Despite clear optimism about AI and automation in health, this comes with a caveat. The promise of transforming healthcare had a level of cautious optimism, but with a lingering question that recurs in different guises: what do we not want AI to do?
While at SXSW London last week the tools our health team saw on display were beyond impressive – robotics that can navigate the brain’s extracellular space, AI models accelerating lab research, machine learning applications scanning years of clinical records. But the most meaningful conversations were not about capability. They were about judgement, trust, and purpose.
The most successful health and life science companies will be those that can combine technical excellence with an emotive, human-first communications strategy. That means engaging with a broad range of stakeholders throughout the development lifecycle of treatments to spread that message. It means involving clinicians and researchers in product design, not just validation. It means working with regulators not to push boundaries, but to align around what meaningful safety and efficacy looks like in practice. And it means preparing the ground for adoption across clinical settings, in the political halls of power, and the wider public consciousness.
Humans and the Automation of Healthcare
A leader in R&D and digital transformation at a pharma giant has described the effect of introducing AI across the drug development cycle. The metaphor she used was that up until now, drug development is an orchestra that has been blindfolded. By adding AI to the process, the blindfold is removed, and the orchestra can use their individual skills to work harmoniously. It is not about replacing scientists, but enabling them to see clearly, coordinate better, and avoid unnecessary noise.
But even this carefully considered framing revealed tensions. She noted that scientists can be resistant to automation by AI and robotics; not because they doubt the science, but because the work being automated is often the part they value most. Interestingly the example she gave was pipetting, which was showcased as a prime candidate for automation in later a session by a robotics engineer.
This contradiction matters. It speaks to a wider issue in innovation: while we talk confidently about freeing people to do more meaningful work, we are less clear on what that actually means. One person’s inefficiency is another’s sense of purpose.
Pharma’s Role in the System
Hassan Chaudhury from Great Ormond Street Hospital offered a pointed critique of past mistakes: NHS systems are riddled with legacy vendor lock-in, data siloes, and design choices that ignored clinical workflow. The result is frustration, duplication, and a sense that innovation happens to the system, rather than in service of it.
In contrast, Amazon Web Service’s Alex Merwin described newer models of collaboration, such as data “landing zones” that bring together patient information in real time, enabling more predictive rather than reactive care. These projects are working precisely because they centre the needs and priorities of those delivering care.
The UK’s Opportunity to Lead
A discussion between former Prime Minister David Cameron and Professor Sir John Bell was centred on rare diseases but had a broader strategic message: the UK has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lead in building a swath of biotechs tackling previously untreatable conditions.
Bell argued that the UK is in a unique position due to a convergence of factors: a unified health system, world-class academic institutions, and an innovation-friendly environment. Few countries have both the population-level data and the clinical delivery mechanisms required to move from technologies like genome sequencing to routine implementation. If used effectively, this could shift the UK from a site of research to a hub of delivery.
Cameron spoke about how the Oxford-Harrington Rare Disease Centre exemplifies this ambition. Its model of pairing academic insight with venture capital aims not just to discover new therapies but to translate them, at speed, into real treatments. It reflects a belief that the UK can do more than incubate science, instead leading the development, scaling, and export of new healthcare models.
For pharmaceutical and biotech companies, this presents both an opportunity and a challenge. The UK may be smaller than the US or China in absolute market terms, but as a proving ground for regulated innovation at scale, it remains unrivalled. Engaging early, aligning with public and regulatory expectations, and helping define how data is used responsibly will be critical to success for companies wishing to utilise this opportunity.
Quote from Phil Sawyer, Partner in the Portland Health Team:
“The message is clear: innovation is no longer just a matter of science. It is a matter of how innovators can tell the story of their integration of that science to meet human needs, both internally and externally, to deliver improved outcomes.
At Portland, we work with health innovators to navigate this difficult challenge. From gene therapies to next-generation diagnostics, early investment in trust, communication and system alignment is the difference between real-world success and squandered potential.
Our healthcare communications experts at Portland are ready to help you navigate a rapidly evolving landscape and develop a communications strategy designed for long-term success.”
