Research Councils UK (RCUK) – Written evidence (LSI0113)

 

SUMMARY

 

Science and Innovation

The life sciences sector contributes a significant proportion of the UK’s gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) and the UK’s research strengths are essential to further grow the UK economy. Research Councils invest across the breadth of the life sciences, extending beyond the scope of the life sciences industry and the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy.

 

Impact of Research Council funding

Funding for high-quality research ensures a strong base for knowledge exchange and commercialisation. Our priority is to ensure knowledge generated by our funding is taken up. Knowledge exchange mechanisms, such as collaboration between universities and the private sector, are increasingly important in furthering R&D and the translation of basic research. Our focus is on improving collaborations between the academic and private sectors and developing funding pathways to support translation.

 

Infrastructure

Investment in research infrastructure is increasing. Research Councils contribute to progress in this area by reducing fragmentation in infrastructure and working collaboratively on large-scale projects. Large scale flagship investments are important, but we must also focus on smaller-scale infrastructure which can be more agile and effective in building new partnerships.

 

Research impact: Knowledge exchange and commercialisation

The impact of research can take many forms and is achieved through a range of mechanisms including, but not exclusive to, patents and commercialisation. The Research Councils have long been encouraging researches to think about the impact of their work, something that the REF will build on.

 

Skills

The life sciences sector in the UK provides significant employment opportunity and the Research Councils support research training across the sector. There are specific vulnerabilities in the UK skills base that must be addressed. Analysis by the Research Councils has identified areas where we must see improvement and is addressing this through training, initiatives and major investments.

 

Industrial Strategy

The 2011 Life Sciences Strategy outlined a range of initiatives developed to support growth in the life sciences sector, against which the Research Councils have made significant progress. We welcome attention given in the 2017 Life Sciences Industrial Strategy to economic investment and regionality, which will be an important part of the UK Research and Innovation strategy. The Research Councils continue to make progress in many areas the strategy outlines, including collaboration between academia and industry to address major challenges and opportunities and strengthening the UK science offer.

 

Leaving the EU

The continued success of UK research is dependent on continuing collaborating and sharing facilities across international boundaries. The impact of Brexit upon research and innovation, and on the life sciences sector, will largely depend on what model the UK adopts for its relationship with the EU. Investment in the UK research and innovation base is crucial to the UK maintaining its position as a world leader, along with the mobility of researchers.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1.            Research Councils UK (RCUK) is a strategic partnership of the UK's seven Research Councils. Our collective ambition is to ensure the UK remains the best place in the world to do research, innovate and grow business for the benefit of society and the economy. Together we invest more than £3 billion in research each year, covering all disciplines and sectors. This response is made on behalf of the seven Research Councils and represents their independent views.

 

2.            RCUK Research Councils welcomed the publication of the Government’s Green Paper on Building an Industrial Strategy[1] in January 2017. Industry growth, competitiveness, and the formation and location of businesses are strongly influenced by research and innovation. The UK’s research strengths are a national asset which an industrial strategy can and should develop and exploit further for the benefit of the UK economy. We also welcome the recent publication of the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy - A report to the Government from the life sciences sector[2] as the first sector report resulting from the Industrial Strategy Green Paper.

 

3.            This response focuses on the Committee’s questions on the science and innovation and other areas relevant to the Research Councils and our work, including Brexit and the Industrial Strategy. The response will address areas where the Research Councils add value to the life sciences sector and other areas which have a major impact on the sector.

 

 

SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

 

4.            The life sciences sector contributes a significant proportion of the UK’s gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD). In 2015 UK GERD was £31.6bn[3]. Government was the second largest funder of R&D accounting for £6.4bn or 21% (£2.9bn via the Research Councils), while the private sector provided 49% (£15.5bn, a 9% increase from the previous year). The level of private sector funding is not remarkable by international standards (the private sector in France, Germany and the US all finance a greater proportion of GERD). However, in the UK the pharmaceutical industry is the largest single contributor to business expenditure on R&D (BERD), spending £4.2bn on R&D, far greater than the next largest product groups (motor vehicles and parts, £2.7bn; computer programming and information service activities, £2.4bn). Within the OECD only the USA and Japan have a larger absolute contribution to business expenditure on R&D from pharmaceutical companies based in these countries[4].

 

5.            According to analysis conducted by PwC[5] the industry supports almost half a million UK jobs, contributed £30.4bn to the UK economy, and the GVA per employee in the industry is over twice that of the UK average.

 

6.            The Research Councils invest widely across the breadth of the life sciences supporting discovery science alongside strategic programmes to improve the translation of basic research into economic, societal and health benefits. The research we support extends beyond the scope of the areas covered in the Life Science Industrial Strategy, where the focus is on health life sciences and includes pharmaceuticals, medical biotechnology, industrial biotechnology and medical technology. The life sciences research we fund ranges from basic biological research to biomedical and health research, and includes plant and animal sciences, agriculture and biotechnology. This broad support for life sciences, alongside research in other areas, makes a vital contribution to the life sciences sector. For example engineering and the physical sciences enable new tools and technologies, the social sciences contribute to a biosocial understanding of life sciences and regulation and environmental science enables access to data to improve the management of resources and understanding of the human, plant, animal and environmental implications of innovation and their impact on human health.

 

7.            A review of The importance of engineering and physical sciences to the health and life sciences undertaken by Sir Patrick Maxwell[6] concluded that “engineering and physical sciences research, including mathematics, statistics and computer science, has played a major role in advancing health and life sciences and will be increasingly important in the future. Yet this view is one that until now has not necessarily been given clear recognition. We strongly believe that it is vital that the UK continues to invest in world class EPS if we are to continue to see major advances in HLS. In addition, this interaction between EPS and HLS is a long-term agenda which requires on-going dialogue involving all the key stakeholders in order to address the challenges facing us in the future”.

 

8.            The size of these related sectors is also significant, for instance the UK industrial biotechnology and bioenergy sector’s annual turnover from direct activities, was £2.9bn in 2013/14 with a projected turnover for UK industrial biotechnology and bioenergy of £4.1bn by 2020.

 

9.            The UK’s research strengths are essential to further grow the UK economy. The Government’s commitment to increasing investment in R&D by £4.7 billion is welcome and essential if we are to continue to have a strong research base in the UK. The strength of the UK’s research base attracts companies to locate in the UK and generates the knowledge, ideas and skills that are the foundation of innovation. Ensuring that the UK remains one of the best places in the world to carry out basic research and discovery science is vital so that we can ensure there is research to translate into new medicines and technologies. We welcome the Government’s commitment to reaching a target of spending 2.4% of GDP on R&D, and would like to see this continuing to rise to 3%.

 

10.       Research Councils are an essential part of delivering and commercialising life sciences research in the UK. We help ensure that potential innovations and impacts from research (technical, social or economic) are realised. We take a long term strategic view of our research portfolio in relation to the nation’s needs and have a distinctive role in generating and nurturing collaborations which facilitate knowledge exchange within the academic, industrial and public sector communities and connecting skilled people, environments and infrastructure.

 

11.       Our aim in funding translation is to de-risk early stage innovation for companies and address market failure through stimulating innovation in vital areas where the market is small and has not adopted new technologies, helping secure the benefits of research for the UK’s economy. To bridge the “valley of death” we develop novel technologies and reduce the risk prior to private sector investment. Approaches that directly support innovation include the Biomedical Catalyst, demonstrating proof of concept and supporting growth in transformative technologies. Similarly, the Agri-tech Catalyst supports innovation in the agriculture sector[7]. We have developed innovative collaborations and consortia to support discovery science and lower the barriers between academic and industry research such as the Asset Sharing initiative, Prosperity Partnerships[8], and The Medical Technologies Innovation and Knowledge Centre[9] based at the University of Leeds. We also provide a range of support for emerging sectors, such as Synthetic Biology and bioelectronics medicines. We have engaged companies and academics to work together on shared problems, supporting the Stratified Medicine consortia. In addition, we provide devolved funds to universities, allowing them flexibility to make quick, smaller scale investments in taking research towards application in health care , or initiating partnerships.

 

12.       Our approach is to provide clear and simple frameworks for academics and industry engagement and to ensure that these strategic schemes are linked to existing programmes to avoid duplication. Further information on programmes is provided in Annex 1.

 

 

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?

 

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?

 

Impact of Research Council funding

 

13.       Insistence on high-quality by the Research Councils ensures that universities have a strong base for knowledge exchange and commercialisation. Furthermore, the research that is led by academics in universities helps companies to develop and commercialise their ideas. The contribution of academic research is well-recognised; for example it has been estimated that around 17% of new medicines in the EU between 2010 and 2012 were originated by academic or public bodies, including through public-private partnerships[10].

 

14.       Research Councils contribute significantly to commercialising new research. The schemes outlined in Annex 1 support a range of activity directly supporting commercialisation, including proof of concept studies, prototype development and securing business advice to help address issues relating to adoption, adaptation and diffusion.

 

15.       As open innovation becomes increasingly important to the life sciences industry, excellent research capacity in the academic sector plays a vital role in attracting private sector investment to the UK. Global industry surveys have consistently shown that the private sector is relying more on collaboration with universities to further R&D. Increased investment from the private sector and increased collaboration with the academic sector could in turn help to ensure that more basic research is translated into new treatments, products and services in the life sciences sector. Industry reliance on collaboration with universities can be seen by the way that GSK, a FTSE100 and Fortune 500 company and the largest UK pharma investor in R&D, has significantly re-structured over the last ten years into units that more readily engage in collaborative work with external teams in academia and SMEs.

 

16.       The UK has long encouraged open innovation. One current example, Open Targets, brings together expertise from GSK, Biogen, the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) and The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute to provide evidence on the biological validity of therapeutic targets and provide an initial assessment of the likely effectiveness of pharmacological intervention on these targets.This open innovation, a public-private partnership, aims to provide an R&D framework that applies to all aspects of human disease, and to share its data openly with the scientific community[11].

 

17.       Forty-six FTSE 100 companies collaborate with Research Council funded research teams and benefit from Research Council support in a variety of ways. In the case of GSK, six of the Research Councils and Innovate UK have funded work involving collaborative interactions with the UK-based pharmaceutical company. This is detailed in Annex2.

 

18.       The Research Councils also engage specifically with the SME sector. Detailed analysis of 7,500 collaborations between the Research Councils and industry over the period 2006-2016 shows engagement over a wide range of industry sectors, with 20 such sectors represented in the analysis. This analysis is presented in Annex 3 and shows that the largest number of new industry collaborations with Research Councils was in the pharmaceutical and medical biotechnology sector, making up 17% of collaborations, with healthcare accounting for a further 7%. For 900 of these collaborating companies, where details of operating revenue and/or employee data is available, around 500 (55%) are SMEs. The matrix in Annex 3 uses the same data to show numbers of industry sector interactions by the Research Councils. The MRC has the highest number of interactions with the pharmaceutical and medical biotechnology sector, with BBSRC and EPSRC also having a high number in this sector. Most industry sectors have interactions with projects supported by multiple councils, illustrating the cross-sector impact of research.

 

19.       Research Councils also play a major role in brokerage for improving collaborations with industry. For example, Dementia Platform UK (DPUK) is a multi-million-pound public-private partnership, developed and led by the MRC, to accelerate progress in and open up dementias research. The aims of DPUK are early detection, improved treatment and ultimately the prevention of dementias. The SuperGen Bioenergy Hub[12], led by EPSRC and part-funded by BBSRC, aims to bring together industry and academia to focus on research.

 

20.       In the UK health sector the translation funding schemes developed over the last decade have helped to shift the relative balance between discovery and developmental work[13]. Research Council translation funding provides powerful support for new product development. Among the Research Councils there are a number of pathways to adopting new technologies in healthcare[14].

 

21.       However, Research Council budget constraints have meant that the funding demands for developmental work cannot be fully met, for example, the MRC’s translation funding was cut by 10-15% after the spending review in 2015. Meanwhile reviews of Research Council activity, such as the recent evaluation of the Biomedical Catalyst found that the fund provides powerful support for new product development and indicates what more could be achieved with additional funding.

 

Infrastructure

 

22.       The efficiency and sustainability of research infrastructure funding could be further improved. With the establishment of UK Research and Innovation there is an opportunity to strengthen strategic planning for capital infrastructure funding and research equipment to align decisions on investment in people, programmes and facilities. Long-term, strategic investment plans for research infrastructure, including operational costs, are essential and must include provision for investment both in new infrastructures and the ongoing maintenance, development and upgrading of existing facilities.

 

23.       While the levels of investment in research infrastructure were declining in the UK this is now beginning to improve, noting significant additional capital investment from Government in recent years.

 

24.       The most important infrastructures in the life sciences sector are those which allow in-depth studies of disease in patients and those which connect research with the wider population. The Research Councils, and UK Research and Innovation, will be dependent on coordination with NIHR (in England) and related work by health departments and the NHS across the UK, with Research Councils often co-investing in more focussed aspects/facilities, embedded in a wider clinical and population research environment enabled by health department funding. The UK infrastructure here is strong, but complex, and as the Strategy recognises, more effort is needed to reduce fragmentation and allow large scale, standardised studies and data pooling; stronger support for co-location on new technologies (such as digital pathology) alongside researchers and the NHS may also be needed.

 

25.       Public support and trust is vital for the life science sector, and has to be central to the way we develop the environment for research and innovation. One example of this is the Understanding Patient Data Taskforce (UPD)[15], a Wellcome Trust led initiative, co-funded by Wellcome, the MRC, ESRC, the Department of Health and Public Health England. UPD supports better conversations about how health information is used – both for individual care and for research. UPD develops resources to inform discussions and support the responsible use of data; encourages advocates to champion the responsible use of data across healthcare and identifies new and emerging technologies that might interact with patient data moving forward (including AI, machine learning, cloud computing, wearables and mobile apps).

 

26.       Research Councils have made significant progress in reducing fragmentation in infrastructure and working more collaboratively on projects, for example the Stratified Medicine Consortia brings together up to 20 academic and industry teams in high-potential areas chosen with industry.

 

27.       Infrastructure investments in recent years are creating national centres of excellence for research and innovation across the UK. These include the Francis Crick Institute, Alan Turning Institute, Quadram Institute[16], the Dementia Research Institute, Health Data Research UK, The Diamond Light Source and the Rosalind Franklin Research Institute. In addition, The National Innovation Centre for Ageing based at Newcastle University will bring together, in one centre, world-leading scientists to work together with industry, the NHS and the public to develop, test and bring to market products which promote healthy ageing. While these large-scale investments are important, it is equally important to focus on less visible investments. The balance has recently been focused on large-scale investments and there is a risk of over-concentration on large Institutes. Mid-scale investments can be more agile and effective in building new partnerships, we also need to ensure that the UK is maintaining its investment in cutting edge equipment that enables the wider undertaking of collaborative R&D, including applying the concept of ‘the well-found lab’ in biosciences research[17].

 

28.       Research and Innovation Campuses[18] (e.g. the Babraham Research Campus) are strengthening the UK innovation ecosystem by providing a unique environment where fledgling companies can access specialist facilities and exchange ideas with leading researchers, creating a low-risk environment for high-risk innovation. While Innovation Centres, such as Aurora-Cambridge[19] which builds on long-term NERC funding for the British Antarctic Survey, aim to enable new thinking, partnerships and entrepreneurial activity, such as adaptation and the impacts of life in the cold and resilience to environmental change.

 

29.       It is important to note that infrastructure takes time to build and develop so decisions must be taken with a long-term perspective. For example, the decision to establish UK Biobank[20] was taken in 2000 and this unique resource is now delivering internationally leading results relevant to human healthcare. Biobank is working with industry as part of their own R&D activities, it has also developed innovative partnerships with industry, such as the collaboration with GSK and Regeneron for large-scale sequencing for gene discovery, genomic science and precision medicine[21].

 

Research impact: Knowledge exchange and commercialisation

 

30.       The Research Councils have long been committed to ensuring our research is impactful and can be turned into new innovations and have led the way in this space. The impact of research takes many forms and is achieved through a range of knowledge exchange mechanisms and direct commercialisation activity. Our policies emphasise the importance of ensuring impact through encouraging applicants to consider the future impact of research at the point of applying. This has been a focus for the Research Councils, and the introduction of impact into the REF builds on this and has allowed high level buy in to this approach.

 

31.       Looking at patents as one form of IP, recent analysis of outcome data collected by the Research Councils has shown that 8% (547 of 6,789) of MRC grants are directly linked to the filing and/or granting of at least one patent between 2006 and 2016, while 37% of grants (2,538 of 6,789) in this period produced papers which were cited in patents worldwide. These outcomes are very similar to the analysis of grant data from the National Institutes of Health in the US which suggests the UK is not underperforming. Across all of EPSRC’s work, 5% of grants ending since 2006 have been linked to at least one granted patent/patent application and approximately 30% of grants have given rise to publications that have been cited in patent literature worldwide.

 

32.       It is important to recognise that most academic/industry interactions and knowledge exchange occurs through people based collaboration and problem solving, such as informal advice, collaborative R&D, consultancy services and contract research. Research on impact pathways of UK academics[22] has shown that direct commercialisation (spin-outs and patent licensing) represent a small minority of all academic contributions to innovation.

 

33.       The report by the McMillan group to HEFCE University KE Framework: Good practice in technology transfer[23](2016) also explores this point, highlighting that a variety of routes to impact are used to form partnerships with businesses and other users. The Review sets out that technology transfer through spin out companies and patenting is only one route to impact and is not more important than others (Figure 1 below). Furthermore, a key finding of the Review is that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to technology transfer, and this is not the only way to measure effective performance and impact. In discussing the importance of absorptive capacity the review discusses differences in absorptive capacity in Europe and the US. Higher levels of business R&D, high-technology R&D and venture capital all contribute to higher absorptive capacity in the US and increase opportunities to license technologies and scale up technology companies. Absorptive capacity is also identified as a factor affecting the roles of technology transfer offices in the UK and Europe and the US.

 

34.       Central technology transfer officers are supported through HEFCE’s Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) and other routes. To improve knowledge exchange, investment in the area needs to be developed further – particularly outside of technology transfer offices, to support people with high levels of sector-specific expertise and management ability – knowledge brokers, project and consortium managers, technologists – and facility managers. We also acknowledge that there is still some tension around the negotiation of IP agreements between universities and businesses, despite the Lambert Review[24]. Universities overvaluing IP can be detrimental to SMEs and favour larger companies.

 

35.       The right balance of knowledge exchange actions will vary both by sector and within sectors, with absorptive capacity and technology specialisms both being important factors. In the life science sector Research Council funding enables business formation and partnerships across the UK, but the pharmaceutical industry is more concentrated. The highest value pharmaceutical industry R&D partnerships are with just 12 universities. Other sectors, such as the creative industries – with a large percentage of freelance, micro and small enterprises – have a much wider geographical base.

 

Figure 1: Impact of Pathways of UK Academics (% of academics reporting each interaction with an external organisation)

 

 

36.       Although, as mentioned above spin-outs represent a small fraction of our work, they are still very significant. Research Council investments in research lead to a substantial proportion of the spinout companies created throughout the UK with 476 unique spinout companies currently in the RCUK Research Council dataset. These spinout companies, linked to Research Council projects, operate in many different sectors of the UK economy from agriculture, food and drinks to chemicals, manufacturing and healthcare. Annex 4 presents an analysis of over 200 spin-out companies that have arisen from Research Council funded work. The pharmaceutical and medical biotechnology sector accounted for the largest proportion at 18%, with healthcare accounting for a further 3%.

 

 

Box 1: Spin-out companies

 

  • Bicycle Therapeutics: formed in 2009 by a researcher at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) has entered into a collaboration with AstraZeneca potentially worth £1bn. The collaboration will identify and develop novel peptides to treat respiratory, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. The ambition behind Bicycle Therapeutics was to commercialise the research that began at the LMB many years ago, to develop methods to make a new class of drugs.

 

  • Solexa Ltd: This company was founded by Professor Shankar Balasubramanian who invented an ultrafast way to sequence DNA. Balasubramanian’s invention has revolutionised bioscience by ushering in the era of ‘next generation sequencing’, hugely increasing the power of genomics. By exploiting the fluorescence specific to each of the four base chemicals in DNA and building the system onto a microchip that can handle millions of DNA fragments at the same time, Solexa Sequencing decreased the time it takes to read a genome by up to 10,000 times[25].

 

 

  • Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT): was created to take advantage of the economic opportunities of IP derived from Professor Bayley’s BBSRC and MRC-funded research at Oxford University in the early 2000’s. The spinout company has now expanded to over 300 employees and has received external investment of £341m over the last decade including £100m announced in Dec 2016. Products developed by ONT have been used on the International Space Station and a variety of applications where rapid field diagnosis is key, such as the 2014-15 Ebola epidemic. Technology development now exploited by ONT was the result of cross-disciplinary funding from the MRC, EPSRC and BBSRC for a variety of research programmes.

 

  • Leaf Systems[26] developed by Professor George Lomonossoff and Dr Frank Sainsbury at the John Innes Centre, with BBSRC investment. The company specialises in the expression and production of proteins, metabolites and complex natural products within the tissues of plants for research and bio-medical applications using a proprietary, transient expression technology, Hypertrans®.

 

  • Tissue Regenix’s[27] dCELL technology is based on licensed patents arising from EPSRC-funded research at Leeds conducted by founding directors Professor John Fisher and Professor Eileen Ingham. The process removes cells and other components from human and animal tissue and allows them to be used to replace worn out or diseased body parts – without the need for anti-rejection drugs. Tissue Regenix has successfully raised £25m through a share placing to invest in further research and development.

 

 

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?

 

37.       The UK has a strong and well-founded research environment in universities, the NHS and research institutes undertaking world-leading research. We have a world class life sciences sector which provides significant employment opportunity. In 2014, employment across the combined industrial scientific workforce was around 459,000, with pharma and biotech accounting for 15% of this number, medical technology accounting for 19%, medical biotechnology accounting for 5% and industrial biotechnology accounting for 1%[28].

 

38.       Research Councils support research training across the life sciences and also develop research and innovation talent in the UK by setting expectations for quality and breadth of training, and training environments. This enables us to build employability, entrepreneurship and responsible innovation skills into research training programmes, preparing doctoral graduates for a wide range of careers.

 

39.       A Universities UK report[29] suggested that our training approaches have become kite marks of training quality for employers, students, and potential partners and funders. The MRC Industrial CASE studentships[30] provide PhD students with a mutually beneficial collaboration between academic and industry research programmes[31] and EPSRC’s engineering doctorate is an alternative to the traditional PhD for students who want a career in industry, providing students with a flexible experience from 100% university based to fully based in industry.

 

40.       Knowledge, skills and encouraging a diverse workforce are vital elements in enabling us to reap the benefits of the UK research and innovation landscape. To meet existing workplace requirements and prepare for new and novel industries and approaches, specific vulnerabilities in the UK skills base and the supply of appropriately skilled people needs to be addressed.

 

41.       The Research Councils routinely monitor knowledge and skills requirements and work to address needs. For instance a BBSRC and MRC review of vulnerable skills and capabilities in 2014[32] identified vulnerabilities in several areas important to the biosciences and specifically Bio-industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Examples of initiatives taken to address these areas include The North-West England MRC Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics Fellowship scheme which aims to expand clinical pharmacology capacity, alongside a collaborative training programme involving Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly and UCB Pharma to provide trainees with the insight and expertise to work across the academic, industry and health service sectors, and BBSRC co-investment in a Bio-economy industry-led consortia to train doctoral students for the research base and wider bioeconomy.

 

42.       More recently a literature review by the MRC took stock of current evidence on skills gaps in the (health related) life sciences sector. The review focussed on skills deemed to be in shortage and which may be limiting the sector’s ability to respond to existing and new challenges. Areas identified included Inter-, Multi-, and Cross- Disciplinarity which were relevant to many areas of bioscience and which are particularly important when working across the chemical, physical and social sciences interface; Maths, Statistics, Economics & Computation where the demand for these skills within the biological space has increased exponentially; Physiology and Pathology (Including in-vivo) skills needed to understand disease processes and mechanisms of action and of toxicity of potential new therapeutic agents; and Advanced Manufacturing skills and knowhow required for the manufacture of new biological therapies. However, the reports also showed that previous initiatives to address skills gaps had been effective, and in many cases some of the areas previously highlighted by industry employers could now be given lower priority. The MRC will continue to monitor and respond to remaining gaps.

 

43.       EPSRC’s Balancing Capability strategy, detailed evidence-based information on each of the 111 research areas across EPSRC’s portfolio. Rationales include analysis of research and training needs and articulate strategic intent and the desired balance of support. A number of training and skills requirements at the life sciences interface have been identified, for example in biomaterials and tissue engineering and in clinical technologies the multi-disciplinary nature of the research is highlighted along with the need for training and leadership to create and sustain capability. In chemical biology and biological chemistry, a need for continued investment in interdisciplinary training has been identified to develop the next generation of research leaders. As a result, an EPSRC early career fellowship in ‘New Physical Sciences for Biology and Medicine’ has been created.

 

44.       Research Council actions to support building capacity for the UK include investment in skills delivered through large investments. A good example is Health Data Research UK (HDR-UK), a multi-funder UK institute for health and biomedical informatics research designed to transform the UK medical informatics research landscape, with a strong focus on training and careers. It will be a national, interdisciplinary research institute that will capitalise on the UK’s renowned data resources and research strengths. HDR UK will invest in a Future Leaders Programme. This will be approached in two ways: i) Early career researcher awards – Future Leader training awards which importantly include investment in non-traditional academic PI track (technical specialists/technologists); ii) A cadre of PhD studentships in biomedical informatics – in domains including machine learning, artificial Intelligence, healthcare systems applications, human computer interactions, imaging/sensors/monitoring and medical ontologies.

 

45.       Investment in higher-level training and skills is dependent on a pipeline that starts in schools. There has been an increase in uptake of STEM skills by young people in the educational system. In 2015/16, 44% of students enrolled for full time 1st degrees in science areas and 88%, 85% & 70% of students registering for undergraduate degrees in Science, Maths and Engineering respectively come from within the UK[33]. Furthermore, undergraduate, GCSE & A-Level data would suggest that the UK is teaching a large and growing number of pupils in STEM disciplines with the number of STEM graduates increasing in the UK by 18% between 2003 and 2013.

 

46.       Supporting skills in emerging areas takes time and it is crucial to address this early on so people have the time to build up trust based relationships with businesses and the UK can remain world-leading. Public sector investment in innovation in the life sciences and associated disciplines helps to generate new knowledge, cluster together an ecosystem of talented people, universities and businesses and raises the absorptive capacity of the economy to innovation, thus increasing productivity. A supply of skilled people at all levels is required e.g. apprentices, graduates and post-graduates. These in turn sustain wider clusters through the supply chains and supporting sectors e.g. manufacturing, design, marketing.

 

 

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

 

47.       An International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base produced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) in 2013, looking at the broad research domains of health sciences, life sciences, physical sciences, social sciences and arts and humanities, found that the UK continues to hold its place as a global leader in research. The UK accounts for 9.5% of paper downloads, 11.6% of citations and 15.9% of the world's most highly-cited articles.

 

48.       The UK’s share of citations from patents to journal articles is 10.9%. The average UK paper is cited 61% more than the average global paper and this increased at 1.3% per year in the period 2008-2012. In terms of field-weighted citation impact, the UK is number 1 amongst comparator countries[34]. In addition, UK research receives 11% of all citations for biological science publications[35].

 

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

 

Question 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?

 

49.       We strongly support the principle of distinct sector strategies for different areas of research and innovation. Across areas, the organisation, speed and drivers of innovation to meet economic and societal aims vary, and we do not expect that a common approach or standard process will ensure that we realise our potential in each area. That said, the science base is not neatly organised by sector, and there is an important role for the Research Councils, and UK Research and Innovation, in coordinating plans across related areas, for example across health and non-health life sciences. The 2011 UK Life Sciences Strategy[36] was important as it signalled the Government’s commitment to research and innovation as a driver for growth in the sector. The strategy resulted in many successes but some challenges remain, such as innovation in the NHS which needs continued attention through the Accelerated Access Review.

 

50.       The 2011 Strategy outlined a range of initiatives developed to support growth in the life sciences sector. The Research Councils played a significant role in supporting the aims of the strategy delivering activities such as:

 

  1. The MRC invested over £310m to accelerate the translation of research into new products and services. This included £60m for Stratified Medicine, £50m for Experimental Medicine, £180m for a Biomedical Catalyst Fund and £10m for Asset Sharing.
  2. The MRC, EPSRC and BBSRC invested £25m in the UK Regenerative Medicine Platform (UKRMP) to pull through cutting edge biomedical science and engineering for the delivery of regenerative medicine, which will feed the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult[37] and the growing number of advances businesses in this sector. A second phase spanning 2018-2023 has now been launched, continuing work on some of the first set of challenges and moving into new areas and opportunities in regenerative medicine.
  3. We have invested £75m to expand the existing European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge. ELIXIR[38] is a pan-European infrastructure for the open access sharing of biological data, comprising 21 member countries, hosted by the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI). EMBL provides data and bioinformatic services to the scientific community, with a significant proportion of EBI’s users coming from industry including SMEs and large multi-nationals e.g. GSK and AstraZeneca[39]. We have gone much further in developing life sciences informatics and data analytics. MRC, ESRC and EPSRC along with health department and charity partners have invested further in health and biomedical informatics capacity, talent and infrastructures, which are being built on to form a new distributed institute, Health Data Research UK[40]. In parallel, EPSRC has coordinated formation of the Alan Turning Institute, developing excellence in mathematics and analytics across many areas, with a well aligned strategy for health research.

 

51.       The Strategy was welcomed by industry in a review by a number of UK life science industry bodies. From vision to action: delivery of the Strategy for UK Life Sciences (2014) [41], confirmed that industry had picked up these signals and acknowledged them as important. “As membership bodies for the medical technology, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and in-vitro diagnostics industries, the ABHI, ABPI, BIA and BIVDA welcomed the Strategy, which supported by a new innovation agenda in the NHS, sent a strong signal to investors, business leaders and the life sciences sector as a whole that the UK was open for business.” The review outlined areas where significant progress had been made and called for faster change in areas where there had not been progress.

 

 

Question 6. 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’?

 

52.       The broad themes, strategy and high-level objectives identified in the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy - A report to the Government from the life sciences sector are appropriate and important.

 

53.       The Strategy has a strong emphasis on research and innovation in academia and industry, and collaborations to address major challenges and opportunities. As you would expect, Research Councils are very active in developing and adapting strategy for academic/industry research priorities and partnerships, and are already working on some of these broad themes, across Councils and with Innovate UK, with the Government’s wider Industrial Strategy in mind.

 

54.       It is quite a detailed strategy and there is scope to address some of the aims by building on or changing existing programmes. Others call for more radical change – Research Councils, as well as supporting response-mode grants, have a good track-record of forming ambitious new partnerships, infrastructure, and institutes that connect research to economic and societal needs. Working ever more closely with Innovate UK, and in partnership with health departments and business, we are well placed to take forward many of these ideas, some through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, which reflect the “HARP” aims, and others as core activities.

 

55.       It will be important that we realise the vision in ways which ensure a dynamic and effective sector, while retaining UK-wide cohesion, and ensuring the environment for innovation becomes easier for industry and other partners to navigate.

 

56.       We also see a need to continue building colocation of research and application throughout the life sciences sector, as well as within major challenge areas. Colocation of biomedical and clinical research, NHS infrastructure, and industry partnerships (often linking support from health departments and charities as well) has been incredibly valuable in accelerating excellent R&D; fostering multi-skilled and multi-disciplinary teams, and speeding patient benefit. As we expand the UK’s strengths in the life sciences sector, fostering colocation and collaboration in new areas will be important, for example in digital pathology and informatics. Some of the new opportunities will also need wider multidisciplinary approaches, for example social sciences and, design need to be more fully involved in innovation areas such as diagnosis, ageing, and implementation of digital technologies.

 

57.       We agree that “the UK Science Offer” is one of the nation’s most important strengths in developing the life sciences industry sector; and welcome the support offered for expanding investment, in a balanced way across Research Councils, NIHR and charity research support. We are also pleased to see the emphasis on attracting the best international talent, whether in academic or industry R&D - to the UK. Looking ahead to our work as part of UK Research and Innovation, we would like to make the most of the opportunity to attract talent for health research and innovation across all disciplines, ensuring rapid growth in talent and leadership in areas such as data analytics, and systems engineering as well as in the more established fields.

 

58.       The Strategy also discusses important issues for the sector such as access to finance, adoption of innovative technologies, and regulation. We welcome the consideration of these issues and see opportunities for UK Research and Innovation to help the Office for Life Sciences and other parts of Government in addressing them, particularly through the social and economic research that we fund. UK Research and Innovation will also be well placed to help address local, regional and national factors that are required to enable effective implementation of the recommendations. Through good coordination and cooperation across the sector, we can maximise the opportunities created by a strong and vibrant research base to deliver benefit to patients, the business sector, the NHS and the UK economy.

 

 

BREXIT

 

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?

 

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

 

59.       Research is a global endeavour driven by a sharing of knowledge and through international collaboration. It is well recognised that the impact of research conducted through international collaboration is significantly higher than research conducted locally without it. The continued success of UK research is dependent on our best researchers collaborating with partners and sharing facilities across international boundaries. We are committed to enabling and facilitating collaborations between UK researchers and international partners in Europe and across the world.

 

60.       The impact of Brexit upon research and innovation, and also on the life sciences sector, will largely depend on what model the UK adopts for its relationship with the EU. The Research Councils want to see the best possible outcome for research and innovation from the negotiations and welcome the Government’s paper on Collaboration on science and innovation[42] and “the objectives for an ambitious science and innovation agreement with the EU” and its commitment to continuing the close working relationship with Europe in the interests of public health and safety. It will be vital that support for the UK research base will facilitate international partnerships and provide flexibility for researchers to engage with the networks that will best advance their field, wherever they are in the world.

 

61.       Investment in the UK research and innovation base is crucial to the UK maintaining its position as a world leader, a partner of choice and an attractive destination for global talent. Alongside the UK Government, industry and medical research charities, EU funding currently provides a significant source of funding for UK researchers in the life sciences. Many core European research programmes are embedded within, or encompassed by, Framework Programme regulations (we are currently in the eight programme, Horizon 2020). The UK’s relation to these will all be affected to varying degrees by Brexit. Research Councils UK welcomed the Government’s statement[43] on continuity of funding for UK applicants to Horizon 2020, which provided reassurance on underwriting the payment of awards.

 

62.       A number of European research activities lie outside the EU programmes and these will be unaffected by Brexit. For example, UK participation in the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL)[44] and programmes of the European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO)[45] will be unaffected as these are intergovernmental organisations established independently from the EU. Similarly, those international organisations that are based in Europe such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer or the Human Frontier Science Programme would be unaffected. UK participation in policy-based organisations outside EU programmes including Science Europe[46], European patient or disease focussed societies, associations and academies will be able to continue essentially as before.

 

63.       In addition to funding, maintaining access to a full range of world-class research facilities, both in the UK and internationally, is vital for the UK to remain a leading centre of research excellence.

 

64.       A key area to consider here is the impact Brexit may have on people and mobility. The UK is a global science and research nation. We have achieved this position by being open to the world in attracting and investing in the best minds and skills, underpinned by a pipeline of talent which includes students, researchers, professional and technical experts and academics. We welcomed the statement made by Universities and Science Minister Jo Johnson which confirms that non-UK EU research students beginning PhD programmes in the academic year 2017/18 remain eligible for RCUK Research Council support.

 

65.       The UK must remain open and welcoming to researchers, innovators and specialist technicians. The UK immigration system must support the retention, access and movement of those who lead, undertake and support research and innovation including:

 

 

66.       The implications of leaving the EU on the status of legislation relevant to research will need to be carefully considered as negotiations progress. In many cases[47], it is likely that the continuation of collaborative research would require the UK to adhere to EU standards and implement new regulations at national level. The UK and RCUK has also had a strong and positive voice in the development of much EU legislation and regulation relevant to research, innovation and technology. This influence has had a positive impact on the conduct of research – for example promoting high and consistent standards of animal welfare in research[48] and updating data privacy laws across the EU[49].

 

67.       The impact of Brexit on regulation in the health sector is one of a number of areas being explored through the ESRC UK in a Changing Europe Initiative. The study will investigate the legal and policy changes necessary to secure health in the context of Brexit, including the impact of Brexit on framing regulatory debates in the future and the prospect of cross-fertilisation of regulatory approaches between the global/EU/UK devolved jurisdictions post-Brexit. Understanding generated by the project will be particularly important to charting the possible future(s) of health law at the UK and devolved levels in ways that secure and protect health.

 

22 September 2017

 

 

Annex 1: Strategic investments and impact

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The Biomedical Catalyst has efficiently provided support to both academically and commercially led research and development, being uniquely positioned as the only non-dilutive response mode funding for UK life sciences SMEs. Although too early to draw any firm conclusions on ultimate impact, delivery of the scheme has been highly effective to date and is already accelerating the pace of product development and leveraging significant further investment into the life sciences sector.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Annex 2: Research Council support and benefit to FTSE 100 companies: GSK

 

 


Annex 3: Industry Sectors and Research Council Support

 

Figure 2: New industry collaborations created during the lifetime of Research Council funded projects, 2006-2016, mapped by economic sector

 

 

Over 7,500 collaborations were reported with UK-based companies between 2006 and 2016 via Researchfish®. Unique organisations were matched to entries from the UK Companies House database and assigned to one of 20 sector categories, largely on the basis of the standard industry code recorded at companies house. The collaborations are reported by principal investigators on Research Council awards active since 2006. Respondents are asked to record all partnerships that have been established as a result of the award and that have led to evidenced output. So this data may not include collaborations that were present when the grant was awarded (i.e. collaborative grant schemes), and will not include collaborations at an early stage of development.

 

This approach focusses on formal partnerships and participation in consortia and is unlikely to capture the larger number of industry contacts made by Research Council clubs, large scale University knowledge-exchange and short-term secondments.

 

Figure 3: Matrix showing number of industry collaborations created during the lifetime of Research Council funded projects, 2006-2016, mapped by Research Council. Red colours illustrate a higher number of industry interactions.

 

 

Annex 4: Spin-out Companies based on Research Council Funding

 

Figure 3: Spin-out companies based on Research Council funding which are active and employing staff in 2016 (Total 221)

 

 

Information on spin out companies is largely sourced from Researchfish® with further desk research carried out by a cross-council group to match details to companies house data, identify active and employing organisations, and to categorise companies to broad industry groups

 

[1] https://beisgovuk.citizenspace.com/strategy/industrial-strategy/supporting_documents/buildingourindustrialstrategygreenpaper.pdf (January 2017)

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-sciences-industrial-strategy (August 2017)

[3]https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/researchanddevelopmentexpenditure/bulletins/ukgrossdomesticexpenditureonresearchanddevelopment/2015

[4] Out of all the OECD countries the top in terms of BERD are (based on 2014 data in current prices and PPP, $bn): USA (56.6), Japan (14.6), UK(5.7) and Germany (5.3): Outside the OECD China reports over 11: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/science-and-technology/main-science-and-technology-indicators-volume-2016-issue-2/business-enterprise-expenditure-on-r-amp-d-berd-performed-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry-at-current-prices-and-ppps_msti-v2016-2-table39-en#.WcE1LciGOUk

[5] http://www.abpi.org.uk/our-work/library/industry/Documents/The_economic_contribution_of_the_UK_Life_Sciences_industry.pdf

[6] https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/pubs/the-importance-of-engineering-and-physical-sciences-research-to-health-and-life-sciences/

[7] https://agritech.blog.gov.uk/category/agri-tech-strategy/agri-tech-catalyst/

[8] https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/news/partnershipsprosperousnation/

[9] http://medical-technologies.leeds.ac.uk/

[10] Lincker, H., C. Ziogas, M. Carr, N. Porta and H-G. Eicher (2014), ‘Regulatory watch: where do new medicines come from in the EU?’, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 13, 92–3.

[11] https://www.opentargets.org/overview/

[12] http://www.supergen-bioenergy.net/

[13] http://www.hrcsonline.net/sites/default/files/UKCRCHealthResearchAnalysis2014%20WEB.pdf

[14] For example, translation into veterinary medicine can be faster than human medicine due to a lower barrier to entry and insurance models for domestic pets which allow innovative treatment.

[15] https://understandingpatientdata.org.uk/

[16] The Quadram Institute, located on the Norwich Research Park, is a new £multi-million state-of-the-art food and health research and endoscopy centre that will open mid-2018. Engaging in fundamental and translational food and health research, alongside clinical studies, endoscopy and industry, it will combine scientific excellence and clinical expertise, delivering better patient care and accelerating innovation. http//:www.quadram.ac.uk

[17] http://www.amrc.org.uk/sites/default/files/doc_lib/AMRC_submission_to_science_and_innovation_strategy_FINAL_8_Aug_14.pdf

[18] http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/innovation/access-research/uk-research-and-innovation-campuses/

[19] https://www.bas.ac.uk/science/science-and-innovation/aurora-cambridge

[20] http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/

[21] http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/2017/03/gsk-regeneron-initiative-to-develop-better-treatments-more-quickly/

[22] pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities, Hughes and Kitson (2012): https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp435.pdf

[23]http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/Independentresearch/2016/University,KE,framework,Good,practice,in,technology,transfer/2016_ketech.pdf

[24] http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/lambert_review_final_450.1151581102387.pdf

[25] http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/research/impact/solexa-sequencing-innovator-winner/

[26] http://leafexpressionsystems.co.uk/

[27] https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/news/tissueregenixspinout/

[28]Science Industry Partnership – The Demand for Skills in the UK Science Economy

[29] THE FUNDING ENVIRONMENT FOR UNIVERSITIES 2014 http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2014/research-and-pgr-training.pdf

[30] https://www.mrc.ac.uk/skills-careers/studentships/how-we-fund-studentships/industrial-case-studentships/

[31] https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/35209-Collabor.pdf

[32] https://www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/review-of-vulnerable-skills-and-capabilities/

[33] http://www.scienceindustrypartnership.com/media/529050/sip_science_industry_demand_for_skills_final.pdf

[34] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263729/bis-13-1297-international-comparative-performance-of-the-UK-research-base-2013.pdf

[35] http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/bioscience-facts-figures-pdf/

[36] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32457/11-1429-strategy-for-uk-life-sciences.pdf

[37] https://ct.catapult.org.uk/

[38] www.elixir-europe.org

[39] An independent report of 2016 commissioned by EMBL-EBI confirmed the value and impact of EMBL-EBI’s activities: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/about/news/press-releases/value-and-impact-of-the-european-bioinformatics-institute

[40] https://www.mrc.ac.uk/about/institutes-units-centres/uk-institute-for-health-and-biomedical-informatics-research/

[41] http://www.abpi.org.uk/our-work/library/industry/Pages/23012014.aspx

[42] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/642542/Science_and_innovation_paper.pdf

[43] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-philip-hammond-guarantees-eu-funding-beyond-date-uk-leaves-the-eu (August 2016)

[44] https://www.embl.org/

[45] www.embo.org/

[46] https://www.scienceeurope.org/

[47] For example EU Clinical Trials and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - both of which are expected to come into force in 2018

[48] Alternatives to Animals directive, which came into force in 2010

[49] General Data Protection Regulation

[50]https://agritech.blog.gov.uk/

[51] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childhood-obesity-a-plan-for-action

[52] Sick days cost the UK economy an estimated £15bn per year, https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/lgb2/chapter/costs-and-savings)

[53] http://www.chi-med.ac.uk/

[54] http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/research/frontier-bioscience/

[55] http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/fostering-innovation-2017-brochure/

[56] http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/innovation/maximising-impact/follow-on/

[57] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-medical-officer-cmo-annual-report-public-mental-health

[58] https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/articles/sicknessabsenceinthelabourmarket/2016

[59] http://innovationcaucus.co.uk/

[60] https://proteus.ac.uk/

[61] http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/research/programmes-networks/synthetic-biology-growth-programme/

[62]https://connect.innovateuk.org/documents/2826135/31405930/BioDesign+for+the+Bioeconomy+2016+DIGITAL+updated+21_03_2016.pdf/d0409f15-bad3-4f55-be03-430bc7ab4e7e