SwedenBIO is Sweden's national non-profit association for the life science industry, representing over 300 companies in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, diagnostics, and medical technology. It promotes industry growth by facilitating networking, building knowledge, and providing a strong voice for the sector.
Could you give us an overview of SwedenBIO’s mission and the life science community that it serves?
We are the only trade organization in Sweden that brings together the entire life science ecosystem, from startups to big pharma companies. We also include medtech firms, lab tech providers, and essential service providers like investors, banks, marketplaces, and legal experts. Our role is to be the hub where these stakeholders can connect. Today, we have about 330 member companies, and our mission is to enhance the global competitiveness of Sweden’s life science industry.
We encourage our members to think beyond Sweden as their primary market and to establish global collaborations, partnerships, and investments. A key part of our work is policy advocacy to improve industry conditions. Additionally, we produce original reports and data to educate politicians, stakeholders, and even the public about the opportunities in life sciences.
Sweden is known for its strong research environment and tech sector. Which life science segments does Sweden particularly excel in, and where are there gaps?
One area where Sweden stands out is neurological diseases. A great example is the Swedish company BioArctic, which developed one of the new Alzheimer’s drugs now approved in multiple countries, though not yet available in the EU. Medtech is another strength—there are many smaller companies, but also a few giants in the field. That said, we have a strong presence across multiple areas rather than being dominant in just one.
A key factor in Sweden’s success has been its strong support system for startups. Historically, it has been relatively easy for academics to launch their own companies, with accessible funding from angel investors and incubators. However, we are now facing a challenge: we have been so innovative that company creation has outpaced the available capital. The result is a critical funding gap, where many promising companies struggle to secure the financing they need to scale.
And the upshot of that economic model is that Sweden has more innovation yet fewer clinical trials. What structural changes would attract the capital to bridge that gap?
There are multiple layers to that issue. On a European level, we need a better-functioning capital market to attract more investment across the continent. Objectively, it is a major asset that our companies can list publicly with relative ease and right now, Swedish biotech stocks are relatively undervalued, making them a bargain for investors. We are seeing increasing interest in Swedish biotech companies from international buyers who see Sweden as a great place to acquire valuable assets at a relatively low price. From an industry perspective, it is a "shopping opportunity" for those looking to invest in high-quality life science innovations.
However, on a national level, Sweden must do more to showcase its capabilities and support companies in gaining international visibility. Currently, we are absent from key global partnering events, while smaller countries like Lithuania are making strategic efforts to promote their industries. This is a major missed opportunity.
How does “thinking Nordic” fit into the National Life Sciences Strategy?
This is a key point in the updated life science strategy, but at SwedenBIO, we have been working this way for over a decade. We organize our own partnering events, including Nordic Life Science Days, which is now in its 12th year and will take place in Gothenburg this October. It has grown into the largest life science partnering event in the Nordics, and our tagline is "where the Nordic life science industry meets the world." The goal is to provide Nordic companies with a global showcase.
We take a hands-on approach to strengthening Nordic collaboration, working closely with various stakeholders across the region. Until recently, we had limited engagement with Iceland, but we recently recruited a young professional from Iceland who is now based in Copenhagen to expand our network there. Beyond advocacy, we actively build bridges between companies and markets to support the region’s life sciences ecosystem.
Denmark’s GLP-1 success with Novo Nordisk brought intense global attention to the Nordic region. How has that impacted the Swedish life science industry?
Of course, we are a little jealous! Denmark has always been our friendly rival. One challenge is that the southern parts of Sweden have felt the pull of Novo’s expansion. Many professionals with production expertise have been recruited to meet Novo’s growing demands. On the other hand, the Novo Foundation’s investments have benefited some Swedish companies as well.
Overall, it is fantastic. If you have been in the industry long enough, you see how leadership in certain areas shifts over time. Denmark was once dominant in depression treatments with Lundbeck’s Cipramil, while Sweden had Losec. Now, Novo Nordisk is leading with GLP-1, but I am confident that in 10 years, we will see a Swedish blockbuster emerge from our research. That is the natural cycle of innovation in this industry.
What are SwedenBIO’s community, research and advocacy objectives for 2025?
We have major initiatives across all our focus areas this year. One of the biggest is preparing for Nordic Life Science Days in Gothenburg, a new venue for us. The local ecosystem is highly engaged, which is exciting. On the knowledge side, we are publishing two major reports. Our annual barometer report provides a snapshot of the industry’s current state, and this year, we are also compiling our triennial report on the clinical and preclinical pipeline of all Swedish companies, due for release around September.
On the policy front, we are working to turn the Swedish life science strategy into concrete action. The strategy has faced criticism for being ambitious but lacking clear action points. Another key priority for us this year is improving Sweden’s clinical trials landscape. We are advising the Pharmaceutical Agency and leading a pre-project to address identified challenges. Our role is to develop a decision tree to help determine where Sweden should focus—what indications we should prioritize and where we are currently weak. For example, as a relatively healthy country, we may not be the best location for obesity trials. This framework will be submitted to the Pharmaceutical Agency before summer.
