Bristol BioDesign Institute (BBI) – Written evidence (LSI0027)
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?
To encourage increased investment in the life sciences the Government could: (1) provide public funding to de-risk private investment funds (similar to the Rainbow Seed Fund); (2) provide specific support for those with an idea to generate proof of principle and bridge the so called “valley of death”; (3) encourage a greater geographical distribution of venture capital investment; and (4) use public sector and NHS procurement to drive demand for innovative products and services.
Investment in the sector has been lacking because of: (1) the much greater cost and time to market for life sciences products and services vs software or consumer start-ups; (2) the smaller and more risk adverse investment scene in the UK vs the US; (3) the reduction in R&D spending in the large UK life sciences companies; and (4) regulatory barriers, especially around GM crops.
Infrastructure is currently sufficient, but the rapid increase in the use of automation and rise of industry 4.0 is likely to necessitate large investments to ensure that the research base remains competitive on the international stage.
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?
It is probably unfair to state that the UK has broadly underperformed at turning basic science into IP. Per £ spent, the UK actually performs very well in metrics such as number of start-up companies. One paramount issue is that the UK massively under-invests in research with less than 1.8% of GDP spent on research. This is significantly less than the OECD average of 2.4% or the spending of world leaders in innovation such as the US and Germany which spend 2.8% and 2.9% respectively. The other issue the UK faces it that it has a poor track record of converting SMEs into large multinational companies. This is partly a reflection of the size and aspiration of UK venture capital; e.g. in the UK the aim is to build £100M companies, in the US the aim is to build $1Bn companies.
In addition, the following other issues need to be addressed: (1) the need for high-risk capital, including at early-stage; (2) the need for facilities to incubate new life sciences companies; (3) the need to create conditions that allow SMEs access to large potential markets like the NHS.
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?
The following skills gaps in the life science sector need to be addressed: (1) entrepreneurship training; and (2) programming and the use of automation. In addition, there needs to be easy access to innovation ecosystems which innovators access for local training, mentoring, capital, funding, facilities. Finally, free movement of people will be essential to ensure that UK life science has access to the best brains, movers and shakers from around the world.
4. How does the UK compare to other countries in this sector, for example Germany and the United States?
The quality of basic and applied life sciences research in the UK is as good as or better than leading countries like the US and Germany, notably per £ spent. The major differences are: (1) as noted above, much greater national spending on R&D as a percentage of GDP; (2) much lower equity demands by Universities (typically 5% in the US vs a staggering 30-50% in the UK); (3) in Germany, a much more stable Government with certainty about access to markets and regulation.
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 only action I can comment on is the biomedical catalyst, which was a highly effective mechanism to support translation. In general, science strategies work only if and where there is specific and sufficient funding to implement them. For example, the UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap was successfully implemented because it was backed by the Synthetic Biology for Growth Programme. To monitor the success of a strategy requires a board or leadership council.
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’?
No comments
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?
There should be significant provision for SMEs as they have a much greater growth potential than large established industries. In addition, pharma is increasingly looking to SMEs as a source of innovation. To ensure that the voice of SMEs are heard, they need to be represented on decision making boards and leadership councils.
8. Where should the funding come from to support the implementation of the
strategy?
The Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund.
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?
No comments
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?
SBRIs have been an effective mechanism in the past and should be expanded.
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?
No comments
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? Responsibility and accountability?
No comments
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?
There needs to be a board or leadership council with Ministerial level representation to take ownership for the actions of the strategy. It would be accountable to the Ministries of Health, BEIS and the Treasury. All of the sectors named should be represented on the board as well as funders, government, regulators and patient groups.
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?
Large multinationals need to be represented on the board / leadership council that delivers the strategy. However, responsibility for delivery of the objectives should be much broader. If multinational companies were the only delivery agents then there would be a risk that support would favour existing industry rather than new disruptive companies.
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?
A Minister for Life Sciences could be helpful, but only if they had a clear mandate and it was clear what the boundaries were between this post and other Ministers at BEIS and the Ministry of Health.
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?
17. How should the regulatory framework be changed or improved after Brexit to support the sector?
18. To what extent should the UK remain involved with and contribute to agencies such as the EMA post Brexit?
14 September 2017