by Philippa Clark, Director of Business Development, One Nucleus

As we start 2026, it’s easy to focus on the next wave of exciting science: artificial intelligence, data-driven discovery and new therapeutic platforms. All of this absolutely matters, but I increasingly believe the future of life sciences will be shaped less by what we invent and more by how well we align the ecosystems around it. The life sciences sector does not lack activity but can lack connection.

Across life sciences, we still operate in silos at a sector level. Science moves forward, then funding follows later, regulation engages after that and adoption comes last. Each important part is doing its job, but too often they move one after the other rather than together. The result is delay, duplication and innovation that struggles to reach the people it was designed to help, not to mention the ongoing frustration of it all at each stage!

If we want progress to land faster and have a real impact, we need to move towards parallel progress. That means aligning the science, capital, regulation and delivery much earlier and being prepared to act without waiting for perfect certainty. This is not about lowering standards or increasing risk; it is about recognising that complex challenges require coordinated movement, not isolated steps.

Convergence also sits at the heart of this shift. Biology no longer operates on its own; it connects with data, engineering, manufacturing and human behaviour at every stage. When convergence is treated as something to add later, innovation slows, but when it becomes the starting point, decision making improves and pathways become clearer.

Investment plays a powerful role in shaping this landscape. Capital has become more focused and more selective, and this is a healthy shift. That said, there is still a tendency to judge progress through narrow milestones rather than readiness for the real world. As we move into 2026, the strongest founder and investor relationships will be built on shared understanding of long-term impact, not just the next technical proof point. Alignment of expectations matters just as much as access to capital.

We also need to get out of our own bubble and look at how other industries tackle challenges. Life sciences is often wrapped up in its own rules and ways of doing things, but there is a lot we can learn from other ecosystems. How are they moving faster, delivering cheaper or solving problems more effectively? What models, tools or approaches could we adapt to make innovation in our sector more efficient and more impactful? Asking these questions doesn’t dilute the science but actually strengthens it by giving us fresh perspective and better ways to achieve real-world results.

The UK has many of the ingredients needed to lead in this next phase from its deep science, strong clinical insight and ambitious entrepreneurs, but innovation does not thrive in isolation. Life sciences progress has always crossed borders, and the companies that succeed in the coming years will be those that think globally from the outset, building partnerships and designing solutions that can travel across health systems.

So what actually needs to change in 2026?

• We need to stop treating innovation as a relay and start moving the system together.
• We need to design for convergence from the start, not add it in when momentum slows.
• We need funding models that back long-term value, not short-term comfort.
• We need to learn faster from outside life sciences instead of repeating familiar patterns.
• We need to think globally, because innovation does not survive if it stays local.

I remain optimistic not because the challenges are small, but because the opportunity to do things better is clear. Life sciences does not need more noise; it needs clearer alignment around shared outcomes. If we get that right, the science will do the rest.

Contact Philippa Clark