Written evidence submitted by Research Councils UK (UJL0027)

Research Councils UK (RCUK) is the strategic partnership of the UK’s seven Research Councils. Our collective ambition is to ensure the UK remains the best place in the world to do research, innovate and grow business. The Research Councils are central to delivering research and innovation for economic growth and societal impact. Together, we invest £3 billion in research each year, covering all disciplines and sectors, to meet tomorrow’s challenges today.

 

The Research Councils invest public money in research in the UK to advance knowledge and generate new ideas which lead to a productive economy, healthy society and contribute to a sustainable world. We fund research across the breadth of the life sciences, from agriculture and biotechnology through to biomedical, health and biosocial research, supporting a range of research and training activity including fundamental laboratory based research, clinical studies and social research.

 

This evidence is submitted by RCUK and represents its independent views. The submission is made on behalf of the following Councils:

 

 

Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response

 

  1. RCUK welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s Inquiry into the impact of EU regulation and policy on the UK life sciences. We encourage the Committee to consider the broad reach that EU regulation and policy relevant to life sciences has and the impact across broader health and social science research.

 

  1. This submission presents the independent perspective of the Research Councils and addresses the impact of EU regulation on research and innovation within the UK life sciences sector. This submission does not address the wider impacts of EU regulation, for example, on the industrial or commercial sector. It recognises that the UK Government is best placed to comment on the EU regulations from the Competent Authority standpoint.

 

  1. This submission responds to two major themes: (1) EU legislation that directly or indirectly impacts upon the conduct of UK life sciences research and (2) the opportunities for UK life sciences research offered by EU Framework Programmes (specifically Horizon 2020 and its predecessor FP7).

 

  1. RCUK has contributed evidence to the Government’s review of the balance of competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Research and Development (published in 2014); and the current House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into the Relationship between EU membership and UK science. Many of the key issues RCUK identified in these recent inquiries are also reflected in this submission.

 

What are the key EU regulations and frameworks that govern/influence the conduct of research and innovation in the UK life sciences?

 

  1. Research and innovation in the life sciences, from agriculture to biomedicine, contributes directly to our prosperity and the well-being of individuals and society in general. The EU has a positive impact on UK life sciences research and innovation by providing the legal and regulatory framework to facilitate research and by providing opportunities for research funding and collaboration through the EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation.

 

  1. The following key pieces of EU legislation directly govern the conduct of life sciences research in the UK:

 

 

  1. In addition, the following EU legislation influences (or has the potential to influence) the conduct of research in the UK:

 

 

  1. In addition to specific EU legislation, other EU actions including rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) also have the potential to impact on innovation in the life sciences sector. A high-profile example is the 2011 ECJ ruling (Case C-34/10) banning the patenting of inventions involving human embryonic stem cells (hESCs).

 

  1. Funding mechanisms, such as the EU Framework Programmes, also have an enormous impact on the UK life sciences sector and provide substantial direct financial support for UK researchers in academia and business. Such mechanisms facilitate cross-border multi-disciplinary collaboration, which is crucial for the advancement of impactful science. Framework Programmes stimulate innovation and competitiveness in the UK life sciences sector, while harmonising and strengthening the European research environment and removing barriers to transnational research.

 

  1. Additional related EU legislation that may impact on UK life sciences research is outlined in The Fresh Start Project [1] Report which provides a comprehensive review of the EU’s impact on the UK life sciences Sector.

 

In what ways do these EU regulations affect the UK life sciences? What are their benefits and the drawbacks?

 

Regulation directly impacting life sciences research

 

  1. Harmonisation of legislation across Europe in the area of life sciences research is essential in order to ensure consistent quality in research and conduct and the protection of participants. It also serves to reduce the fragmentation and unnecessary delays or duplicative processes, which impede transnational research. EU legislation and regulation also play an important role in raising standards across Europe and can drive positive change in the UK regulatory environment.

 

  1. An example of how EU legislation can raise standards and reflect UK priorities is the EU Animals Directive which governs animal welfare in research. The revised Directive came into effect in 2010 and aims to harmonise animal welfare standards, training requirements and regulatory approaches, strengthen legislation, and anchor the principle of the Three Rs, to Replace, Reduce and Refine the use of animals, in EU legislation. The Directive it replaced had been inconsistently implemented and animal welfare standards varied widely across Europe. The new directive was welcomed by the Research Councils as it served to raise animal welfare standards across Europe thus enabling international collaborative research. The new Directive has benefitted the UK life sciences sector by bringing standards in other countries up to those already applied in the UK and in doing so has removed any incentive to move research to countries with lower costs, due to less burdensome regulatory requirements, and lower welfare standards. Drawing on the UK researcher community’s experience and expertise in delivering probably the highest international standards in animal research, the UK was able to help shape the Directive to raise standards in animal welfare and prioritise the application of the 3Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement of animals in research). At the same time ensuring that essential animal research was not unnecessarily hindered by excessive broadening of the scope of the Directive and by bureaucracy that would not directly promote animal welfare.

 

  1. EU legislation can also bring stakeholders together to identify boundaries, prevent duplication and ensure gaps are addressed within and across member states. The Clinical Trials Directive is a useful illustration as effective legislation in this area is essential to ensure that the EU provides a competitive environment for the increasing number of multi-national trials now taking place. Following the introduction of the Directive in 2004 it was widely considered to have acted as a disincentive to initiating studies across Europe, with key criticisms including divergent application across member states leading to difficulties in performing multinational clinical trials. The Directive also brought with it a significant increase in administrative burden and a lack of differentiation in approach for well-known drugs to be used for new purposes, as opposed to completely new drugs.  However, in the UK, the research community was pivotal in influencing the implementation of this Directive. The UK harnessed inherent flexibility within the Directive to permit co-sponsorship, reflecting more collaborative ways of working, and risk-proportionate approaches to trial management and monitoring. This in turn positioned the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) well to influence the development of the new Clinical Trials Regulation and to ensure that these critical elements were supported by the new Regulation. It is anticipated that the new Regulation will reduce the cost of trials, as well as streamline and speed up the Clinical Trial process in the EU. It is expected that it will also significantly improve the environment for Clinical Trials by removing barriers and facilitating trials. Collectively these EU Directives have ensured that regulators, in particular the MHRA and Human Tissue Authority, and ethics committees work together, identifying boundaries, preventing duplication and ensuring gaps are filled.

Regulation indirectly impacting life sciences research

 

  1. European legislation and policy can have far-reaching, and sometimes unintended, consequences. Where legislation is developed which does not principally concern life sciences research, it is vital that potential implications and unintended impacts for research and innovation are fully considered and understood throughout the legislative process. This is highlighted by the development of the new Data Protection Regulation which will govern the use of personal data across a wide range of sectors, including health and social research. The Research Councils have followed the development of the Regulation closely and had serious concerns about proposals from the European Parliament in 2013 which could have had a devastating impact on research. We worked with partners across the health research sector to raise awareness of the issue and ensure that the Regulation creates a clear legal framework that facilitates research while protecting the interests of data subjects (see 23 for further information). This activity required significant and sustained effort across the research community and, as the Regulation progresses towards implementation, it will be important to continue to engage with this process as the UK Government reviews the relevant UK framework of legislation and regulation.

 

  1. The EU’s Genetically Modified Organisms Directive governs both research and development. We recognise the role that the UK Government has played in arguing for the EU’s GM regime to function effectively, so that it offers applicants seeking approval for the commercial use of GMOs a predictable route to market for safe products, but despite this progress is slow. Delays in the regulatory process experienced in relation to decisions on GM crops has meant that innovation beyond research becomes problematic. The Commission is also expected to publish an opinion on the regulatory status of organisms produced using new genetic breeding techniques. The fate of the legislative proposal which the Commission published last year to allow more national subsidiarity in relation to EU decisions on the import and use of GM food and feed products is still awaited.

 

  1. The global market for nutraceuticals[2] and probiotics[3] is predicted to approach $290bn by 2018[4], while the vitamin supplement sector is worth around £675m in the UK and $30bn in the US[5]. Fifty-five per cent of food, 36% of pharmaceutical and 90% of biotech companies are actively researching nutraceuticals[6], which fall somewhere between the pharmaceutical and food industry sectors. Establishing verified health claims for probiotics[7] would support growth in a market where just a 10% increase would be worth £100m over 5 years in the UK[8]. However, the level of evidence required for substantiating health claims for food products in the EU may be countering innovation in this area, where companies face two sets of regulations for such products (food and medicines), if the current regulatory framework prevails.

 

Research and Innovation Funding Programmes

 

  1. EU research and innovation funding is crucial for the UK: it widens the opportunities for UK researchers to engage in globally competitive collaborative research, strengthens links and builds partnerships. Opportunities for UK-based researchers through the Framework Programmes complement UK research funding and ensure that the UK life sciences sector continues to be globally competitive and perceived as a world-class partner of choice. Our strong life sciences research base means the UK is highly competitive at the EU level and is extremely successful at securing research funding through Framework Programmes.

 

  1. Under the Seventh Framework Programme FP7, which ran from 2007-2013, the UK received over €7.009 billion of funding for research, second only to Germany which received €7.146 billion. Under Horizon 2020 (H2020), which will run from 2014-2020, the UK has already received €1.426 billion, again second only to Germany. Key UK performance data relating to H2020 life sciences research funding, which aims to illustrate the influence of EU Framework Programmes on UK life sciences, can be found at Annex 1.

 

  1. EU funding for transnational research also enables UK life sciences researchers to inform and influence public policy at the EU level. UK researchers’ success in securing EU funding and level of participation in transnational projects means they have substantial visibility and potential to influence policy.

 

How transparent, consultative and evidence-based are EU policy-making processes? To what extent is the UK able to shape regulatory processes at the EU level that affect the life sciences?

 

  1. The European policy-making process is generally transparent and consultative. Before the Commission proposes new initiatives it assesses the potential economic, social and environmental consequences and the development of legislation can be monitored by reviewing publicly available documentation online. In order to shape legislation, the UK’s life sciences stakeholders must understand the EU’s decision-making procedure and identify the key individuals and the key points in time in order to influence the agenda. This can be resource-intensive and requires sustained effort. However, this level of engagement is essential in order to ensure that the UK Government, European Commission and European Parliament members are made fully aware of the potential implications for the life sciences sector. It is often effective for the UK additionally to work through pan-European bodies, such as Science Europe, as national inputs alone may sometimes be regarded a special pleading.

 

  1. As the examples below aim to illustrate, the voice of the UK life sciences sector has generally been heard at EU level during the development of relevant legislation over recent years, leading to positive outcomes for the UK and wider research communities. The Research Councils are active in working to ensure that implications for research are identified and addressed during the development of legislation and policy. We often work with partners in the UK, including Government, Regulators, Charities and other agencies in the UK and across Europe throughout the different stages of the legislative process as policies are designed, developed and amended and also once legislation has been adopted to ensure appropriate guidance is in place to enable successful consistent implementation across Member States. Wide-reaching consultation with member states and expert communities and sustained engagement is vital to reduce potential risks to research and innovation, and the life sciences sector more broadly.

 

  1. Consideration of the correct legislative instrument is also important and an approach must be taken which is proportionate and risk-based, while avoiding administrative burden where possible. In all instances, clarity is also crucial: providing clear and detailed guidance in order to ensure successful consistent implementation across member states. In the previous section (see 13) we outlined how UK Regulators and the research community had worked together to address some of the initial criticisms and negative impact of the 2004 Clinical Trials Directive. The additional burden imposed by the Directive was due at least in part to ineffective engagement with stakeholders during its development, and the Commission has sought to address this in the development of the new Regulation, which has been welcomed by RCUK as a step that will facilitate multi-national clinical trials. RCUK, in collaboration with UK Government and other Clinical Trials funding agencies, were consulted on the development of the Regulation, and by working closely with researchers, other funders and organisations to provide a coordinated response to the draft EU Regulation and the proposed amendments, a positive outcome for research has been secured. In addition to working closely with the European Commission and UK Government representatives in the Council, we were able to inform MEPs, including the Regulation’s Rapporteur, drawing attention to key issues and concerns, which was invaluable. This example highlights the importance of employing the correct legislative instrument, and the very real potential for inconsistent interpretation of European legislation. The length of time required to revise EU legislation also highlights the need to get it right first time, and this can only be achieved by thorough and effective consultation of relevant stakeholders throughout the process.

 

  1. Similarly RCUK has worked with partners across the UK, and the EU more broadly, in order to raise awareness of the serious implications for research resulting from amendments proposed by MEP’s to the new General Data Protection Regulation and to influence and inform MEPs, European Commission officials and UK representatives in the Council (see 14). We were only able to achieve this as the EU legislative process is so open and transparent, with all documentation including reports, proposed amendments, and timelines published and easily accessible online. This enabled RCUK and other stakeholders to effectively monitor the progress of the draft legislation and to identify the key individuals with whom concerns could be raised, and when this should be accomplished. Although final agreement on the Regulation has yet to be reached, we are hopeful for a positive outcome for research and innovation which will be in no small part due to the UK life sciences community’s understanding of the legislative process, and its ability to influence. This will benefit not just the UK, but research – and by extension competitiveness – across Europe. RCUK will continue to work with partners to monitor the progress of this regulation and to ensure a strong outcome for the UK life sciences community.

 

  1. Alongside legislation developed by the Commission, citizens also have the ability to put forward proposals through a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI)[9] that can influence the development and revision of legislation and regulation. The recent "Stop Vivisection" European Citizens’ Initiative called for the repeal of the EU Animals Directive. In responding to the ECI, the Commission recently confirmed that it would review the Directive when it has been in force long enough to assess its effectiveness. The Commission also set out a number of further actions that would be taken towards the goal of phasing out the use of animals in research. RCUK will actively engage with the Commission, as well as UK Government representatives and other stakeholders to contribute to the review.

 

  1. Rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) also have the potential to impact on innovation in the life sciences sector (see 11). The 2011 ECJ ruling resulted in concern that the inability to patent inventions involving human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) would deter private sector involvement and investment. As stem cell technologies are often driven by Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) there was concern of a significant detrimental impact on innovation within the life sciences sector.

 

  1. The ruling was also an area of particular concern for RCUK during the development of H2020 legislation. The Commission had proposed that the rules for the use of such cells in H2020 would remain the same as in FP7 (a position supported by the RCUK) however there was a strong lobby in Europe, comprising a number of MEPs, who seized on the ECJ ruling with a view to preventing hESCs being used. The MRC worked with the Wellcome Trust and other stakeholders to provide guidance to UK MEPs on stem cell issues and to produce position statements that were shared with other member states. H2020 legislation did not ultimately include amendments to the Commission’s proposals on stem cells and the same rules are being applied in H2020 as were applied in FP7, a positive outcome for the UK life sciences sector. The implications of the ECJ ruling appear not to have had the disastrous implications that were feared; however, the ruling still stands, and RCUK will continue to monitor developments in this area.

 

  1. Another example of stakeholders acting together in a coordinated effort relates to concerns that the original proposal for EU Physical Agents Directive 2004/40/EC would restrict the use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for research and clinical diagnosis. The Commission responded positively to these concerns by postponing implementation of the Directive and have since issued a revised Directive which includes an exemption for MRI. Workers using MRI remain protected by existing safety regulations. The Commission responded favourably to the evidence-based concerns raised by stakeholders and we have avoided potentially negative impacts on UK life sciences research. The original draft suffered from a lack of adequate consultation and engagement with researchers and the medical profession and if implemented, would have dramatically restricted the use of MRI for research and clinical diagnosis.

 

  1. RCUK and other UK life sciences partners are currently using a similar approach of working within the EU process to help reach a positive outcome for new legislation covering medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices in Europe.  In 2012, the Commission published new legislation governing medical devices in the form of two draft Regulations, which RCUK welcomed as a necessary update to the governance framework.  In 2014, the European Parliament adopted a series of amendments which RCUK, and other UK partners, believe may have potentially damaging effects on the provision of genetic tests within the EU and which are not consistent with current clinical practice. We believe these amendments could significantly restrict access to genetic testing and ongoing diagnosis; targeted interventions; and treatment. We are hopeful that as the legislative decision making procedure progresses, the EU institutions will continue to consult with stakeholders and eventually adopt a Regulation (based upon evidence) that will not stifle research and innovation, or hinder the delivery of health care. RCUK will continue to work with partners to draw attention to these concerns, ahead of negotiations over the coming months.

 

  1. The UK life sciences research environment is strongly influenced by EU legislation, but it is arguably influenced to an even greater extent by EU Framework Programmes. Through membership of the EU, the UK is able to play a significant role in shaping the EU Framework Programmes’ research priorities, and RCUK takes a proactive approach to influencing the framework. There are several mechanisms which determine the EU life sciences funding priorities, including scientific panels, H2020 expert advisory groups, and Programme Committees – the UK is represented and influential on all of them. The UK Research Councils, and the sector more broadly, also input directly via various pubic consultations.

 

  1. The Commission adopts a consultative approach to the development of its biannual H2020 work programmes, which outline the commission’s scientific priorities for research investment over a two-year period. The Commission recently established a Scientific Panel for Health, which is a science-led expert group with three main roles: to analyse and propose solutions to bottlenecks that prevent improvements in health; to identify long term trends influencing health through foresight, and to recommend research and innovation priorities to respond to them; and to aid in the translation and implementation of research and innovation results into practice. Four of the 29 members of the panel are UK-based researchers meaning we are well placed to ensure the EU’s long-term priorities for funding continue to reflect the needs of the UK life sciences sector.

 

  1. Under H2020, the Commission has also established Expert Advisory Groups, which provide a forum for discussions, and high-level input from a wide range of sources and stakeholders. Crucially, Expert Advisory Group members provide advice to the Commission during the preparation of the H2020 work programmes. In 2014, the Advisory Group for Health published its first ‘Health Expert Advisory Group report’[10] which made recommendations towards defining strategic priorities. In 2016, the Advisory Group for Health agreed that ‘most of the AG recommendations were incorporated into the various areas of the 2016-17 Health Work Programme, meaning the work of the Advisory Group had had an important impact’[11]. The UK is well represented on the Advisory Group, with representation at the time of the report’s publication including the former BBSRC Chief Executive.

 

  1. RCUK participates actively across the majority of H2020 Programme Committees, including the Strategic Configuration Committee. The Strategic Programming approach, introduced under H2020, has made good progress in aligning the work programmes, facilitating discussions on strategic planning and ensuring links to nationally funded activities are considered. Much has been achieved in making the process for drafting work programmes more transparent, while strategic programming and planning over two year periods allows for longer term planning for funding applications, and for stakeholders to feed into work programme development effectively. Although the opportunities to contribute vary from area to area, initial feedback on the H2020 approach has been positive overall.

 

  1. Under FP7, Programme Committees comprising representatives of member states were established to advise the Commission on programme development, finalise work programmes, sign-off funding decisions and scrutinise the management of the Commission’s funding programmes. Currently, the MRC leads the UK delegation on the H2020 Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing Challenge programme committee, in liaison with BIS (including the Office for Life Sciences) and the Department of Health.  Through Programme Committee representation, the UK, often via RCUK, is able to provide assurance that investments in life sciences research not only represent value for money, but that they are also aligned with national strategic research priorities and add value to the conduct of life sciences research and innovation in the UK.

 

  1. The Commission has a legal obligation formally to review the programme and a number of initiatives have been identified for the H2020 mid-term review and where appropriate RCUK will actively engage and contribute to the review process.

 

  1. A common criticism of the EU research funding mechanism is that it is easier for large institutions, such as universities, to tap into this funding while small companies can struggle with the associated bureaucratic requirements. The Commission has an ongoing simplification agenda which has been welcomed by RCUK. The new funding model, improved time to grant and online grant portal introduced under H2020 are all generally perceived as positive progress towards simplification.

 

  1. While there is always room improvement, on the whole the EU defines its Framework Programme funding priorities through an open, transparent and consultative manner. It does so in collaboration with high-level UK industrial and scientific experts, as well as UK member state representatives, and provides opportunities for the wider life sciences research community to contribute directly through public consultations. A key consideration in the mid-term review of H2020 will be progress made on the commission’s simplification agenda.

 

  1. The Research Councils also engage with the European process via Science Europe, which promotes the collective interests of the Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations of the whole of Europe (not just EU countries). Science Europe supports its Member Organisations in their efforts to foster European research and provides a useful channel for influencing European research systems. Working Groups on key policy areas such as peer review, text and data-mining, open data and open access, gender and diversity, and research integrity have enabled RCUK to engage proactively and influence key policy developments as they emerge and share best practice with partner organisations across Europe.

 

Is the UK able to depart from the application, standards or timing of such EU regulation?

 

  1. An EU “Regulation” is a legal act of the European Union that becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously. An EU "Directive" is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve; however, it is up to individual countries to devise their own laws on how to reach the goals laid out in a directive. As highlighted by the example of the Clinical Trials Directive, it is not always desirable for individual member states to depart from the application of the EU’s legal acts, and selecting the appropriate legal instrument is essential in order to ensure EU regulation does not limit UK innovation. In the life sciences sector, it is often the case that the UK must adhere to the same standards as the EU in order to work internationally anyway.

 

  1. Given the increasing importance of international collaboration to research and innovation in the life sciences sector, rather than seek to depart from the application, standards or timing of EU regulation, we should continue to utilise existing partnerships in order to shape the content of such EU regulation and funding mechanisms, to have a positive impact on the conduct of and support for research. At the same time, it is also imperative that the EU institutions involved in the legislative process continue to engage stakeholders in the development of legislation and regulation so that its impact on other sectors is taken into consideration.

 

March 2016


ANNEX: UK Performance data in EU Framework Programmes[12]

 

1.              European Research Council

The European Research Council (ERC) provides grants to excellent researchers who are carrying out their research in an EU member state. ERC grants support bottom-up, cutting edge research. Funding competitive frontier research is a vital component in the knowledge cycle and contributes to the knowledge economy and competiveness of the EU. The ERC’s policy of selecting research projects on the basis of scientific excellence is very much in line with the RCUK approach and we believe that supporting excellence is imperative to innovation in the EU. ERC funding also plays a part in supporting the UK’s ongoing ambition to attract outstanding researchers from outside the EU.

 

UK ERC Performance under FP7

 

UK ERC Performance under H2020

 

2.              Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) provide bottom-up funding, providing fellowships for researchers to go anywhere in the world, or come to the UK from anywhere. They support valuable knowledge exchange and build international collaboration. The UK does very well out of the MSCA and is seen as an attractive host country for the scheme. The opportunities for mobility and training are a major strength of the Framework Programmes with far reaching positive impact in terms of training the next generation of researchers, forming global links, boosting mobility (EU and world-wide), and have helped to improve employment conditions. In this respect, Framework Programmes have played a key role in supporting excellence and in building a skilled workforce required for innovation and growth in Europe.

 

UK MSCA Performance under FP7

 

UK MSCA Performance under H2020

 

3.              Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing Challenge

Through the Horizon 2020 health, demographic change and wellbeing Societal Challenge, the Commission provides support for international, large-scale, multi-disciplinary, collaborative research projects, which aim to: improve our understanding of the causes and mechanisms underlying health, healthy ageing and disease as well as our ability to monitor health and to prevent, detect, treat and manage disease. It also supports research to help older persons remain active and healthy for longer, and the testing and demonstration of new models and tools for health and care delivery.

 

UK performance under FP7

 

UK performance under Horizon 2020

 

4.              Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy challenge

Through this Horizon 2020 Challenge, the European Commission again provides support for international, large-scale, multi-disciplinary, collaborative research projects in the area.

 

UK performance under FP7

 

UK performance under H2020

 

5.              Research Infrastructure

EU membership, and the programmes supported through Horizon 2020 and previous Frameworks, is an enormous benefit to collaboration on research infrastructures in Europe. The provision of networking funding has ensured that the benefits from national investments in research infrastructure are maximised through stimulating joint working with their counterparts across Europe. Integrating Activities with transnational access to facilities also ensure that UK researchers have access to the best facilities elsewhere in Europe and that European researchers have access to UK facilities which would not be possible under any existing national arrangements.

 

UK performance under FP7

 

UK performance under H2020

 

 

Case Study: MRC Harwell in Oxfordshire hosts an EU-funded resource that reduces the number of animals bred for research purposes. The European Mouse Mutant Archive (EMMA) is supported by EU funding through the FP7 Capacities Specific Programme. The unit stores frozen mouse eggs, sperm and embryos and sends them to other laboratories when needed, removing the need for other laboratories to breed animals unnecessarily to maintain a colony.

 

Case Study: ELIXIR, Building a sustainable European infrastructure for biological information, supporting life sciences research and its translation to medicine, agriculture, bioindustries and society. ELIXIR unites Europe’s leading life sciences organisations in managing and safeguarding the massive amounts of data being generated every day by publicly funded research. It is a pan-European research infrastructure for biological information. ELIXIR provides the facilities necessary for life sciences researchers - from bench biologists to cheminformaticians - to make the most of our rapidly growing store of information about living systems, which is the foundation on which our understanding of life is built.

 

6.              IMI

The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) is Europe's largest public-private initiative aiming to speed up the development of better and safer medicines for patients. IMI supports collaborative research projects and builds networks of industrial and academic experts in order to boost pharmaceutical innovation in Europe. IMI is a joint undertaking between the European Union and the pharmaceutical industry association EFPIA.

 

UK performance

•              Since IMI launched in 2007, the UK has received €302,869,339 (28.05% of the total awarded), far more than any other EU Member State.

[1] http://eufreshstart.org/downloads/eu-impact-on-life-sciences.pdf

[2] For a definition: http://www.enaonline.org/index.php?lang=en&path=news

[3] For a definition: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/probiotics/Pages/Introduction.aspx

[4] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-health-movement-drives-market-for-nutraceuticals-to-250-bn-by-2018-probiotics-to-touch-396-bn-and-heart-health-ingredients-near-152-bn-180021771.html

[5] Pills of wisdom? New Scientist. Aug 2014

[6] Nutraceuticals: promising health product. International Research Journal of Medical Sciences. Feb 2012

[7] For a definition: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/probiotics/Pages/Introduction.aspx 

[8] Impact of the Institute of Food Research. Brookdale Consultancy. 2013

[9] A citizens' initiative has to be backed by at least one million EU citizens, coming from at least 7 out of the 28 member states (http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome)

[10] http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2942

[11] http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2942

[12] Data in this annex has been obtained from the European Commission’s Cordis website: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/eCORDA

[13]