As Europe rethinks its policies on regenerative medicine, the question is whether it can regain its footing in a competitive field it once led, given the in-built inconsistencies across the EU’s member states.
Europe positioned itself early as a leader in regenerative medicine, but the different protocols, requirements and practices between European members states have made the region less attractive for developing regenerative medicines, according to six regenerative medicine company executives who spoke with BioCentury.
From 2009-2015, Europe and the U.S. produced roughly equal numbers of newcos in the field, based on seed and series A financings (see Figure: “Generation Regeneration”). In all disease areas, Europe was less than half as active as the U.S. in raising seed and series A rounds in the period, meaning it relatively outperformed in regenerative medicine.
The picture reversed in the last six years, when the number of U.S. regenerative startups spiked, and the number in Europe progressively decreased.
The peak year so far in the U.S. was 2017, when 14 regenerative medicine companies raised seed or series A funds, compared with two in Europe, according to BioCentury’s BCIQ database. This year has so far seen four companies in the U.S. and