rob Lawson, Chair & Founder of the British Society of Lifestyle Medicine (BSLM).