Francis Crick Institute – Written evidence (LSI0018)

 

  1. The Francis Crick Institute (‘the Crick’) has a mission to discover the biology underlying human health. The institute was formed as the result of a partnership between a UK government funding agency (the MRC), two charities (Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust), and three leading universities (UCL, Imperial College and King’s College). The Crick commenced operations in 2015, and moved to its new premises at London St Pancras in late 2016. At the heart of the Crick’s philosophy is a commitment to support the highest quality science, with an emphasis on multi and inter-disciplinary approaches to biomedicine. The Crick is a discovery research institute with an international focus, which aspires to make translation an integral part of its culture.

 

  1. The Crick is pleased to respond to this inquiry. We have focused our comments on three of the areas identified by the committee: science and innovation, the industrial strategy and Brexit.

 

Science and innovation

 

  1. It is often stated that the UK excels in basic life sciences research, but underperforms in translation and commercialisation. One response to this has been the introduction of new funding streams to support translation and applied research, such as the Biomedical Catalyst fund. These new funding streams are welcome, but must be carefully designed if they are to meet their objective to improve translation of discovery science. Particular care must be taken with regard to supporting early stage translational research, which aims to bridge between basic scientific discovery and the development of specific applications. The general objective of such research is to expand the knowledge base in a certain area to a point where more directed development work becomes possible. However, because the outcome of research activities may turn out to be different from what was originally proposed, it is essential for the research team to have the flexibility and freedom to change direction in response to new data, ideas or hypotheses that emerge. This may require revisiting the original objective or the means of achieving it. Funding mechanisms should be broadly scoped, allowing flexibility to facilitate changes in direction where results indicate this is necessary. If an overly directed approach is applied — focused too strongly on achieving a specific objective rather than gaining knowledge relevant for that objective — there is a risk of distorting the scientific process and failing to deliver the desired translation objectives.

 

  1. Where research is close to the point of application it is more appropriate to adopt a goal-oriented approach, but this is only likely to succeed if underpinned by a well-developed and high-quality knowledge base. Putting in place effective structures to bring together expertise from academic research and industry will assist in identifying the right objectives, opportunities and priorities.

 

  1. Discovery, translation and applied research should not be thought of as wholly distinct, or unidirectional. Fundamental discoveries may be made in the course of applied research and applications may emerge from discovery research. As knowledge transfer can occur in all directions it is important to foster connections between the different types of research and the different types of research organisations involved in them, allowing ready exchange of ideas, skills and people. An ‘ecosystem’ approach to innovation should be pursued, where there is effective symbiosis between large pharma, biotech, academic research and the investment community. There is a need for the right skills embedded in the academic environment so that discovery science with potential for translation and development of IP can be identified and nurtured. Developing a cohort of people with fluency in the languages and cultures of both research and business/finance is key, and requires investment in training and incentives for greater movement between industry and academia.

 

  1. The Crick is developing new ways of working with industry, focused on the principle of ‘open science’. Partnerships with GSK and AstraZeneca are enabling Crick scientists to engage in collaborative discovery projects with their industrial colleagues, sharing knowledge and expertise, but with broadly defined objectives and no automatic rights to follow on IP. Research activity can be hosted by either partner and free movement of people and ideas is encouraged. This can be contrasted with the approach to industrial partnerships adopted by some technology transfer offices, which have tended to focus on protection of IP and securing early financial returns for the institution, with the risk that successful research translation becomes a secondary objective. The Crick takes a long-term view of its translation activities, focused on identifying the right partners who can help bring about the most efficient pathway to translation.

 

Life Sciences Industrial Strategy

 

  1. The Crick supports the overall objectives of the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy. We note that the strategy acknowledges the importance of links between biomedicine and physical science disciplines, but is silent on the relationship between biomedicine and other biological disciplines (plant science, agricultural science, novel production using engineered organisms etc.). Such links are crucial and should be given greater emphasis, particularly as these areas will also contribute to the UK’s future economic development.

 

  1. The strategy suggests that funders should create mechanisms to support ‘high risk’ science. The Crick supports the need for bold and ambitious research programmes that address important questions and societal challenges, but there is no point in pursuing research just because it is risky. Risk can be minimised by identifying outstanding scientific leaders, providing them with the appropriate resources, and empowering them to pursue excellence with a minimum of constraints.

 

  1. Effective innovation in the life sciences requires sustained and coordinated investment in discovery, translation and applied research. While the UK research base is both excellent and highly productive, investment in research falls well behind the OECD average. The Crick therefore supports the Strategy’s objective to sustain and increase UK funding for basic science, with an aspiration to be in the upper quartile of OECD R&D spending over the next five years. In fact, we consider that it is important to increase investment across the research spectrum, from discovery to application research. The Crick provides a good example of how the institute environment, with strong technical cores and structured support for scientific training and career development, can produce research which is both high quality and highly productive. Core-funded institutes are well placed to pursue the sort of ambitious long-term research programmes proposed in the Strategy.

 

  1. Amongst the other objectives, the Crick particularly supports the proposals related to supporting the growth of life science clusters and networks, and promoting the movement of skilled people.

 

Brexit

 

  1. Brexit has the potential to have a negative impact on the life science sector by reducing permeability and flexibility. It is also damaging the UK’s reputation with the rest of the world, because of the inward and backward-looking messages that it conveys. There are also concerns that Brexit is opposed by a majority of younger members of UK society, who are the engines who will drive the economy forward in the future, particularly in research. To mitigate this impact several objectives are important:
  1. We must be able to recruit and retain the very best scientists, whatever country they come from.
  2. Movement from country to country must be simple in order to enable the collaboration between scientists that is essential for discovery science.
  3. We must negotiate the best possible access to EU research funding. 
  4. We must change the messages we are sending to the rest of the world, which will damage the UK’s ability to perform well in research in the future.

 

  1. The current system for non-EU immigration system imposes significant compliance costs on individuals and employers and extending this type of approach to EEA migration would be a mistake. In particular, the assumption that a foreign national should only be recruited once all efforts have been made to identify a suitable British applicant is antithetical to the aspiration to create a world-leading life sciences sector, which requires the UK to attract the best scientific talent from all over the world. It is difficult to find the highest quality talent, even when searching throughout the entire world, and when outstanding people are identified there should be no artificial barriers in place that inhibit recruitment. High fees, complex and lengthy application processes, constraints on the ability to settle in the UK, or to bring accompanying family members, are all factors that will reduce the UK’s ability to compete successfully for top talent.

 

14 September 2017