From my many years at the governmental office and the office for life sciences, I have come to realize the complexity of the regulatory maze that affects our industry. I have also seen how difficult it can be to get one’s message across to policy makers. While true for any industry, I believe that ours faces additional challenges, due to its complexity and high degree of interdependencies. While things like automotives and infrastructure are tangible in people’s everyday lives, the life science sector remains relatively “invisible” to the public and to outside stakeholders, even though it contributes to society in many crucial ways. As such, it does not have the natural place in the public debate which it deserves. 

Only when the pandemic became a fact did the importance of the industry become both tangible and evident for society in a rare and direct way.  

Contributions and medical “miracles” made possible by the industry may be felt on an individual level, but they are rarely highlighted and acknowledged in a positive way by media and policy makers. Only when the pandemic became a fact did the importance of the industry become both tangible and evident for society in a rare and direct way.  

Life science is one of the most regulated industries. At the same time, it is an industry characterized by some of the longest development timelines, high risk, global competition, and a “narrow customer base.” There are many issues that need to be understood and addressed by policy makers. This is a challenge that requires storytelling, strong commitment, and perseverance from those of us working in the policy arena. 

Adding to the challenge is the fact that the policy landscape is intricate, with a wide range of related areas to monitor. Numerous initiatives have an impact, ranging from the use of PFAS, producer responsibility for wastewater, and the establishment of a new environmental permitting authority, to competitiveness funds, tax incentives, and regulatory frameworks such as the pharmaceutical package.  

Numerous initiatives have an impact, ranging from the use of PFAS, producer responsibility for wastewater, and the establishment of a new environmental permitting authority, to competitiveness funds, tax incentives, and regulatory frameworks such as the pharmaceutical package.  

To have a chance at influencing policy outcomes, it is not enough to be vague – specific elements must be addressed to achieve change. Nor is it acceptable to show up afterwards and say, “this turned out wrong.” The work must be long-term and persistent, and it must be concrete, evidence-based, and supported by detailed knowledge, facts, figures, and clear examples of the consequences. 

In addition, the importance and breadth of European legislation is evident. The EU is our home market. For instance, the introduction of European preference is a response to the global positioning that we are experiencing. It is important that such a preference is designed in a way that benefits Swedish companies and genuinely contributes to increased resilience and competitiveness. It has to be taken into account that many value chains extend beyond Europe, involving “trusted partners”. Trying to influence life science policy at the national level without understanding what is on the way from Brussels – or how to influence its outcome – becomes a fool’s errand.  

It has to be taken into account that many value chains extend beyond Europe, involving “trusted partners”.

What I have realized, and come to appreciate, from my time at the governmental office is that being actively involved when regulations and policies are shaped pays off. It is essential to ensure that decision-makers understand and take into account events and developments, not least beyond Sweden’s borders, that affect the conditions for operating nationally. It is also important for democratic reasons – new bills must be scrutinized and put to the test before they are passed. And who is to do so if not the individuals, actors, and institutions that will be influenced by them and act under them? 

We have put time and effort into crafting a thoughtful and realistic policy agenda with 34 concrete suggestions.

Our approach at SwedenBIO is to be an accessible, credible, and knowledgeable dialogue partner for the long term. With a presence both nationally and in Brussels. We have put time and effort into crafting a thoughtful and realistic policy agenda with 34 concrete suggestions. It gives us a clear framework for our policy work going forward and we welcome all of you to join us in shaping the development of the sector. Together, we can build an even stronger life sciences ecosystem for the future.  

about the author

This column was originally written by Anna Ax, Policy Manager, SwedenBIO, for NLS magazine No 02 2026, out May 2026. Photo: Anna Jarlhäll