Business | 25HourNews

Beyond GSK: A Look at the Broader 'Pharma Exodus' from the UK In a significant development for the global pharmaceutical industry, British drugmaker GSK has pledged a massive $30 billion investment over the next five years in its U.S.-based research and development (R&D) and supply chain infrastructure. The announcement comes as the UK’s own life sciences sector faces a series of deepening challenges, leading many to view GSK's strategic move as a blow to the country's ambitions to be a global scientific leader.The investment, which includes a new $1.2 billion commitment for next-generation biologics factories and the integration of artificial intelligence across existing U.S. manufacturing sites, is aimed at bolstering GSK’s position in its largest and most lucrative market. While GSK’s CEO, Emma Walmsley, insists the new facilities will “bridge R&D and manufacturing across both the U.S. and UK,” the sheer scale of the American investment, which dwarfs GSK’s annual UK R&D budget of around £1.5 billion, is seen as a clear signal of the company's future focus. The move is also influenced by U.S. government efforts to encourage more domestic drug production and by the threat of new import tariffs on the industry.Meanwhile, the UK’s pharmaceutical industry is grappling with a series of structural issues that have made it less competitive on the international stage.Data from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) reveals that the country’s R&D investment has fallen behind global trends since 2018, with foreign direct investment in the life sciences sector plummeting by 58% between 2021 and 2023. This decline is largely attributed to high and unpredictable "clawback" rates on pharmaceutical revenues, which reached 23.5% on newer medicines in 2025. This rate is significantly higher than those in other major European markets, deterring much-needed capital.The challenges extend beyond financial incentives. The UK has also seen a decline in its performance for clinical trials, with its global ranking for Phase III trials falling from fourth to eighth. This weakens the country's ability to develop new medicines and attract investment. Industry leaders also cite slow patient access to new drugs and the undervaluation of innovative medicines by the National Health Service (NHS) as key issues. The “pharma exodus” has already begun, with other companies like Merck and AstraZeneca reportedly scaling back their UK presence in favor of more favorable environments.
How Google's New Data Center will Impact the UK's AI Sector Google's parent company, Alphabet, has announced a significant £5 billion investment in the UK, with the primary goal of bolstering the country's AI and cloud infrastructure. The announcement coincides with the official opening of a new Google data center in Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire, which is part of this larger financial commitment. This investment is set to power Google's AI-driven services such as Google Cloud, Workspace, and Maps, and is expected to create thousands of jobs across the country. The timing of this major pledge has drawn attention, as it comes just before a scheduled visit from President Trump.The investment is being positioned as a powerful vote of confidence in the UK economy and its strategic partnership with the US. According to a statement from UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the funds will be directed toward capital expenditure, research and development, and related engineering over the next two years. This includes significant work by Google DeepMind, the pioneering AI research arm of the company, which is based in London. The UK government has hailed the investment as a boost for its efforts to attract private capital and stimulate economic growth, particularly in the tech sector.Politically, the announcement is seen as a strategic move ahead of President Trump's state visit. Senior US officials have indicated that the visit will highlight a new science and technology partnership between the two nations, with billions of dollars in new investment expected to be announced. The delegation accompanying President Trump is reported to include several key US tech CEOs, which further underscores the focus on strengthening economic ties. Google's announcement serves as a major centerpiece of these broader economic discussions, signaling a commitment from a major US tech firm to the UK's future.The new Waltham Cross data center, which will be the first Google-owned facility in the UK, is also a key component of this investment. The state-of-the-art center is designed with advanced cooling technology to minimize water usage and is also equipped to provide heat recovery to local homes and businesses. This dual focus on technology and sustainability reflects a key part of Google's strategy. The investment is projected to support 8,250 jobs annually at UK businesses, reinforcing the positive economic impact of the move.
The Economic and Political Factors Behind AstraZeneca’s Investment Pause In a significant blow to the UK's life sciences sector, pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has paused a planned £200 million expansion of its research site in Cambridge. The decision affects an investment that was originally announced in March 2024 and was expected to create as many as 1,000 jobs. This move comes after the company scrapped a separate £450 million investment for a vaccine manufacturing facility in northern England earlier this year, citing a cut in government support. The pause signals growing uncertainty within the UK's pharmaceutical industry and raises questions about the country's competitiveness on the global stage.The planned Cambridge expansion was intended to build on the company's existing flagship R&D facility, The Discovery Centre (The DISC), which is already home to thousands of scientists. However, a company spokesperson stated that they are "constantly reassessing the investment needs of our company" and confirmed the pause. This decision is not isolated. It follows a similar move by U.S. drugmaker Merck, which abandoned a £1 billion research centre in London, also citing a "challenging business environment." These announcements have intensified a debate between the pharmaceutical industry and the UK government over drug pricing and investment incentives.The industry has long argued that the National Health Service (NHS) undervalues innovative medicines, making the UK a less attractive place for major investments compared to other countries. This has been a key point of tension, particularly after negotiations between the government and the sector over pricing stalled in late August. Meanwhile, AstraZeneca has announced plans to invest a staggering $50 billion in the U.S. by 2030, a move that is seen by many as a direct response to the threat of new trade tariffs and a more favorable business environment across the Atlantic.For the UK, the pause by its largest company is a powerful setback to the government's ambitions to become a "global science and technology superpower." While officials are reportedly seeking renewed dialogue with the industry, the recent series of investment pullbacks from major players casts a shadow over the future of Britain's life sciences cluster. The decision highlights the complex interplay between government policy, economic conditions, and corporate investment strategies in a highly competitive global market.
The Evolving Relationship Between Agricultural Policy and Political Support For many years, the American heartland has been a steadfast pillar of support for Donald Trump. However, a series of mounting economic pressures are now squeezing farmers, creating a sense of discontent that is testing the deep loyalty that has defined their political relationship. As the cost of doing business rises and the prices they receive for their goods fluctuate, a feeling of frustration is growing among a group that was once considered an unbreakable part of the administration's political base. This sentiment is creating a powerful and complex dynamic in a crucial political demographic.The challenges facing farmers are multifaceted. The cost of essential inputs, such as fertilizer, fuel, and equipment, has seen significant price increases. At the same time, global commodity markets have become increasingly volatile, making it difficult for farmers to predict their income from one season to the next. The administration’s trade policies, which were initially designed to create favorable conditions for American agriculture, have also come under scrutiny. While some farmers received direct aid payments, many feel that the long-term disruptions to trade relationships have created more instability than they have solved.The disconnect between the rhetoric of strong economic growth and the financial realities on the ground for many farmers is becoming a key point of tension. For years, farmers have stood by the administration, believing in the promise of a revitalized American economy. However, with the rising costs and stagnant or falling prices for their products, many feel that the agricultural sector has been left behind. Conversations on rural radio stations and at local coffee shops are increasingly focusing on the difficult choices farmers have to make, from delaying the purchase of new equipment to taking on more debt.The current economic strain is forcing farmers to reevaluate their political allegiances. While many still feel a strong connection to the populist message, their financial anxieties are now a top priority. Political analysts are watching closely to see if this growing discontent will translate into a significant shift in voting patterns. For a demographic that has historically supported the administration without hesitation, the current economic squeeze is proving to be a formidable test of their loyalty. The future of this relationship will likely depend on whether the administration can deliver tangible relief to a sector that i
How federal funding supports US higher education research A federal judge has overturned a decision made during the Trump administration that sought to cut funding to Harvard University. The move was originally introduced as part of a broader effort to scrutinize elite institutions and their use of federal funds. However, the court ruled that the cuts were unjustified and not supported by sufficient legal grounds. The funding dispute centered on claims that Harvard had misused certain grants and financial aid programs. Officials in the Trump administration argued that elite universities with large endowments should not receive the same federal support as other institutions. Harvard pushed back, saying the cuts unfairly targeted the university and threatened critical research and student financial aid initiatives. In the ruling, the judge emphasized that the administration had overstepped its authority. The decision highlighted that funding allocations must follow established legal and regulatory processes rather than political arguments. For Harvard, the ruling secures continued access to important federal resources that support education, research, and scholarships. The case also reignites a larger debate about the role of federal funding for wealthy universities. While critics argue that institutions with billion-dollar endowments should be more self-reliant, supporters stress that federal funding ensures accessibility and fosters innovation in research that benefits the wider public. Harvard welcomed the ruling, calling it a victory not only for the university but for academic freedom and fairness in education policy. Meanwhile, policy analysts note that the debate is far from over, as future administrations may revisit the question of how federal dollars are distributed to America’s top universities.
The role of TSMC in America’s semiconductor strategy The United States has revoked Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company’s licence that allowed fast track shipments of advanced chip making tools to its plant in Nanjing, China. Beginning December 31, 2025, the company will need to apply for individual approvals for every export of American made equipment to the facility. This decision marks a major step in Washington’s broader strategy to restrict China’s access to critical semiconductor technology. Impact on TSMC and the chip industry The removal of the licence means TSMC will no longer be able to rely on simplified approval procedures for its China based operations. Each shipment of equipment to Nanjing will now go through detailed checks that could result in delays or even outright refusals. For a company that depends on efficiency and predictable supply chains, this adds both cost and uncertainty. Industry analysts believe this move will slow down any expansion or upgrade plans at the Nanjing plant. The requirement for case by case approvals makes it more difficult to plan long term investments and may reduce TSMC’s ability to meet demand in China. The decision also follows similar restrictions on Samsung and SK Hynix, showing a consistent tightening of US export rules across the semiconductor sector. Reactions and strategic responses TSMC confirmed that it has received notice of the licence withdrawal. The company reassured stakeholders that operations at its Nanjing facility will continue and that it is in contact with US regulators to ensure compliance. Despite the new challenges, TSMC emphasised that it will adapt its business strategy while maintaining supply commitments to its customers. This development comes as the United States strengthens domestic semiconductor production. TSMC itself is investing heavily in advanced facilities in Arizona, which align with Washington’s goal of securing local chip manufacturing. By limiting China bound technology while expanding production at home, the US is reinforcing its position in the global technology race. Geopolitical implications The revocation of TSMC’s licence highlights the growing tension between the United States and China in the field of advanced technology. Washington aims to curb China’s progress in areas such as artificial intelligence and high performance computing, while Beijing continues to push for greater self sufficiency. For global markets, the decision signals ongoing volatility in semiconductor supply chains.
Legal Challenges Against Betting Apps in India India’s Betting Apps: A Rapid Boom In recent years, India’s betting apps witnessed an unprecedented boom, attracting millions of users across the country. Fueled by the popularity of cricket, fantasy sports, and online gaming, these apps offered users the opportunity to win money by predicting match outcomes or creating fantasy teams. The growth was further accelerated by cheap mobile data, high smartphone penetration, and aggressive advertising campaigns during major sporting events like the Indian Premier League (IPL). Apps such as Dream11, Mobile Premier League (MPL), and My11Circle became household names, turning casual fans into active participants in the world of online betting. The industry was valued at billions of dollars, with investors pouring money into startups and entrepreneurs eyeing the sector as the next big digital revolution in India. Legal Challenges Against Betting Apps in India Despite the surge, betting apps in India faced significant legal challenges. Gambling laws in the country remain fragmented, with states having the power to regulate online gaming and betting. While some states like Sikkim and Nagaland permitted regulated forms of online gaming, others, including Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh, imposed strict bans on betting and fantasy sports platforms. The Supreme Court of India also examined whether fantasy sports constituted a game of skill or chance, a distinction that determines legality. Although courts in some states upheld fantasy sports as games of skill, critics argued that the apps encouraged gambling behavior, leading to addiction and financial distress among users. Social Concerns and Government Crackdown The fall of India’s betting apps was accelerated by growing concerns about youth addiction, financial losses, and rising cases of gambling-related debt. Families reported instances of students and young professionals losing large sums of money, sparking nationwide debates over the ethical implications of such platforms. In response, the Indian government introduced tighter regulations, banning many betting apps under public safety and financial integrity concerns. Authorities also cited risks of money laundering and illegal transactions linked to offshore betting operators. The move marked a decisive shift from promotion to prohibition, effectively dismantling one of India’s fastest-growing digital sectors. The Future of Online Gaming in India While the ban has curtailed the bet
New Era for Retirement Savings as Trump Embraces Crypto Options Donald Trump has taken a bold step in the financial policy arena, opening the door for cryptocurrency investments in retirement accounts. In a statement this week, the former president expressed support for allowing Americans to include digital assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum in their 401(k) and IRA savings plans, a move that could reshape the landscape of retirement investing in the United States. Trump emphasized that financial freedom and individual choice should be at the core of the U.S. retirement system. “Americans should have the right to decide where their hard-earned savings go, whether it’s stocks, bonds, gold, or cryptocurrencies,” he said. This stance aligns with a growing movement among investors seeking diversification and inflation protection through digital assets. The proposed policy would give retirement savers more control over their portfolios, potentially attracting younger investors who are more familiar with crypto markets. Proponents argue that adding crypto to retirement accounts could help increase long-term returns, especially as blockchain technology becomes more integrated into the global economy. However, critics have raised concerns about volatility, security risks, and the lack of comprehensive regulation in the cryptocurrency sector. Financial experts warn that sudden market swings could significantly impact retirement savings, particularly for those nearing retirement age. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Labor have historically been cautious about approving crypto in retirement plans, citing investor protection concerns. Despite the debate, several major financial institutions have already begun exploring ways to integrate cryptocurrency into traditional investment platforms. Companies such as Fidelity Investments have tested Bitcoin options for 401(k) holders, signaling that institutional adoption may be accelerating. If implemented, Trump’s proposal could mark one of the most significant policy shifts in U.S. retirement planning in decades. It would also place the United States among a small but growing number of countries allowing citizens to invest their pension savings in cryptocurrencies. As discussions continue, the future of retirement savings may soon look very different — blending traditional assets with the fast-evolving world of digital currencies. For now, all eyes are on lawmakers, regulators, and the financial industry to see whether Trump’s visi