King’s Speech

Baroness Greenfield Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Greenfield (CB)]

My Lords, I too add my congratulations and welcome to all the maiden speeches today.

I declare an interest as founder and CEO of a biotech company, NeuroBio Ltd, where we are developing a first-in-class effective treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. Consequently, I welcome the relief mentioned in the gracious Speech under the regulating for growth Bill. However, I was disappointed by the lack of any further mention of government support for small, highly disruptive companies such as mine, since there are some clear opportunities being missed.

The first is R&D tax credits. It is estimated that for every £1 of tax credit, companies will spend an additional £2.30 of R&D in the UK. This creates jobs and value immediately, followed by an incredible dividend if resulting in a globally competitive technology. However, the rates of relief for R&D companies have shrunk, from 33% before April 2023 to 15% now. This change may provide a negligible uplift in the tax revenue, but it comes at a great cost to the company itself. Moreover, if we factor in the significant amount of time and effort required to make a claim, new administrative requirements and the risk of HMRC inquiry, smaller companies may give up making a tax credit claim altogether.

A second issue—this was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter—is that relating to women and, in my case, women in STEM. This is not just about fairness; it is about progress. Studies consistently show that diverse teams drive innovation and that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 25% more likely to outperform their competitors. However, one oft-cited statistic is that less than 2% of VC funding goes to female founders. We need a formal sponsorship program where senior figures in industry actively champion the careers of promising women scientists and perhaps a women in STEM talent bank—a centralised platform where women scientists in the private sector could access mentorship, funding opportunities and leadership training.

My third point touches on education. Leaving aside, or perhaps in the light of, the time-consuming bureaucratic hurdles now required post-Brexit to recruit scientists worldwide, there is an even greater need to increase the potential pool of those who are already here. Although much has been said over the decades to encourage the take-up of STEM subjects, there is still room to do even more. One possibility would be to offer wider industrial sponsorship of university places, as already offered by the Armed Forces, in return for an agreed period working as a postgraduate in that company, reverting to a loan if the individual left early.

A fourth point is that there is little help currently available for a university academic who then takes the bold decision to transit way out of their comfort zone into business. I can say from my own personal experience, where I just had to learn as I went along, that entrepreneurial training and mentoring in the thrills and spills of the commercial world would be invaluable. It would give confidence, save time and ensure maximum productivity. Currently, there is no training on the basics of business or commercialisation for a scientist until after they have had their light-bulb moment—and even then it is rare.

The fifth and most basic problem is not a lack of innovation; it is the baked-in, oftentimes biased decision-making that stifles otherwise great economic impact. It is safer to fund small, transitional technologies at the cost of truly disruptive innovation because there is very little in the way of incentives or protections if an investment does not work out. Yes, we have schemes such as EIS, where the incredible returns are well acknowledged, but they should be expanded and strengthened.

The current state of affairs creates an incentive to back only very small-step innovations, to the detriment of truly transformative companies. This risk-averse mindset often forces disruptive scientists into looking further afield for funding. Too often, the UK is seen as a feeder ecosystem into the US.

Let us return to my own area of Alzheimer’s as an example of why this trend needs to be reversed. In the UK, current costs for dementia will be £42 billion this year, rising to £90 billion in 2014. It is clear that finding an effective treatment could have a significant impact on individual well-being, society and our economy. We need an improved national strategy across the areas on which I have briefly touched. A wider and deeper consideration of UK biotech in the gracious Speech would have been more welcome and more timely.