Quadram Institute Bioscience – Written evidence (LSI0020)

Question 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?

While tax breaks (and share incentive schemes) do exist for investors, private-sector investors would be incentivised to invest more in the basic life science sector if these were further enhanced. If the government were to share the risk it would help the sector (as per Innovate UK/VC joint projects). It is not just about the science, which must of course be excellent, but also the science/business culture and the environment wherein the science takes place. We need more science hubs that genuinely engage with business, support spin-out companies, and provide the right environment, culture and infrastructure to de-risk the translation of innovation into treatments – both for investors and the scientists/clinicians delivering the innovation. For the life science sector (and other innovation-driven industries) we need to provide a “low-risk environment to do a high-risk job”. Currently the majority of science hubs (with the exception of a few centred around London, Cambridge and Oxford) fall short of providing this environment. A scientist in academia is unlikely to risk leaving a safe post to work with a small company unless, in doing so, they become part of a well-supported community/ecosystem of like-minded scientists and start-up companies. These companies need to be co-located and integrated together to provide a pipeline for translation of innovation into impact, and where interactions between science, business and finance are facilitated and rewarded. This also requires first-class infrastructure to support the science, not just state-of-the-art laboratories but close proximity between colleagues from different disciplines and backgrounds to foster dialogue. Furthermore, direct high-speed transport links are required to connect hubs and facilitate collaboration. An Oxford-Cambridge rail link is in discussion – but how would this link to science parks? Could there be a fast connection between Cambridge and Norwich, to allow the over-crowded Cambridge area to expand outwards into other high-quality science parks in East Anglia? Development of these nucleating centres will require a step change in culture where the rules change and the delivery of impact is valued as highly as academic kudos; it has real potential to increase private-sector investment and accelerate translation of innovative science into practice.

Question 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?

At one level the UK has not underperformed in turning basic research into IP and businesses, and there are numerous excellent examples where the UK has led the world (e.g. in the field of DNA sequencing that has driven the development of genome-based-medicine - both Sanger-type, Illumina-NextGen, semiconductor NextGen and Pore-based NextGen (e.g. Oxford Nanopore) sequencing were all developed in the UK; and Cambridge is  the world centre for antibody companies, developing on from the discovery by  Milstein and first commercialised by CAT). However, as developments in the life sciences are becoming more dependent on interdisciplinary skills, we should always endeavour to increase performance even more – but how best to achieve this goal? Greater investment is required and that can be achieved by providing a culture that promotes and supports innovation and is thus rewarded by innovation (see my response to question 1); money follows money.

Question 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?

Science is international; to deliver world-class science the UK must attract, recruit and retain the most skilled people from around the world. If the UK is to be attractive to these exceptional people it must provide excellent facilities and resources and not penalise those who are crossing borders to contribute their expertise to the advancement of UK science and impact. It is short-sighted to consider that only the research base itself requires support. Extra support is required for all the individual elements that contribute to successful research including interactions with clinical scientists and the NHS. We need to provide a supporting environment, culture and infrastructure (as described in the response to question 1). Culturally, the NHS has to put patient care as a priority, consequently, in order to help develop innovation the NHS needs to increase funding for those components of the organisation that are leading on/supporting innovation.

Question 4: How does the UK compare to other countries in this sector, for example Germany and the United States?

There is no shortage of good ideas in the UK; we have more Nobel Laureates than any other country in Europe. It seems that we do not do as well when it comes to translating that revolutionary innovation into big business. UK business ambition appears to be risk-limited – science based company strategies can often be short-term with the aim of selling out relatively early. UK business culture/ethos grows companies until they are big enough and successful enough to be bought out by a bigger, usually non-UK, company (e.g. from Japan, USA, Germany) rather than having the motivation and confidence to develop further and become the big players themselves. Understanding why this culture persists and de-risking it may go some way to changing it. It may be that businesses are pushed into an early sale by investors – could fiscal measures be used to incentivise investors who hold onto their investments longer?

Question 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?

Improved collaboration and 360-degree dialogue and feedback between researchers and the NHS can also be achieved by physically bringing them together and providing a “low-risk environment to do a high-risk job” as described in the response to question 1. In particular synergy and efficiency is achieved by co-locating researchers, clinicians and NHS practitioners together within purpose-built hubs alongside spin-out companies and with the support of personnel with finance, IP and business skills. The new Quadram Institute (QI) in Norwich exemplifies this approach as it provides this essential new interface for research teams from the Institute of Food Research (IFR), with others from the University of East Anglia, as well as the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital’s regional gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. This approach facilitates fundamental and translational food and health research alongside clinical studies, endoscopy and industry, combining scientific excellence and clinical expertise, thus delivering better patient care and accelerating innovation.

Question 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?

It is clear that, while there will likely be some advantages associated with Brexit (new business opportunities, trade links and science interactions), overall its impact will be disastrous if Brexit restricts free movement of high-quality scientists and personnel. Access to this highly-skilled talent-pool is a requirement that all advanced economies need to be competitive and world-leading. Failure to access this pool will likely have a serious negative impact on the UKPLC and it remains to be seen how effective the recent announcement of the ‘Rutherford Awards’ will be in attracting overseas talent. Talented people will want to bring their partners and families – so incentives and visas to ensure this happens is key – visas for scientists alone will likely only work for young unattached workers. Furthermore, it is essential that the UK Government finds a mechanism to compensate for the substantial grant money that could be lost when EU schemes, like Horizon 2020, are no longer available to the UK. Without money from UK Government to match the shortfall, science funding will be insufficient.

14 September 2017