GARNet – Written evidence (LSI0060)

1. GARNet is a BBSRC-funded community network that acts as an advocate and supporter of plant science research in the UK and worldwide. The network has existed for over 15 years and is funded until 2020. GARNet is overseen by a group of twelve UK academic plant scientists who are elected by their peers. We are a respected voice for academic plant scientists in the UK, particularly those involved in the type of fundamental research that underpins future translation of knowledge into crop species or bioproduct pipelines. Our primary goal is to ensure that the plant science community remains competitive and productive at the national and international level.

2. We are concerned that the framing of the suggested questions for this consultation are very focused on the medical and pharmaceutical sciences. Although this part of the sector is a vital component of the UK life science strategy, the UK also has enormous expertise in other non-medical areas, including plant and agricultural sciences. These research areas represent a key component of the life science sector that contributes significantly to the UK economy. This is true both in the process of discovery and also as part of our future ability to provide food with high nutritional value. This is particularly relevant during the response to the coming challenges in food security, climate change and Brexit. It is vital that the extensive life science research base in the UK is fully exploited and utilized and that it engages actively with UK industry to drive forward an ambitious, creative life science sector.

3. Therefore our answers will reflect GARNet’s focus on academic plant sciences. However we feel they are also relevant to issues across the life sciences sector.

4. The UK plant science community will rely on improvements in a number of key areas in order to maintain its current excellence on a global level.

5. In summary these areas are:
1. Expanding current funding mechanisms and establishing new routes to funding in order to support the type of basic discovery research that underpins crop improvement and generation of novel plant-based products.

2. Creation of innovative pipelines that support the movement of research from the lab to the field or the production facility.

3. Ensure mechanisms are put in place to provide follow-on support for infrastructural projects in order to gain added value from those initial investments. This is currently particularly important in support of research involving use of big data, synthetic biology, technology platforms such as plant phenotyping or in the production of novel plant-based products.

4. Encourage a move toward regulatory policies that are strictly evidence-based, both in the UK and internationally. This is critical for establishing the UK as an attractive location for external investment in technologies relevant for the production of food, feed and plant-based products.

5. Improve the visibility of plant science through the education and training across all ages. This is critical for creating a skilled and knowledgeable workforce trained in all aspects of plant science.

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?

6. Although this question is focused toward the medical advances, it is critical to encourage investment in other areas of UK life sciences as an important component of future strategy.

7. UK plant science has enormous potential, which is in part based upon its strengths in discovery-led research and within the Agritech sector. The UK takes a leading role in the use of new breeding technologies, including gene editing and use of marker-assisted breeding. These can be used to generate novel varieties that will secure the future of both UK and global food and nutritional security. In addition, plants represent a source of untapped potential given the possible exploitation of a myriad of currently undiscovered chemical compounds that might have pharmaceutical, nutritional and practical benefits.

Maintain and increase support for basic research

8. At GARNet we believe that the creation of new forms of intellectual property, as evidenced from the past, is underpinned by support for basic research. Improving an understanding of fundamental process on the molecular, cellular and systems level will lead to downstream innovations that benefit the life science sector. Researchers at Lancaster University have recently provided an example of this in which improving an understanding of germination led to development of seed treatments to increase whole plant disease resistance[1]. Elsewhere the collaboration between the University of Oxford and Rothamsted Research has built upon fundamental research in carbohydrate chemistry and developed a plant growth treatment that has the potential to improve yields[2].

9. Currently the majority of support for basic plant science research comes through BBSRC responsive mode funding. It is critically important that this type of funding is maintained and where possible expanded, so that fundamental research is not overlooked in favour of funding that is directed toward more applied work. The current funding landscape for UK agricultural research is healthy with numerous initiatives directly supporting crop improvement and farm-facing research programs[3],[4]. There are also growing funding opportunities to apply our extensive knowledge of applied plant science to grand challenges in developing countries. However the long-term effectiveness of these programs will be negatively impacted if we slow the pace of discovery-based research. Without a fundamental understanding of living systems we impact our ability to develop plants with enhanced disease resistance, improved yields, resilience to climate change, improved architecture or understand the biochemical pathways that generate high-value compounds from plant cells.

10. Importantly it is not just plant science but every sector of life science research that relies upon support for discovery-led research. Therefore ensuring that there exists a general strategy that supports this type of research in both the short and long term will benefit the entire sector.

Encourage evidence-based regulatory policies

11. Investment in UK plant and crop science suffers from current EU policies that control the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Broadly these regulations legislate on both perceived risk and the basis of the mode of production of GMOs and not on the end result of the modification (i.e. technological process rather than product). Such EU-wide policies have discouraged investment that relies upon these type of technologies in the UK.

12. Therefore it is key that the UK develops a regulatory environment that is evidence-based and thus predicated on the final product of any selection process. This is particular relevant with regard to gene editing technologies in which new plant varieties can be developed that contain no foreign genetic material and are therefore identical to varieties generated through conventional breeding. These types of regulations will encourage outside investment and potentially make the UK an attractive location for the development of new plant varieties.

13. Scientists at Rothamsted Research have developed a genetically modified variety of the oil crop Camelina sativa that contains omega-3 oils only usually found in certain fish[5]. This crop has enormous investment potential yet under the current regulations it cannot be grown in large scale field conditions in the EU. Any financial inputs into the commercial development of this crop risk occurring outside the UK. An example of this commercial emigration occurred during the development of a disease-resistant variant of potato by Professor Jonathan Jones at The Sainsbury Lab, Norwich. A US company has received approval to grow and sell this crop, something that is currently impossible in the UK[6].

Provide follow on support for infrastructure projects

14. Large-scale infrastructure projects are critical to support the Life Sciences. Over the past five years plant scientists have benefited from infrastructural grants that have supported provision for the analysis of ‘big data’, establishment of synthetic biology hubs or expanding plant phenotyping capabilities[7],[8],[9]. However these resources only provide value for the investment if funding mechanisms are in place to maximise their usage beyond the time of initial investment. Therefore an important part of life science strategy must be follow-on funding that is associated with new infrastructure projects. This will ensure that the impact of the resource is not diminished by the need to compete with responsive mode or other funding sources. As a prior decision was made to fund these large projects it makes financial sense, given continued scientific merit, to provide mechanisms for potential users to access funds to use these facilities. Isolated investment provides a short-term boost but without follow-on funding the added value to be gained from these investments might be lost.

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?

15. In order to maximise the potential of plants and plant-based products the UK requires significant investment to ease the transition from academic research to industrial scale production or farming. The BBSRC supported ‘Networks in Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy (NIBBs)’ focus on providing proof of concept (PoC) and Business Interaction Voucher (BIV) funding to encourage interactions between academics and SMEs. These funds have successfully mediated interactions that have the potential to lead to more established relationships[10]. We encourage an expansion of this type of innovative funding scheme both in the plant sciences and across other areas of the Life Science sector.

16. Current funding streams, predominantly distributed to the plant sciences by the BBSRC, have attempted to simultaneously provision fundamental, translational and applied plant sciences, with programmes such as InnovateUK funding later stages of product development. These funding streams are not sufficient to drive new commercialisation opportunities and contribute to a vibrant Life Science industry sector. There is a growing gap between basic plant research and commercialization. Specific initiatives have been successful in bridging this gap (for example, Diet and Health Research Industry Club, Horticulture and Potato Initiative) but these are few and far between.

17. The new Industry Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF) could play a key role in driving commercialisation of new research and technologies with a strategic portfolio of specific initiatives across the sector. Initiatives promoting and funding collaboration between UK academic labs with basic plant research expertise and industry with commercial expertise will be highly valued by industry as the academic research expertise is distinct from industrial R&D and early access to basic plant research findings provides invaluable competitive advantages for industry.

18.        We see the provision of dynamic knowledge exchange opportunities between industry and the academic research sector, and an emphasis on two-way exchange as vital to growing the life science industry sector. The development of career pathways within research institutes for knowledge exchange is likely to be critical for this, as well as innovative funding schemes such as KE talent mobility and further catalyst awards.

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?

19. Plant sciences are lagging behind many other parts of the life science sector due to a lack of teaching and training opportunities designed to bring people into this area. The teaching curriculum in both primary and secondary education does not provide adequate plant science content. This means students do not consider this area of the life sciences in terms of potential employment opportunities or when they envision examples of scientific excellence. Despite the efforts of the Gatsby Foundation funded Science and Plants for Schools (SAPS) program [and to a lesser extent the British Society of Plant Pathology] that has successfully increased the amount of plant science in the secondary curriculum, current higher education students rarely show an initial interest to investigate the research potential of plants, demonstrating that more efforts are needed earlier in the educational system to excite students about plant science.

20. Therefore a new approach is required to inspire teachers and students. By including exciting examples of innovative plant science in the national curriculum this will help to interest students who in turn will supply a work force who are keen to apply their intellectual talents to important questions surrounding the use of plant science for developing new crops or bioproducts.

21. We cannot overestimate the importance of talent mobility in both research and in ensuring economic and social impact from that research. It is essential that the UK maintains an open door to attracting global talent, and the funding landscape and flexibility and innovativeness of the funding landscape plays a significant part in that.

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

22. The UK plant sciences sector consists of many of the world’s foremost experts that are drawn to the UK by its wide knowledge base and high research potential. For example it ranks second when H index is used an assessment metric[11]. However, the UK ranks much less favourably for engagement with industry. Although strides forward have been made, other countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden that have strong plant science communities, have already made significant funding streams available that provide for stronger links between basic plant science research and industry. The development of such dedicated funding streams in the UK would ensure the future position of the UK as a leader in the plant sciences sector.

23. As mentioned above (paragraph 13), future external support for UK innovation and investment runs the risk of losing out to the USA and elsewhere (Brazil, China and India for example) in the development of technologies that rely on the field-grown genetically altered plants. Therefore upcoming decisions on regulatory policy regarding the use of new breeding technologies will play an important role in the attractiveness of the UK for investment into many aspects of plant science. As stated above, we support a change in the way in which novel crops are regulated, moving to a system of regulation that is based on the final product rather than its process of production. This will enable the UK to benefit from the commercial potential that results from discoveries that occur across all scales of plant science research.

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?

22. There are many aspects of the 2011 Life Science Strategy document that have had a positive impact on the plant sciences. These include a focus on synthetic biology, for which the OpenPlant consortium represents a cutting edge use of these design principles[12]. The NIBBs, instituted as part of the Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy (IBBE) strategy have been useful in facilitating the interactions between academics and SMEs[13]. The ELIXIR project has built digital infrastructure that has both directly and indirectly benefited plant scientists[14]. However as the document largely focuses on the medical sciences it is not a strategy that fully represents the breadth of talent across the entirety of the UK life sciences sector. It is hoped that in a new document, plant science and related disciplines will feature more prominently.

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?

23. Both Scotland and Wales contain universities and research Institutes that conduct high quality plant science, including the James Hutton Institute in Dundee, the Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) and the Institute of Biological, Environmental & Rural Sciences (IBERS) in Aberystwyth. While Scotland has its own life sciences strategy, much of plant science funding that these universities and research institutes receive are through UK-wide funding streams and therefore closely follow the UK life science strategy. Nonetheless, it is essential that the life science strategies of the devolved nations are aligned with the UK-wide strategy and vice versa to avoid research and bureaucratic impediments.

24. From the perspective of plant and agricultural sciences both the Scottish and Welsh governments have stated that they maintain the most restrictive stance concerning the growth of genetically modified organisms[15],[16]. In our view this might penalise academics and industrial partners in these regions if they are reluctant to allow the appropriate pilot studies or larger field trials. This will undoubtedly impact the flow of research funding and potential investment into these regions. Therefore we would support an inclusive UK wide policy that controls the use of crops generated using new breeding technologies.

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?

25. The most significant impact of Brexit on the entire life science sector comes from the potential loss of research funding, employment opportunities, knowledge exchange and scientific influence, as well as loss of mobility of top researchers. A recent international mobility study commissioned by The Royal Society[17] clearly indicates that researcher mobility should be a top priority in a post-Brexit UK to attract the very best scientists to the UK and to facilitate the exchange and realisation of collaborative ideas.

26. UK academics working in the areas of clinical medicine and biosciences obtain the highest income from EU funding, amounting to approximately £200 billion in 2014/2015[18]. Important sources of funding that are specifically obtained from the EU and not often well covered by RCUK funding include very large collaborative projects, such as the EMPHASIS plant phenotyping project[19] or the many individual investigator-led fellowships obtained through the European Research Council (ERC). Therefore any new relationships that are negotiated between the UK and EU must include opportunities for equivalent support. Defining the precise makeup of this relationship is outside the scope of this response but in general a reduction in levels of funding and in employment opportunities for EU citizens will be harmful for the entire UK life science sector.

27. As a consequence of Brexit, UK research is at risk of losing significant grant income from EU research programmes, including framework programmes such as Horizon 2020. Recent analyses of the role of EU funding across different UK research sectors indicates that while the medical science sector has significant alternative funding sources available, the non-medical sciences, including plant sciences, will be hit much harder by loss of access to EU programmes[20]. This is not only a loss in available funds for research per se, but more importantly also a loss in funds for collaboration and mobility in joint projects that provide added value to UK plant science research. With the majority of existing collaborations currently taking place within the Euro zone, Brexit is a real threat to the strong collaborative networks that UK plant scientists have established and hope to continue reaping the benefits of in future.

17. How should the regulatory framework be changed or improved after Brexit to support the sector?

28. The changing relationship between the UK and EU offers an opportunity to develop a legislative framework that is beneficial to the plant science sector. As outlined above (paragraph 11) a primary concern involves the regulation of plants generated through the new breeding technologies and their potential benefits. Altering UK policy in this area has the potential to add value to the successful discovery-led science that already occurs in the UK whilst simultaneously encouraging commercial interest that will bring inward investment.

29. However it is important to highlight that during the planning for any policy change it is critical that UK legislators continue to collaborate with international colleagues. This will ensure that products generated in the UK are available to a global market.

Conclusion

25. As a representative of UK academic plant scientists, GARNet would encourage an increased focus on plant science within the any new UK life science strategy. We feel this would highlight an area of life sciences that not only had commercial potential (with significant opportunities in industrial biotechnology and agri-food sector) but that can also improve health by lowering the barriers for the availability of nutritious food for the UK and global population.

15 September 2017