University of Glasgow – Written evidence (LSI0009)
Introduction
The University of Glasgow is the fourth oldest University in the UK and a member of the Russell Group. Our College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences includes over 2300 staff and has an annual turnover of £230m. The College is currently ranked 39th in the World for Medicine in the prestigious QS World University Rankings. In addition, we were ranked ‘top University’ for research impact by the BBSRC (2013-2016 Excellence with Impact competition). The University has successfully developed a UKSPA Science Park at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow, and has attracted companies to locate from Germany, Singapore and California. The University is host institution for two pan-Scottish Innovation Centres, including the Stratified Medicine Scotland Innovation Centre. We are therefore well placed to comment on the UK Life Sciences Strategy, and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Science and innovation
1. How can investors be encouraged to invest in turning basic life science research into new innovations in treatment? Why has investment been lacking in this sector? Does the research base have the necessary infrastructure to be world-leading?
Translating basic science into innovative treatments increasingly requires ‘triple helix’ partnership working between industry, academia and the NHS; indeed our best health care innovations are developed in this way. We believe that such ‘open communities’ of innovation will deliver economic growth and wider benefits for the UK. Current funding mechanisms are not sufficiently flexible or agile enough to achieve that. The Research Councils do actively support and encourage the creation of impact from research within Universities, but identifying, supporting and seeking funding for the pipeline of translatable science is not easy. In addition, in Scotland, Scottish Enterprise can only fund the company (not the entire academic-industry-NHS) partnership, through a painfully slow process, which is neither agile or flexible enough to allow us to compete at pace and scale in a fast-moving, global environment.
It is difficult to comment on how investors can be encouraged. However, the ability of research to be closer to ‘market ready’ solutions would likely be key to this. This is likely to be easier to achieve for areas related to, for example, ‘diagnostics’ and ‘mobile health/apps’ as these can be trialled on individuals and populations directly, rather than in the ‘pharmaceuticals’ area where almost without exception ‘basic science’ can only deliver and validate concepts rather than real proof of concept. Without partnership between investors at ‘angel’ and ‘venture capital’ levels and either the pharmaceutical industry, philanthropic organisations or Government via ‘public-private’ partnerships, this is going to continue to be challenging, particularly in areas in which investment returns (if any) are likely to be very long term . The timescales to develop successful treatments can be long. E.g. it can take up to 20 years to translate a ‘molecule with promise’ to a drug ready for clinical use. However, this is the area where the UK as a whole and Scotland in particular could and should be internationally competitive. The Scottish Ecosystem for Precision Medicine and the Stratified Medicine Innovation Centre, both housed at the University of Glasgow, are an example of such “triple helix” partnership, where big pharma (Astra Zeneca), a large diagnostic company (ThermoFisher Diagnostics) and several life sciences SMEs collaborate with four Universities and four academic Health Boards across Scotland. This £20 million public-private partnership delivers informatics platforms, safe health data linkage, and precision medicine trial design. The adoption of this work to the NHS will result in major health gains for the entire population as well as major savings to the NHS drug bill and a significant reduction of adverse drug reactions. The adoption of precision medicine will put UK at the forefront of industry-driven innovation world-wide.
The Innovation Centres in Scotland are an exemplar of how industry-led partnerships with academia and the NHS can be supported and stimulated. The Stratified Medicine Scotland Innovation Centre is one of eight Innovation Centres funded jointly by industry and the Scottish Funding Council with the objective of supporting transformational collaboration between universities and businesses, turning innovation into commercial value and making Scotland and the UK more competitive. The recent independent review of the Innovation Centres by Professor Graeme Reid (http://www.sfc.ac.uk/Priorities/Innovation/IndependentICReview/ICReview.aspx) endorsed the success of the Innovation Centres but recognised that public funding would be required for a minimum of ten years to ensure emphasis on economic impact and strategic thinking rather than income generation. His review clearly supports long-term funding for such public-private partnerships with a central role for Universities.
The establishment of UKRI brings an opportunity to support industry-academic collaborations in a more flexible and agile way, to ensure that our world-leading research is translated to patient benefit and economic growth for the whole of the UK.
2. Why has the UK underperformed in turning basic research in the life sciences into intellectual property? What needs to be done to address this historic weakness in the UK and grow new companies to commercialise new research and related technologies in the life sciences?
There is wide ranging evidence to support the proposition that a strong science base is valuable to a nation’s economy. However, the UK R&D spend as a percentage of GDP is lower than many countries, and is decreasing (NCUB report, 2016). Industry and universities (together with the NHS) need to be supported to work together rather than in silos, to facilitate knowledge exchange within collaborative communities to unlock IP and generate economic outcomes, optimising industry pull vs research push. As in question 1, current funding mechanisms are not sufficiently flexible or agile enough to achieve that. The establishment of UKRI should enable industry-academic collaborations to be supported in a more flexible way, to ensure that our world-leading research is translated to economic growth for the whole of the UK.
In addition, we should focus on areas of strength that the UK can lead on globally, and translate that to economic development. Glasgow’s strengths in precision medicine, and our hosting of the Stratified Medicine Scotland Innovation Centre, have led to inward investment of companies from Germany, Singapore and California in the last year. These companies brought skills to the UK not available elsewhere, and are creating high value jobs in the local area (with a combined GVA estimated to exceed £100m). However, there is little joined-up support available to help the University in achieving this. By supporting areas of regional excellence such as precision medicine, including the academic science base, we can attract inward investment, deliver savings for the NHS, and grow new companies within the supply chain. The NHS is a key partner and benefactor, as precision medicine will reduce the drugs bill by providing effective treatments to individuals (thereby removing the costs of ineffective ‘trial and error’ medicine) , and also by reducing costly adverse reactions to drugs.
Finally, Universities need to be supported to translate their world class science into impact. The REF is now providing a driver for this, and the Research Councils (notably the BBSRC through its Excellence with Impact competition) are encouraging the translation of science. However, this is still a culture change for many academics, and we need to develop the soft infrastructure, including entrepreneurship skills for research students and academic staff, to support academic researchers in this regard.
3. What can be done to ensure the UK has the necessary skills and manpower to build a world class life sciences sector, both within the research base and the NHS?
Firstly, as an exemplar, the Scottish Funding Council provided funding for industry-led PGT courses to address industry requirements and skills gaps. This funding enabled the development of a pan-Scottish MSc in stratified medicine and pharmacological innovation, in which all students undertake a placement in industry. The funding recognised that stratified/precision medicine is a new science and graduates with general life sciences degrees were not ‘industry ready’ in this quickly developing area. The course, which has been award-winning, could be used as a model for other areas.
Secondly, there are some skills which the UK doesn’t have, and we need to be able to recruit these from overseas prior to growing our own. Brexit discussions need to be informed by the importance of this. As an example, we recruited an expert academic RF Coil Engineer from Germany this year, who develops prototype coils for 7T MRI scanners. He has now set up a company in Glasgow, which will be employing locally recruited technical staff, and will be transferring skills to both staff and students.
Both these exemplars demonstrate ways in which we can ensure that the UK has the necessary skills and manpower to build a world class life sciences sector.
4. How does the UK compare to other countries in this sector, for example Germany and the United States?
Germany is currently the third highest country for R&D spend as a percentage of GDP, and this has grown by 33% since 1997 (NCUB report, 2016). This compares to the UK’s 13th position, with a decrease of 0.6% over the same period. R&D spend in the US is even higher than Germany. Also, the UK is not be prioritising our strengths and healthcare needs as much as other countries – the US, for example, is discussing major resources for precision medicine, currently estimated to cost $4.3Bn over ten years (21st Century Cures Act, NIH 2017), which should also be a priority for the UK. Despite the significant levels of funding in the US, however, they do not have an equivalent to the NHS and so cannot deliver the enormous benefits that we have the potential to do in the UK.
Industrial Strategy
5. What can be learnt from the impact of the 2011 UK Life Sciences Strategy? What evidence is there that a strategy will work for the life sciences sector? How can its success be measured against its stated objectives?
The 2011 UK Life Sciences Strategy was very positive in that it specified key priorities, such as Stratified Medicine, and specific actions to make it easier to commercialise academic research. This flowed through to priorities for the MRC and Innovate UK. Unfortunately, the Precision Medicine Catapult was not a success, although that was most likely due to poor management decisions rather than the principle being wrong. The strategy also had too much emphasis on England (AHSCs, NIHR, BRCs, apprenticeships etc.), and closer working with the devolved administrations will be essential to truly develop UK-wide excellence.
6. (If published) Does the strategy contain the right recommendations? What should it contain/what is missing? How will the life sciences strategy interact with the wider industrial strategy, including regional and devolved administration strategies? How will the strategies be coordinated so that they don’t operate in ‘silos’?
The Life Sciences Industrial Strategy was published on 30th August. Despite being one of Scotland’s main life sciences universities, the University of Glasgow was not invited to contribute to the strategy (and the membership of the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Board isn’t stated).
Our brief comments are:
7. What opportunities for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are there/should there be in the strategy? How can they be involved in its development and implementation?
SMEs are crucial to the economy – for the development of life sciences clusters, the supply chain for new technologies, the development of new skills, and the agility to translate science and innovation into marketable products. SMEs should be supported to engage collaboratively with universities and the NHS. Economic Development Agencies and Innovate UK need to be agile to support SMEs, and also understand that small companies are not always sufficiently resourced to respond to funding calls. In that regard, strong encouragement to partner with universities can be mutually beneficial.
8. Where should the funding come from to support the implementation of the strategy?
R&D spend in the UK is lower than many countries (see Q4), and should be increased. The Scottish model for Innovation Centres, funded by government and industry, provides an exemplar of co-funding which is driving innovation and economic growth. The recommendations of the Reid Review of Innovation Centres (see Q1) recognised that public funding should be provided for a minimum of ten years to ensure emphasis on economic impact and strategic thinking rather than income generation.
9. How do the devolved administrations and city regions fit into the strategy? Scotland has its own life sciences strategy, how will the two interact?
This is a crucial question, and it is vital that delivery of the strategy encompasses the devolved administrations (including NHS), and not just England. Ensuring a joined-up approach with Scotland should be a priority for both Governments. We are concerned that much of the delivery in the strategy, as it stands, seems to be focused on England, with only a small part of the 70-page document acknowledging Scotland’s strengths in life sciences. It is not clear from the ‘Scotland box’ on page 41 (which uses words such as ‘hopes to work with’), how much Scotland has been involved in the strategy’s development and how the two strategies will work together.
In a similar vein, the city regions and ‘City Deals’ can provide a valuable vehicle for supporting regional strengths, which in turn benefit the whole of the UK. The Glasgow City Region City Deal included two innovation projects which support economic growth in the life sciences sector, albeit as a minor part of a much larger City Deal.
NHS procurement and collaboration
10. How can public procurement, in particular by the NHS, be an effective stimulus for innovation in the Life Sciences Sector? Can it help support emerging businesses in the Life Sciences sector?
The NHS has an important role to play as both a driver for innovation and a market for innovative technologies, treatments and products. The NHS is arguably the biggest stakeholder for the development of precision medicine, with the potential not only for patient benefit but for very significant savings to the increasingly unaffordable spend on medicines. The NHS is a very attractive market for SMEs, e.g. diagnostics companies. In Scotland, the single NHS commissioning body is a significant factor for inward investment by med-tech companies. Therefore NHS procurement could be a very effective stimulus for economic development and innovation. Note that in this case, the life sciences sector should also include non-traditional life sciences companies, including engineering, computing science etc.
As stated above, the devolved healthcare administrations need to be equally engaged and supported. In addition, it should be recognised that our best health care innovations are often developed in partnership with academics – the triple helix of industry, academia and NHS is a strength of the UK which should be supported.
11. How can the recommendations of the Accelerated Access Review be taken forward alongside the strategy? Will the recent changes to the NHS England approval process for drugs have a positive or negative effect on the availability of new and innovative treatments in the NHS? How can quick access to new treatments and the need to provide value for money be reconciled?
The Accelerated Access Review and NHS England approval process should not be at the core of the UK-wide strategy. It is an important policy issue which should be resolved directly with NHS England.
12. How can collaboration between researchers and the NHS be improved, particularly in light of increased fiscal pressures in the NHS? Will the NHS England research plan help in this regard? How can the ability of the NHS to contribute to the development of and adopting new technology be improved?
The UK’s leading health care innovations are often developed in partnership with academic researchers and academic clinician scientists – such collaborations are driving the development of precision medicine and advances in ultra-high field imaging, as well as innovative academic-led clinical trials. Such research collaborations produce high value IP, driving economic returns for the UK. The triple helix of industry, academia and NHS is a strength of the UK which should be strongly supported through flexible and agile funding.
As previously stated, the devolved NHS administrations need to be equally engaged and supported. There is no consideration within the strategy as to how NHS Scotland could and should contribute.
Responsibility and accountability?
13. Who should take responsibility for the implementation of the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy and to whom should they be accountable? What should the UK Government’s role be? What should the role of the academic, charitable and business sectors be?
The establishment of UKRI provides an ideal vehicle for the delivery of the strategy, by ensuring that the Research Councils and Innovate UK respond to priorities and support industry-academic collaborations in a more flexible and agile way. However, UKRI will need to ensure that the strategy serves the whole of the UK, to ensure that our world-leading research is translated to patient benefit and economic growth for the whole of the UK.
The Government (or Governments) should support the strategy with increased R&D funding for agreed priorities. An exemplar (mentioned above) is the Scottish Government’s role in creating and supporting the Innovation Centres and also the skills training programmes sitting alongside. The Innovation Centres are co-funded with industry, and are already driving innovation and economic growth. Industry and universities (together with the NHS) need to be supported to work together rather than in silos, and this could include the charitable sector. This open partnership working will facilitate knowledge exchange and optimise the balance of industry pull vs research push.
In addition, further support for infrastructure development (e.g. through an extension of UKRPIF) would help to facilitate the open innovation partnerships between universities and industry through co-location.
14. What is the role of companies within the sector, particularly the large pharmaceutical companies, in the implementation of the strategy? How are they accountable for its success?
Many of the large pharmaceutical companies, and other global life sciences companies, are increasingly partnering with universities to accelerate the translation of science into new medicines, products and services. Examples within Glasgow are the ‘GlAZgo Discovery Centre’ with AstraZeneca, and our partnership with ThermoFisher in the development of the Stratified Medicine Scotland Innovation Centre. Both of these partnerships are exemplars for driving innovation and accelerating the creation of IP.
15. Does the Government have the right structures in place to support the life science sector? Is the Office of Life Sciences effective? Should the Government appoint a dedicated Life Sciences Minister? If so, should that Minister have UK-wide or England-only responsibilities?
The life sciences sector is characterised by very high level of productivity, and in combination with the excellence of our research base, this is a sector that is and should be extremely successful and world leading. The very existence of the NHS and the electronic health data is placing us at a big advantage world-wide. To be successful, the strategy has to be UK-wide and truly embrace the excellence in all Devolved Administrations. A dedicated Life Sciences Minister would be an ideal solution to achieve this.
Brexit
16. What impact will Brexit have on the Life Sciences sector? Will the strategy help the sector to mitigate the risks and take advantage of the opportunities of Brexit?
Brexit will have a massive impact on the Life Sciences sector. We are currently reliant on free movement of people to develop pan-European research networks, recruit skills to the UK, share the use of major scientific infrastructure, and attract world-leading international researchers to the country. We are already facing retention issues with non-UK European staff, who are very fearful of the impact of Brexit – and who are being actively recruited by other EU countries. In addition, the UK currently has leadership of many large EU programmes and networks, and our future role in these programmes will be significantly diminished. We therefore strongly support the strategy’s recommendation that a migration system be developed to allow rapid recruitment and retention of skilled workers from the EU and beyond.
17. How should the regulatory framework be changed or improved after Brexit to support the sector?
Brexit could present an opportunity for the UK to gain competitive advantage by reforming regulation and taxation. It is important for that opportunity to support the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy, for example by ensuring that universities are not penalised by paying VAT on buildings which are shared with industrial partners.
18. To what extent should the UK remain involved with and contribute to agencies such as the EMA post Brexit?
We agree with the strategy’s recommendation that the focus during Brexit should be on delivering the best decision-making for patient safety, and the UK and EU must continue to work closely together (not least to ensure that the UK can retain its leadership and participation in multi-centre European trials). The strategy’s comments regarding the importance of data sharing are also welcomed. This is an area which is increasingly important to research collaborations across large European networks.
11 September 2017