King’s College London – Written evidence (LSI0070)

Executive summary

1. We believe the existing Life Sciences strategy was a welcome development that helped cement the strategic importance of UK life sciences to the productivity and success of the NHS and the broader UK economy.

2. The Life Sciences Strategy launched in 2011 provided a roadmap to build on existing strengths, such as the Biomedical Research Centres, and also pursue new opportunities to develop greater capability in translational activity and key thematic areas such as genomics research. It also prompted a welcome increase in the support the life sciences sector received from Innovate UK, particularly through the jointly funded Biomedical Research Catalyst and the Catapult Network.

3. The Life Sciences Strategy also helped afford the Medical Research Council and NIHR relative protection in terms of their funding against the backdrop of wider public spending reductions. It also reaffirmed the strategic importance of the Francis Crick Institute.

4. The 2011 Life Sciences Strategy did miss an opportunity to do more to augment the role of the Academic Health Science Centres. We welcomed the development of the Academic Health Science Networks however.

5. In overall terms the 2011 Life Sciences strategy as a timely shot in the arm for the sector against a backdrop of economic uncertainty, and has helped facilitate greater levels of public, charitable and private sector investment and collaboration.

6.                                                     We are broadly supportive of the vision and recommendations set out in Sir John Bell’s review to establish a new Life Sciences Industrial Strategy. The proposed LSIS sets out an ambitious vision underpinned by clearly defined goals and supporting actions and milestones. It provides a positive road map for academic, clinical and commercial sector stakeholders to plan against.

7.                                                     We believe that it should have a 6th priority thematic challenge at its heart – Global reach, and set out rationale for why it needs to be explicitly stated as such in our response.

8. We agree with Sir John Bell’s arguments that in addition to supporting major national hub initiatives, there needs to be continued investment in a broad and balanced portfolio of funding for basic, applied and translational research. We believe that NIHR funding must be protected and increased in line with growth in Research Council funding over time.

9. We welcome the level of ambition shown by Sir John Bell and the Life Sciences Advisory Group in setting out a bold vision for HARP, and look forward to seeing the detail of how the Government would seek to support it, and what form and scope it would have, emerge.

10. We welcome the creation of UKRI and believe that it can play a critical role in strengthening the opportunities available for inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research in a broad range of contexts.

11. As the Government and UKRI look to strengthen the strategic research and innovation infrastructure needed to support a world-class life sciences sector, it is important to ensure major hubs have a strong degree of academic partner involvement and co-location or adjacency to a major university-enterprise cluster to the greatest extent possible.

12. We believe that dedicated funding streams should be attached to the Academic Health Science Centre designation to enable these sector-leading centres of excellence to meet their full potential.

13. We welcome the recommendation to set a target of a 50% increase in the number of clinical trials and the King’s Health Partners AHSC is well placed to play a key role in delivering this.

14. We believe it is important that the Government continues to invest in the STEM skills agenda at all levels of the system and are supportive of the development of a T-Level in Health and Science, and the principle that all young people should study some form of maths to 18. It is also vital that the Apprenticeship Levy is aligned to cohesively meet the needs of the diverse range of businesses in the UK life sciences sector.

Our views on the existing Life Sciences Strategy adopted in 2011

15. The development and implementation of the strategy was a very welcome development against the backdrop of an uncertain, challenging economic climate. It helped crystallise the strategic importance of the life sciences R&D and manufacturing base to the productivity of both the NHS and the UK economy.

16. The strategy provided a roadmap for a range of new developments aimed at increasing the UK’s strengths in the sphere of translational activity, and also placed an acute degree of focus on building UK capabilities in areas such as genomics research, an exciting nascent opportunity area.

17. The relative protection afforded to the Medical Research Council and NIHR since 2010, against the backdrop of wider public spending reductions, was a particularly welcome corollary of the status or credo the Life Sciences Strategy enjoyed as a key sector roadmap for the nascent UK industrial strategy after 2011.

18. The continued development of the Biomedical Research Centres was also welcome, and it is important that the Government continues to prioritise excellence in the decision-making process for the allocation of R&D resource.

19. A key missed opportunity in the 2011 Life Sciences Strategy, which carries across to the 2017 Life Sciences Industrial Strategy, was the failure to augment the role of the Academic Health Science Centres and provide dedicated resource budget to support novel discovery science and translational endeavour alongside the reputational prestige of securing the designation. We did however welcome the establishment of the Academic Health Sciences Network.

20. The 2011 Strategy paved the way for a considerable increase in the level of investment and practical support Innovate UK provided to the UK life sciences sector, especially at SME level, with its thematic share of total Innovate UK outlay growing notably over time.

21. Key developments included the establishment of several life sciences oriented Catapult Centres and a jointly run Biomedical Catalyst programme, through which the Medical Research Council and Innovate UK provides dedicated support for early-stage translational activity, have been welcome additions to the landscape. The Biomedical Catalyst in particular has helped unlock significant private sector co-investment on a four-fold basis above the core public investment.[1]

22. There are potential lessons to be learnt in relation to the lifecycle challenges and subsequent closure of the Precision Medicine Catapult but on the whole the Catapult programme has to date been a positive story in the context of life sciences, and King’s College London and King’s Health Partners are particularly proud of the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult Centre hosted at our Guy’s Hospital Campus.

23. The 2011 strategy also reaffirmed the strategic importance of the Francis Crick Institute. An already not inconsiderable long-term funding commitment from the Medical Research Council was enhanced, and the Government ensured UKTI and other arms of government placed a strong degree of focus on the benefits that will flow from the Francis Crick Institute as part of the Life Sciences Strategy.

24. The 2011 Life Sciences Strategy and the wider budgetary decisions taken by George Osborne in relation the science and research ring fence early on in the coalition government’s life span, must be credited for helping to provide reassurance to industry, against a backdrop of real economic uncertainty that led to continued investment in R&D infrastructure.

25. The role of the Government in helping to encourage AstraZeneca to rebase its global headquarters and significantly expand its R&D activity in the UK in particular should be commended.

26. The 2011 Life Sciences Strategy also established a national-level sector champion and Sir John Bell has performed very ably in this role, working to ensure the views of universities, NHS providers, industry and medical research charities were taken on board by Government and key public research funders. We encourage the Government to continue to have an identified sector champion in future.

27. The role played by George Freeman, both as a backbencher and latterly as a minister, in developing and championing the life sciences strategy also deserves credit. He and the other Department of Health and Business Department Ministers who have held portfolio responsibility for the life sciences since 2010 have shown real political energy and helped effectively fly the flag for the sector both domestically and internationally.

28. The decision to merge existing units to create a larger Office for Life Sciences, with a more dedicated focus on helping to develop and support international collaboration and inward investment opportunities was also a very welcome move.

29. In overall terms, the 2011 Strategy provided a shot in the arm to the sector in terms of helping facilitate greater levels of public, charitable and private sector investment and enhanced collaboration at a critical point of uncertainty in the UK economic climate. It has left the UK life sciences landscape in a good position as the Government looks to refresh its approach in line with the agreement of a new ‘sector deal’ as part of the UK Industrial Strategy.

Our views on the proposed 2017 Life Sciences Industrial Strategy in Sir John Bell’s review

The direction of travel set in the new 2017 Life Sciences Industrial Strategy:

30.                                                King’s College London is broadly supportive of the direction of travel and key recommendations set out in Sir John Bell’s review to refresh the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy (LSIS). The proposed LSIS sets out an ambitious vision underpinned by clearly defined goals and supporting actions and milestones. It provides a positive road map for academic, clinical and commercial sector stakeholders to plan against.

31.                                                The LSIS helpfully builds on – rather than radically reinvents – the key principles and policy approaches that featured in the 2011 Life Sciences Strategy.

32.                                                The 5 key thematic challenges Sir John Bell and his advisory group embedded at the heart of the LSIS are all critical success factors to the future success of the life sciences sector and the NHS in this country.

33.                                                We would argue that a 6th big strategic challenge would also be sensible to include, and define this as:

“Global reach - maintaining the international attractiveness, connectivity and influence of the UK as a world class hub for discovery, applied research, and innovation in the sphere of clinical excellence and life sciences.

Why does there need to be a clearer focus on global reach as a priority or key thematic challenge in the strategy?

34.                                                We make this recommendation in the context of the profound implications, and concomitant climate of uncertainty, surrounding the UK’s impending withdrawal from membership of the European Union.

35.                                                Although the point about maintaining and enhancing the UK-based life sciences sector’s connectivity is implicitly captured in the thematic challenge of “reinforcing the UK’s science offer”, we believe a more explicit statement of commitment is needed.

36.                                                The stakes of getting Brexit right are extremely high for the NHS, universities, the life sciences sector, and the UK economy more broadly.

37.                                                While we welcome the Government’s emphasis on developing a modern, outward-looking UK industrial strategy that aligns with and underpins the Prime Minister’s broader vision of a bigger economic, strategic and soft power footprint for ‘Global Britain’, there is a real risk that talent, IP, and private sources of resource and capital investment simply migrates to other R&D hotspots around the globe that are considered a safer medium-term bet.

38.                                                As a geographically small island-nation with modest natural resources, the UK’s economic progression has historically been driven by its ability to build strong global connections and carve out key competitive niches which it then concentrates on building real strength in depth in.

39.                                                We need a more aligned approach across Government – the UK’s industrial strategy framework will fall well short of its full potential if a more evidence-led and liberalised approach is not taken to the issue of managing skilled migration from EU and non-EU countries alike.

40.                                                The very welcome positions taken on the vitality of supporting researcher mobility in both the LSIS and the Government’s recent future partnership paper on collaboration in relation to science and innovation must be backed up by deed on the part of the Home Office and UKVI. To enable arrangements to support both short-term and extended research mobility work well in practice, stakeholders need to be listened to in both the design and implementation period to ensure teething issues do not undermine fruitful collaboration and sour links with valued international partners.

41.                                                The 2017 Spring Budget and the LSIS both set out welcome, significant ambitions in relation to increased global fellowship opportunities and attracting a greater supply of top-tier scientific talent to work in academic and commercial R&D settings.

42.                                                But the fine detail of immigration rules and, just as crucially, the impressions a government makes at the macro-level with its rhetoric about how it perceives immigration for the purposes of employment, have the potential to undermine these goals. We are already finding it more challenging to recruit talented global scientists and academic leaders to senior posts since the EU Referendum.

43.                                                We need to see the Government do more to publicly promote, through a campaign potentially, the message to international applicants for such positions that the UK remains a tolerant and welcoming country that will be the right setting both professionally and socially for their family to be.

The LSIS and the NHS in the context of Brexit:

44.                                                As the global economy becomes increasingly knowledge-intensive and the level of demand for health treatments and technologies intensifies, the UK has a real opportunity to carve out a world-leading position in the sphere of life sciences, but only if the Government supports industry and academia with a suite of joined-up policies and targeted capacity-building interventions.

45.                                                The LSIS must flexibly adapt as the picture of what the outcome of the negotiations for a future post-Brexit relationship with the EU looks like in terms of trade and in terms of a framework for a future partnership around science, research and talent mobility. If the UK leaves the EU with a sub-standard set of arrangements, this would have potentially far reaching impacts for the competitiveness of life sciences exports and the ability of the sector to attract top-tier talent and collaborate in significant international research programmes.

46.                                                The UK’s continued involvement in the key pillars of Horizon 2020 and the planned successor Framework Programme 9 programme from 2021 onwards is critically important. We welcome the Government’s ambition to create a comprehensive and flexible science and innovation framework agreement with the EU that would maintain strong existing linkages and also support UK-EU collaboration in relation to nascent opportunities.

47.                                                We also want to see the UK continue to play an active role in the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI). This is a key initiative in bringing life science industry and universities together to address key challenges set by industry to ensure their longer-term success.

48.                                                A particular strength of IMI has been its ability to pull together industry consortia to create calls for proposals, meaning that the academic sector has a very clear statement of the industry requirements and likely demand. The UK has been particularly successful in attracting funding from the IMI scheme to date and this needs to continue to be the case after Brexit.

49.                                                The UK’s withdrawal from the EU also has significant potential impacts on the NHS workforce and on the regulatory environment around the life sciences sector.

50.                                                It is vital that the Home Office and the Department of Health work together to identify a framework of ‘worst case scenario’ interventions to retain and attract EU-domiciled clinical staff in the event that the UK ends up leaving the EU with no substantial agreement in place in relation to the future work and settlement rights of EU-domiciled staff. Unilateral recognition of settled status as the operating principle should almost certainly be an option under consideration to rapidly put into effect if no agreement with the EU is reached as we near the exit door.

51.                                                The loss of the UK’s host country status for the European Medicines Agency is a key downside of Brexit for the health and life sciences research and innovation community in this country that the Government needs to mitigate over time with fresh investment and pro-active engagement in multi-lateral initiatives in the sphere of life sciences.

52.                                                Continued alignment with EU regulations may well be beneficial across many areas of research, particularly around clinical trials and rare disease research. There is a good deal of EMA activity in particular where it makes sense for the MHRA to closely align standards and protocols.

53.                                                However, there should not be a blank cheque given in terms of harmonisation of UK practices to accord exactly with EU standards in future. Regulatory issues relating to clinical and life sciences research and innovation practices should be considered on a case by case basis to ensure we don’t forego opportunities for bespoke national regulation that cuts through bureaucratic inflexibility to accelerate and augment the scope of research endeavour.

54.                                                Ultimately as a sector we should aspire to speed up – while maintaining patient safety and good medical and scientific ethics – the pathways that medical therapies, diagnostics, and treatment support technologies follow from bench to bedside. Smart de-regulation is a key plank in helping the UK life sciences sector become more globally competitive and productive.

Increasing the outlay on research and innovation as a percentage of GDP

55.                                                We very much welcome the deeply ambitious, stretching recommendation Sir John Bell made in his review that the new LSIS should be underpinned by a broader economic policy commitment by the Government to move the UK into a position where it reached the upper quarter of OECD R&D spending as a percentage of GDP by 2022.

56.                                                To do this over the next 5 years, the level of private, charitable and public investment in R&D as a percentage of GDP would need to increase from 1.6% to 2.6% - this well exceeds the Government’s present stated ambition is to increase the R&D as a percentage of GDP metric to 2.4% by 2027 and a looser commitment to reach 3% at an unspecified point thereafter.

57.                                                If you look around the globe you can see rising economic powerhouse economies in the Pacific-region setting the pace in relation to R&D investment and supporting investment in STEM skills through their education and training base.

58.                                                We very much welcomed the commitment the Government made at the Autumn Statement in 2016 and subsequently in its manifesto at the recent General Election, and note the estimate the Government has given that it is the largest single uplift for science and research since 1979.

59.                                                Nevertheless, we would agree with Sir John Bell that the UK Government should go further and faster in creating a major co-investment strategy with the private sector in relation to R&D.

60.                                                If the UK is to remain a key player at the forefront of what has aptly been called the global race, then the Government needs to substantially build on the welcome ‘down payment’ it made with the National Productivity Investment Fund at the Autumn Statement in 2016.

We need to see an even more sizeable uplift in public investment in science and research that in turn unlocks the private and charitable funding that can take the country to the 2.6% target Sir John has outlined by 2022 and in doing so turbo-charge the country’s innovation base.

61.                                                Furthermore, government commitment to a firm timeframe beyond 2022 for increasing its portion of public investment in the overall outlay on R&D spend as 3% of GDP is essential to help the private sector to do the same. As the CBI outlined in its recent report, Now is the time to innovate – the road to 3%, there is strong international evidence that the growth of private sector R&D investment tracks public investment[2].

62. The CBI report cites the Biomedical Catalyst programme operated by the MRC and Innovate UK as being a strong example of how effectively targeted public investment can unlock significant private-sector co-investment.

As well as attracting industry-matched funding from businesses participating in its competitions and grants schemes, analysis of the programme commissioned by Innovate UK has shown it has also crowded-in co-investment and follow-on private sector investment to a level four-fold the size of the public funding provided.

HARP – Sounds the right note, but genuinely new resource and realism about university co-investment will be vital

63.                                                A key centre-piece of the proposed LSIS is the ambition to create the Health Advanced Research Programme (HARP), as a model for catalysing cutting-edge innovation and commercialisation activity at scale in the UK with the intention to accordingly spawn entirely new types of life science companies that bring with them wealth-creating advancements, exports and jobs.

64.                                                In invoking the spirit of the renowned DARPA agency in the United States to describe the working model, the LSIS does not lack for ambition and HARP is clearly positioned as a game-changer for a country that, despite its strong academic and commercial base in the life sciences, does not have as comparatively strong a track record of commercialising IP to create major new products and technologies as it should.

65.                                                Sir John’s review sets out a ‘starter for 10’ high level prospectus for the kinds of strategic opportunity areas it believes HARP could focus on. Many of the proposed areas outlined are highly worthy of consideration and we would argue that there is strong utility in particular to the proposal in relation to imaging sciences.

66.                                                We would also argue that a major additional area of focus for HARP could be the industrial applications that are likely to arise from major advancements in neuroscience research for which the UK has a very strong global comparative advantage in terms of its base strength.

67.                                                We also believe it is important that when constructing HARP, the consortia and leadership team responsible to avoid inadvertently creating ‘too big to fail’ assumptions. Initially HARP should seek to pump-prime a relatively wide range of academic-enterprise collaborations aligned to the key thematic priorities and then concentrate a greater proportion of funding over time to those that show the most promise.

68.                                                How HARP relates to the plans the Government and UKRI have in relation to the future roll-out and expansion of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund is a critical question to consider. Sir John’s review envisages each major thematic HARP programme potentially having hundreds of millions attached to it over an extended period of time, derived from a variety of public, charitable and commercial sources.

69.                                                It does not delve into providing a detailed account about how the funding would be sourced, provided and evaluated over time. However, there is a strong likelihood that key public funders such as the Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research would play a prominent role in allocating funding into HARP were it to be greenlit by Government as a key locus of innovation activity for a decade or longer.

70.                                                We need early clarity from the Government in the Autumn Budget for 2017 that the proposed ‘sector deal’ for the life sciences – as the overall UK Industrial Strategy – will be backed up by clear commitments to back proposed initiatives such as HARP with genuinely ‘new’ funding, from unallocated portions of the National Productivity Investment Fund, rather than a recycling or re-badging of existing funding that undermines the delicate balance in the health and life sciences research eco-system.

71.                                                We also need to ensure that as well as providing new resource for the frontline research, translational and innovation activity bound up in HARP, the coordinating partners in a HARP programme – including the MRC and NIHR– are effectively resourced to triage applications to be involved in HARP project activities, drive partnership development and evaluate success and adjust investment over time.

The administrative activity portion of the budgets of both these agencies would likely need to grow so they can have the right leadership and technical expertise, from appropriately specialist backgrounds, to oversee their contribution to HARP while balancing broader portfolio funding responsibilities.

72.                                                We believe that HARP linked national hub initiatives, start-ups, and dedicated laboratory and incubators will have the maximum impact if they have strong adjacency to complementary, university-centred research expertise clusters.

73.                                                King’s College London and the King’s Health Partners would be very interested in principle to support strategic HARP-funded initiatives but realism is needed on the part of policymakers about the financial co-investment contribution that universities can readily make. The lion’s share of HARP funding will need to come from government-backed national funders, commercial companies and potentially the more long-term (patient) segment of the UK’s venture capital market.

Retaining a priority focus on excellence in the LSIS and wider UK Industrial Strategy, while also considering place

74.                                                The UK has a deservedly world-class reputation when it comes to the quality of its science and research base. It has been a magnet for inward investment by the global life sciences sector and a wider panoply of knowledge and technology-intensive businesses in other sectors.

75.                                                We also recognise the Government’s desire to rebalance the economy and look to make ‘place’ a strategic consideration in the decision-making process about large scale investment in research and innovation related activity. There clearly are opportunities to build on nascent areas of research strength in research and technology clusters dotted around the UK, and we are not opposed in principle to place being a factor that should be taken into account.

76.                                                But we strongly believe that even as the government looks to support broader and more balanced economic development across the regions, it is important not to lose sight of the critical principle of funding excellence wherever it is found.

77.                                                London and the Greater South East in particular have become a global hot-spot for talent and cutting-edge research and translational activity in the sphere of cutting-edge life and physical sciences. We need to ensure that this continues to be the case as we transition to a future outside the European Union.

78.                                                There is a clear benefit to concentrating resource on London and the Greater South East where life sciences excellence is concentrated and enjoys strong breadth and depth. The competition for talent and major investment is truly international and with similar cluster around Boston, Silicon Valley and Singapore, the UK Government should continue to invest in its success.

The benefits of university-centred national research systems and strong linkages between nationally importance hubs and universities

79.                                                As the Government and UKRI look to take forward both the LSIS and broader plans to link strategic investments in research and innovation to economic development, it should also take on board a key conclusion Sir John Bell and his independent advisory group reached:

“National research systems based around institutes rather than universities, as seen in Germany, France and China, do not achieve the same productivity in life sciences as seen in university-focussed systems.”[3]

80.                                                Sir John’s review also gave strong backing to evidence that shows that major initiatives work best when they tap into broader existing clusters of academic and commercial expertise.

81.                                                We agree with these findings and would recommend that the Government and UKRI adopt a general policy approach of recognising that in future major research and innovation initiatives of national significance should either be co-located on university campuses, or enjoy relatively close adjacency, with strong communications links, to universities-industry technology clusters.

82.                                                We also need to ensure that opportunities to connect the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy to other major national-level R&D development opportunities are not missed.

83.                                                Encouragingly, there is clear recognition of this principle within Government and the Research Council community already. Initiatives such as the Rosalind Franklin Institute and the Alan Turing Institute can play a vital role in providing the infrastructure and collaborative environment needed to underpin really cutting-edge collaboration across the interface of engineering and physical sciences, data and computational science, and life sciences.

The role of national science, technology and innovation hubs in future and their implications for university research funding

84.                                                The Francis Crick Institute has the potential to transform our understanding of complex diseases and ability to diagnose and treat them more rapidly and effectively. As a core academic partner in the Francis Crick Institute, King’s College London can state without hesitation that the Government’s co-investment, through the Medical Research Council, in the development of the Francis Crick Institute has been incredibly beneficial.

85.                                                Clearly, however, it has had some impact in recent years on the recurrent funding award streams the MRC provides to universities and other medical research organisations more generally. Lessons need to be learnt by policymakers in this regard as we look ahead to other pipeline national hub initiatives.

86.                                                Moving forward we need to ensure a fair balance of support between challenge-led research activities taken forward by the Francis Crick Institute and other major pipeline initiatives such as the National Dementia Research Institute, and the support available through conventional funding streams for curiosity-led and ‘Pasteur quadrant’ applied research. The pendulum of support should not swing too heavily away from these important foundation stones.

87.                                                Realistically research council awards and charitable research grants already fall well short of covering the full economic cost of conducting research. Universities draw considerably from their QR funding allocations to make up the difference, but it is becoming more and more challenging to really make university research pay full for itself. Given the Government’s increasing focus on value for money in relation to the cost of £9,000 degrees this creates additional pressure on university finances and the economic business model that underpins delivery of a vibrant academic environment.

88.                                                Our message as the Government considers its support not only for the life sciences, but for science and academic research activity more broadly in the context of its interest in building a vibrant industrial strategy, is to ‘tread carefully’ and retain a clearly balanced approach.

89.                                                A thriving research environment in universities is essential both to maintain the international reputation that attracts talented academics and students from overseas and as a complementary home for the early and later career paths of scientists who work in national institutes.

90.                                                The Government should accordingly not spread its funding support too thinly. Where national hubs have a clear rationale and potential for high-added value impact, they should of course be welcomed, but the productivity of the UK’s life sciences sector and other knowledge and technology intensive businesses is inextricably linked to the continued operation of a well-funded broad-based funding structure for basic and applied research that supports promising research in a wide variety of areas.

The benefits of clustering academic, NHS and industrial activity and backing AHSCs with direct funding in future

91.                                                In addition to the suite of strategic national hub initiatives the Government has been backing since 2010, it is important to note that the first two decades of the 21st century have to date seen a significant increase in the scale and breadth of university-industry collaboration.

92.                                                Particularly in the case of the so-called Golden Triangle amalgamation of university-industry innovation clusters in London, Cambridge and Oxford, the intensification of collaboration since the turn of the century has been impressive.

93.                                                The linkages universities now enjoy with companies in the life sciences sector are incredibly rich and diverse in scope, embracing everything from industry-funded PhD studentships and placements to large scale contract research and co-located applied research and translational test bed hubs.

94.                                                Public policy has played an important role in this regard and the increasing expertise the research councils such as MRC and EPSRC have shown in bringing forward challenge-led resource and capital funding opportunities that tie together the strengths of academic and commercial partners has been welcome.

95.                                                For our part, King’s College London has benefited substantially from the relationship it enjoys with 3 high calibre NHS Trusts through the King’s Health Partners (KHP) Academic Health Science Centre (AHSC) configuration.

96.                                                We believe the AHSC offers King’s College London a major opportunity to make a strong tangible contribution to the long term health, wellbeing and wealth of the country.

97.                                                One way to do encourage innovation in the life sciences, is by supporting co-location of partners into clusters that facilitate more effective co-investment in research. In doing so it can reduce risk and improve the productivity of research and translational activity.

98.                                                King’s has attracted significant commercial and charitable investment in basic science and translational research in our advanced therapies and experimental medicine capabilities at our Guy’s Hospital campus as shown in the info-graphic below.

99.                                                A similar hub is now developing around medical technologies, particularly imaging, computational modelling, robotics and medical devices at our St Thomas’ Hospital Campus:

100.     Additionally a cluster focused around clinical informatics, big data and wearable devises is planned for our Denmark Hill Campus.

101.     In the past 6 years the Government has funded Academic Health Science Networks (AHSNs) to support the collaboration landscape between the NHS and industry and accelerate innovation with in the NHS. Although AHSNs interact and collaborate with AHSCs we believe that additional direct support for AHSCs will have major additional benefits in expanding and accelerating the capacity of these world-class academic-NHS partnerships to deliver cutting-edge research, educational and clinical excellence and related industrial growth and prosperity.

102.     At present however there is no specific or direct funding award tied to gaining AHSC status, and we believe this is a real missed opportunity for the LSIS to address. King’s College London believes that the Government should consider attaching two forms of recurrent funding support specifically to the academic-health consortia groups that secure the prestigious AHSC designation through a competitive process.

103.     The first would be a dedicated stream of NIHR-derived funding to support applied research and translational activity. It could be used to support the building of new laboratories for applied research, kit out incubator and test bed facilities, or support the university or universities involved at the heart of the AHSC buy out clinician time to support translational research. It could be evaluated over time in a similar way to the way the HEIF allocations to universities are evaluated.

104.     The second would form of support would involve reapportioning some of the funding MRC has channelled into the Clinical Research Infrastructure Initiative in recent as a recurrent capital grant allocation to each of the AHSCs to support research infrastructure expenditure in relation to specifically agreed thematic challenges.

Balanced research funding over time and durable protection for NIHR funding

105.     We very much welcome the emphasis on the need to continue to ensure the balanced delivery of sufficient funding across basic and discovery science, and translational research. The life sciences sector in this country thrives because academia, industry, the NHS and charities all have considerable flexibility and room for manoeuvre in terms of sourcing investment.

106.     The development of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) provides a key opportunity to accentuate inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary activities and we look forward to seeing the Research Councils build on good existing foundations in terms of the fruitful cross-council challenge programmes and infrastructure investment schemes they already operate.

107.     We have seen in recent years an increased willingness on the part of governments around the world to countenance using taxpayer funding to support industry-oriented applied research and market opportunity development activities in a wide range of areas.

108.     UKRI can play a valuable role in attuning the activities of the UK’s research councils, Research England and Innovate UK to effectively identify and respond to key global challenges and opportunities. It is important, however, that as it seeks to increase the opportunities on offer to help academics undertake challenge-focused research that spans traditional organisational and disciplinary boundaries, it does so while maintaining the Haldane Principle and a world-class peer review architecture.

109.     It is also important to recognise that a further dilution of the Research Councils commitment to support at least 80% of the Full Economic Cost of conducting research would be detrimental to the sustainability of the high quality academic research environments needed to underpin 4-star research activity.

110.     More generally, we would agree that NIHR funding needs to keep pace with growth in Research Council budgets over time, as Sir John recommended in his review.

111.     We would go further and specifically recommend expanding the Science and Research ring-fenced budget to include the NIHR budget as a protected area of research funding in each Parliament, while still maintaining its funding link and primary accountability relationship with the Department of Health.

Such a commitment would in essence provide a default requirement for the Department of Health to protect the NIHR budget year to year in its departmental allocation process, and provide an important bedrock for the sustainable funding of applied health and life sciences related research activity.

What do universities need going forward?

112.     While some change is inevitable as UKRI comes into being and looks to harmonise and optimise the workings of the Research Councils in relation to how they award funding, a key plea would be to preserve the essential structures for the awarding of Research Council funding to the greatest extent possible.

113.     We also do not believe it is sustainable for the Medical Research Council or the other Research Councils to start routinely offering research grants that cover less than 80% of the Full Economic Cost of research. We have started to see a recent trend in this direction in relation to big initiatives such as HDR-UK and the Dementia Research Institute. A strategic shift like this should not be taken lightly and if it is, transitional arrangements will be needed, and there should also be an increase in the support provided through QR funding by Research England.

114.     It would help if the universities were provided with more flexible funding that can be scaled up. In particular larger core grants to support translational research in a range of areas would be most welcome, and would reduce the administrative burden on research teams of having to apply individually for each piece of work. It would also enable a much more strategic approach on the part of the Research Councils and allow for better evaluation of the cumulative impact of its support for translational activity over time.

King’s College London welcomes the support the government has provided for academic-industrial activity through the UK Research Partnership Investment Fund (RPIF) since 2012. A co-investment scheme that works on a 1:2 ratio of public support against funding a university has secured from commercial or philanthropic partners.

115.     UK RPIF has helped King’s to leverage considerable public, industry and philanthropic support for significant translational research infrastructure on all 3 of our main biomedical research campuses, and is very much part of our future joint growth plans with industry partners.

116.     We would like to see the funding for the UK RPIF programme increased in future years and also potentially segmented to support slightly smaller infrastructure projects where universities might be seeking a public funding match of £5 million for a £15 million project, as opposed to the present minimum threshold of £10 and £30 million respectively.

117.     We welcome the initial decision for the design of the next REF exercise in 2021 to increase from 20% to 25% the role that impact plays in the assessment process for the REF. We also welcome the inter-linked initial decision given to strongly encourage universities, in the REF guidance, to develop collaboration with organisations outside the sphere of academia. This should help incentivise the continued growth of fruitful academic-industry collaborations.

118.     We also welcome the Government’s decision in the Industrial Strategy Green Paper to commission a review of intellectual property and technology transfer. This may help catalyse further regulatory improvements and also support the diffusion of innovative best practice across university-based technology transfer offices.

119.     It has not always been easy for universities to engage with the collaborative R&D project funding opportunities on offer through Innovate UK. More needs to be done here to ensure that small businesses in particular aren’t losing out on valuable opportunities to access research and expertise from the university sector.

120.     We would also like to see Innovate UK do more to support university spin-out companies, particularly in the sphere of life sciences, by working with universities to co-invest in dedicated seed funding and practical training and entrepreneurial mentoring activity. This would not dilute Innovate UK’s mission in terms of having a clear and distinct focus on supporting business-led innovation.

Continued recognition and support of inter-disciplinarity in a broad range of contexts is vital

121.     The Research Councils have already done a great deal to open up space for inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research to flourish, and EPSRC in particular has become an incredibly strong building block in the continued success of the UK life sciences sector.

The independent report commissioned and published by EPSRC back in 2014 exploring the importance of engineering and physical sciences to the health and life sciences, provided a rich and diverse range of examples of how powerful purposeful collaboration can be[4].

122.     The establishment of UKRI provides an exciting opportunity to do even more to strengthen the support base and incentives within the academic community to collaborate across traditional disciplinary boundaries. Some of this inter-disciplinary collaboration must of course be organic and bottom-up in nature, but there are also clear opportunities to use challenge-led funding to coalesce academic expertise from diverse disciplines together to explore and address fundamentally important societal challenges and scientific questions.

123.     It is also very important that the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy works to strengthen inter-disciplinary collaboration with the arts, humanities and social sciences.

124.     The rationale for doing so is in the title of the strategy – “Life”. Our patients are human, and the human condition is complex and nuanced. That which work in one clinical setting or geographical context, may not work in another.

125.     As long as the meaning of illness to individuals, families and to society falls outside the purview of biomedical science, biomedical science alone will offer less than a full foundation for excellence in clinical practice.

126.     We must ensure that as we seek to improve the world’s health and wellbeing, our efforts, as a community of industrial and academic scientists and leaders, are contoured, informed and strengthened through reasoned, in-depth consideration of the complex ethical, cultural, socio-political, and regulatory dynamics that environ the prevention and treatment of illness.

127.     King’s College London plays a strong role in this space through a variety of channels, including our Department of Medical Humanities, our Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, our Dickson Poon School of Law, and the Arts and Wellbeing programme run by our Cultural Institute, which extensively supports the work of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Arts, Health and Wellbeing[5].

The role of the NHS in supporting discovery science, applied research and innovation

128.     The LSIS rightly focuses on the need to recognise that the NHS is a vitally important partner and enabler of cutting edge research and innovation, not simply a customer of innovation. The proposals made, in the context of HARP, for the NHS to be better incentivised to work with academia and commercial partners to support innovation are welcome.

129.     We need to look creatively at what more we can do to enhance the willingness of frontline NHS trusts to work dynamically with academic and commercial partners to augment the ease of conducting clinical trials and translational activity here in the UK.

130.     The NHS, as a single healthcare provider is better positioned than other health care funders and providers around the world to facilitate and drive uptake and adoption of innovation.

131.     The NHS must be an active partner in research in order to maximise the power of its unique data-sets as artificial intelligence technologies such as deep learning, that require large datasets to be effective, become increasingly important part of innovation in healthcare.

132.     We also noted with interest Sir John’s floated idea of a golden share for the NHS at national level in relation to the companies emerging from HARP programmes.

133.     At present, too many practical barriers still exist that impede the ability of clinicians to free up time to take part in research. Universities and NHS trusts need to become more effective in terms of the working arrangements they operate that allow clinicians to undertake scientific and translational research.

134.     Better training is clearly needed – the idea that clinicians can suddenly become good at research overnight by just getting stuck in is unwise. To make the most of the clinical capacity available to support research, universities and trusts must improve the training, professional development and best practice resources on offer.

135.     Equally more must be done to ensure that changes in NHS contracts over time do not undermine the ability of academic clinicians to readily retain their consultant roles in the NHS.

136.     Universities also need to support NHS clinicians’ engagement in research, providing them with the support and infrastructure needed to be successful. At King’s we have recently instigated such a program creating Adjunct academic positions for NHS colleagues within King’s Health Partners who are keen to engage in research.

137.     This provides these colleagues full access to university resources and infrastructure in an identical way to academics employed by the university. In addition, it facilities funding from grant to be used for clinical backfill to free up time for research.

Growing the UK’s clinical trials capability and speeding up access to new medicines and technologies

138.     We agree with the direction of travel already set out in the Government’s Accelerated Access Review and believe the recommendations it made can play an important role in unlocking barriers to innovation and rapid adoption of new treatments and technologies across the NHS. We also welcome the significant programme of investment the Government has signalled will be provided to support implementation of the AAR recommendations.

139.     We are supportive of Sir John’s recommendation that targets should be established in relation to the number of clinical trials undertaken each year, with the view to securing a 50% increase over a 5 year period. This is a stretch goal that will challenge policymakers, regulators funders, scientists and clinicians to think and act creatively.

140.     We welcome the proposal to create a translational fund to support pre-commercial creation of devices and clinically-usable molecules, and King’s College London and King’s Health Partners is ideally placed to play a strong role here with strong capabilities and broad reach to a highly diverse population.

141.     KHP at present has 20 advanced therapies in or approaching clinical trial stage, and a large portfolio of active trials across our Foundation Trusts (48,000 patients participated in 2016/17 including 89 mental health studies – the largest in England).

Commercialisation of IP and attracting international investment

142.     Historically, despite the considerable strengths of its science and research base, the UK has not been as effective at translating research and commercialising IP as other major advanced economies. There is no single reason for this although a relative lack of entrepreneurial skills in academia and a relative lack of long term funding (patient capital) for growing biotech firms have been contributing factors.

143.     Availability of long-term funding has improved in recent years and we welcome the decision of HM Treasury to commission a Patient Capital Review will help to build on this trend, and also the Government’s manifesto commitment to specifically work with universities to develop research investment trust models.

144.     We also welcome the move more recently towards a consensus that entrepreneurship skills should be embedded in doctoral programmes and that more should be done to help develop entrepreneurship across the academic career lifecycle.

145.     In relation to the proposal to build a “single front door” for international industry, collaborators and funders in relation to strategic research programme activity and inward investment opportunities, we are open in principle to the idea that UKTI should look to build on its existing support and triaging services in relation to the life sciences sector.

146.     However, we believe there is considerable value to London’s MedCity continuing to have a strong independent profile and active programme of international engagement in its own right. London and the Greater South East (LGSE) is without doubt the epicentre of the UK life sciences industry. While it is right that the Government should look to support and develop investment opportunities on a UK-wide basis, it should not lose sight of the critical importance of LGSE as a hub of wealth-creation where there is real room to leverage even greater levels of regional productivity through additional inward investment.

147.     The ability of MedCity and other regional life science clusters to secure public funding and undertake international relationship-building activity in their own right should not be undermined by the development of an enhanced gateway or single front door.

Skills development and access to global talent:

148.     The UK’s businesses and universities are competing to access and retain talent in an increasingly integrated and footloose global labour market. The global dimension of many of the health challenges the UK life sciences sector is seeking to address also means that access to international talent and the ability to support research placements as well as long-term employment is critically important.

149.     In 2015/16 around 17% of the total academic staff in UK universities were non-UK EU nationals and 12.5% were from non-EU countries.[6] These figures are even higher in the case of research intensive universities such as King’s, where 28% of our academic staff are from the EU and 13% from non-EU countries.

150.     For academic staff in the biological, mathematical and physical sciences, across the sector, around 23% were EU nationals and a further 15% are from non-EU countries in 2015-16. EU-domiciled staff make up 15% and non-EU staff make up a further 9% of the academic workforce in medicine, dentistry and other health fields in the same period[7]. The proportion of EU staff in particular in both fields had notably increased on the levels employed in 2006/7.

151.     As noted in the strategy continued access to the talent required to support the UK life sciences sector will be dependent on an immigration system which is fair, efficient and transparent.

152.     As the Government develops the LSIS and aligns it to the immigration system it is vital that it takes a holistic view and recognises that there are strategically valuable individuals working in a wide variety of contexts in the life sciences. It is not simply about supporting leaders in research fields; we need arrangements that also help us to attract early-stage researchers, technologists and technicians with specialist expertise from around the world.

153.     We also need to ensure the visa arrangements for student recruitment are aligned to help us effectively attract the next generation of talented life scientists at undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral level to train in the UK.

154.     King’s College London welcomes the proposal of a recruitment fund to attract exceptional researchers to the UK, and earlier commitments in the 2017 Spring Budget to expand research fellowships.

155.     We welcome the recommendation to establish a high-level recruitment fund to attract exceptional talent to the UK and looks forward to clarity about how this might relate to the recently announced Rutherford Fund.[8]

156.     Ideally the proposed package of support Sir John recommended in his review would involve additional resource investment over and above the £100 million package the government has already committed to through the Rutherford Fund.

The STEM pipeline and the development of T-Levels

157.     We are supportive of the Government’s principle that generally all young people should be studying mathematics in some form to the age of 18.

158.     It is important to note there has been a welcome growth in the number of undergraduates studying STEM courses in recent years but that there is still a substantial shortfall to meet industry skills need.

159.     There needs to be a continued national level priority given to the development of the STEM skills pipeline work, with better cross-cutting initiatives to unite schools and universities. We must also redouble efforts to rectify a significant gender imbalance in many fields of STEM study.

160.     We are proud of the impact to date the King’s College London Mathematics School is having in helping young Londoners make the most of their mathematical potential and access STEM courses at top universities across the country[9].

161.     King’s College London takes very seriously its responsibility to help widen participation and has a number of programmes that specifically support young people in their ambitions to study not only medicine but a wider range of science subjects, including Outreach for Medicine[10], K+[11], and the Extended Medical Degree Programme[12].

162.     We welcome the Government’s plan to develop T-Levels and see particular value to the proposal to develop a T-Level in Health and Science that can provide a pathway into a range to technical careers in the NHS and life sciences sector.

Apprenticeships and employer engagement in degrees

163.     The development of technician level skills to support the LSIS is vital. We need to see more done here to ensure that the significant amount of funding the government is securing through the Apprenticeship Levy is purposefully re-directed to cohesively meet the needs of the diverse range of businesses in the UK life sciences sector.

164.     King’s is open in principle to developing degree apprenticeships where suitable opportunities exist.

165.     Finally, it is important that the Government and universities grip the challenge of ensuring degree pathways that support the life sciences sector become even more oriented towards providing interaction opportunities with industry in future in a wide range of areas.

15 September 2017