APPENDIX 33
Memorandum submitted by Dr Tadataka Yamada,
MD, Research and Development, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals
INTRODUCTION
The past decade has seen a profound shift in
UK science policy, driven by scientific, technological, economic,
political and societal factors. The start of the transformation
can be traced back to the decision to transfer responsibility
for science from the Department of Education and Science to the
new Office of Science and Technology, and to publication of the
Science White Paper in 1993. This document, Realising our Potential,
has been highly influential in setting out the priorities for
publicly-funded research, in providing a new framework for the
Research Councils, in identifying the likely determinants of competitiveness
and in introducing the Technology Foresight Programme.
SmithKline Beecham welcomed the policy initiatives
and we have committed ourselves to playing our part in addressing
the challenges. Hard choices must still be made in reconciling
infinite demand with finite resources in education, research and
health care. We share the enthusiasm for coherence and consistency
in policy, to capitalise on current opportunities so as to maintain
the rank of the UK among the leading scientific nations and to
educate a new generation for a world shaped increasingly by accelerating
pace of technological change, but we have concerns as outlined
in this paper.
The issues that need to be addressed continue
to resonate globally. How large a scientific enterprise do we
need? How do we set priorities? How do we measure success? How
can we strengthen government-industry-university partnerships?
How do we engage the public-at-large?
The pharmaceutical sector is a UK success story
based on innovation and sustained R&D investment. The science
base contributions to that success were discussed in detail at
the Science and Technology Committee's Inquiry on the proposed
merger between SmithKline Beecham and GlaxoWellcome. In brief,
the science base is important to SmithKline Beecham in three principal
areas:
— provision of well-trained researchers;
— access to knowledge that underpins
our understanding of disease and the technologies that help to
develop innovative medicines;
— support for lifelong learning to
update our skills.
SmithKline Beecham has created an internal culture
of lifelong development of knowledge and skills, and we do not
act as a passive customer for the outputs from the education system.
We make a major contribution to student training—supplying
industrial experience though Sandwich (undergraduate) and CASE
Award (PhD) programmes and vacation work projects and we also
support a wide range of research collaborations, joint academic
appointments and endowments.
There is room for optimism in seeing science
policy recently move nearer to the heart of decision-making and
political action. But, much more can be done to build coherence
in policy for bioscience research across the full spectrum of
education and training, technology transfer and fiscal and regulatory
frameworks, as well as to reverse the decline in laboratory infrastructure
in universities and create state-of-the-art science teaching and
computational resources in schools. The 1993 White Paper provided
a major impetus for change; capitalising on the extra funding
and the mandate for change charted by recent government initiatives,
requires not only selectivity and focus but also pluralism and
partnership, and an understanding of what the many users of research
want. The UK has achieved much in developing dialogue and partnership
between government, academia, industry and other research funders
(such as Medical Research Charities). In aggregate this is a singular
research resource. In looking to future strategy developments
we see some important opportunities and challenges in building
on this partnership. In particular, we need to develop new forms
of research infrastructure (for example, in health informatics),
to identify best practice to facilitate technology transfer, to
work towards informed public debate on contentious issues, to
create an integrated strategy across government to promote innovation
and avoid the silo budget mentality. In the rest of this paper,
we elaborate on these priorities in the context of reviewing how
the 1993 White Paper has been important.
FORWARD LOOK
We agree with the recent conclusion made in
the Forward Look inquiry by the Science and Technology Committee—the
Forward Look should resume its annual publication to provide a
clear and updated strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology.
The Forward Look report represents a critical resource for auditing
progress in pursuit of the key objectives in science policy across
government. For example, the decline in civil departments' R&D
investment, highlighted recently by the Science and Technology
Committee, is a cause for continuing concern and must be monitored
closely, even though there is much to welcome in the renewed funding
of other elements of the science base (for example, the Joint
Infrastructure Fund).
We support many of the other recent recommendations
from the Science and Technology Committee's inquiry on the Forward
Look. We agree that:
— the Forward Look should seek to match
expenditure figures more specifically to policy objectives and
the achievement of departmental science strategies;
— national competitiveness should be
added as an objective for science expenditure, complementing the
objectives on wealth creation and improved quality of life;
— the co-ordination role of the Office
of Science and Technology and the Chief Scientific Adviser should
be enhanced, with a more explicit remit to intervene, where necessary,
with departments;
— the Chief Scientific Adviser may
require additional support to carry out his transdepartmental
co-ordination role effectively;
— the role of the Ministerial Science
Group should be clarified and expanded to oversee the Office of
Science and Technology in its co-ordination role and to act as
a forum for resolving disagreements.
Other key recommendations from the Science and
Technology Committee Forward Look inquiry are addressed further
in the following sections.
FORESIGHT
We enthusiastically supported the creation of
the Technology Foresight initiative, designed to achieve a culture
change by better communication, interaction and mutual understanding
between the scientific community, industry and government departments.
We have long employed foresight techniques in our own R&D;
as an active participant in the national Technology Foresight
programme, SmithKline Beecham shared its experience of forward
thinking on markets and technologies and gained access to new
partnerships with academic and other research groups. For example,
through the Technology Foresight programme, SmithKline Beecham
came together with the British Heart Foundation, the Wolfson Foundation
and Addenbrookes NHS Trust in a major consortium to pursue fundamental
research for chronic degenerative diseases associated with ageing.
We have remained enthusiastic and active participants
in the second round of Foresight but we raised a number of points
at the consultation stage and these issues are not yet entirely
resolved:
— the choice of cross-sectoral themes,
such as "Ageing Population" is an attractive way forward
to build wider public interest and to catalyse dialogue for the
longer-term. But, in creating this new layer of aggregation, and
as the objectives broaden, it is ever more necessary to ensure
the alignment of Foresight activity with other strategic initiatives
and current programmes rather than positioning Foresight as an
isolated initiative in innovation. Our doubts remain that various
government initiatives involving the Department of Trade and Industry
(eg Foresight, Genome Valley, Biotechnology Clusters, Pharmaceutical
Industry Competitiveness Task Force) are completely integrated;
— there was a general perception that
government departments did not (and do not) see themselves as
part of the principal audience for Foresight, particularly with
regard to analysis of issues and delivery of implementation plans.
There is still little evidence of developing coherence in science
and innovation policy across Whitehall in consequence of the Foresight
programmes. This is not just a matter of exporting Foresight priorities
from the Office of Science and Technology to other departments
but, also, using Foresight-like processes to inform policy development
everywhere;
— the increasing enthusiasm to embrace
those businesses not currently actively involved in R&D must
be interpreted cautiously if it is not to become the pursuit of
lame ducks and sunset industries. The Small and Medium enterprises
(SME) sector is not homogenous and should not receive excessive
attention since SMEs do not automatically represent the most important
vehicle for new employment and wealth creation;
— lessons learnt from foreign Foresight
exercises showed that most fail at the implementation stage. Scepticism
about the value of Foresight will remain if there is not persuasive
evidence of beneficial impact and this is a challenging goal because
many of the process benefits (building networks) may be intangible.
Foresight exercises are effective in identifying the opportunities
and problems but Foresight initiatives must also galvanise the
efforts to arrive at the solutions to problems. To reiterate—in
addition to better linking with budget prioritisation and informed
policy generation, Foresight has the potential to be a central
feature in coherent government strategy for science and innovation
and in the development of a supportive community-at-large. But,
frankly, these objectives for cultural change have not yet been
met;
— while many in R&D-intensive industry
remain enthusiastic about the Foresight concept, it is critical
that the exercise is properly resourced by the Office of Science
and Technology. There is current evidence of rather variable support
across the Panels with insufficient funding overall. Without greater
government commitment, Foresight will not realise its potential.
ADVISING ON
RESEARCH PRIORITIES
FOR COHERENT
GOVERNMENT STRATEGY
We do not feel competent to judge on the wisdom
of abolishing the Advisory Council on Science and Technology and
its replacement with the Council for Science and Technology but
we are not aware that consultation across the science base constituencies
or transparency of decision-making has improved in consequence.
What is important in optimising the mechanisms
for advisory bodies is that there is joined-up government thinking
in science and innovation policy. Recent government initiatives
have delivered significant progress in developing an innovation
framework of policies and instruments and the commitment to major
science-based activities such as Foresight remains critically
important. But, for innovation and competitiveness in the biosciences-based
sector, coherent advice and decision-making requires the advisory
mechanisms to address several other vitally-important aspects:
— in ensuring that relevant regulations,
whether emanating within the UK or at the European Union level,
or at the regional planning level, are science-based to create
an environment in which R&D can flourish;
— in ensuring a strong legal framework
to protect Intellectual Property in order to reward innovation
in an era of escalating R&D costs;
— in ensuring that the awareness of
the value of research and innovation (measured in both social
and economic terms) is appropriately encouraged in the community
at large;
— in ensuring that government itself
acts as an informed customer for innovation—for example,
there is significant need for the NHS to develop the required
receptivity to embrace innovative medical products and services
and for government and industry to work in partnership to deliver
cost-effective medicine. Medicines reduce overall health care
costs because they are the most cost-effective interventions for
disease, but this benefit (and, thus, the full benefit of innovative
research) is impossible to realise in a UK environment based on
health budgets that are compartmentalised by siloed cost centres.
INTERCHANGE OF
IDEAS, SKILLS,
KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN
THE SCIENCE
BASE AND
INDUSTRY
The objective of improving this interchange
is central to all the points that we make in this paper. UK competitiveness
requires that the increased funding for university research and
infrastructure is prioritised strategically in pursuit of excellence,
that there is increasing institutional mission differentiation
and that the commitment to better partnership for technology transfer
is further progressed. We believe that fostering relationships
with established innovative firms is at least as important—probably
much more important—than stimulating spin-offs from university
research. While UK linkages are better than in many other European
countries, we can still do better, by understanding and sharing
best practice, in facilitating the transfer of intellectual property
from academia to industry in order to realise the practical applications
of innovation. For example, how effective are science parks and
the various incubator models? Should the UK emulate the US successful
application of Small Business Innovation Grants? The 1993 White
Paper was a good start in exploring new approaches to knowledge
transfer but much more is now needed in terms of analysis and
dissemination of the critical success factors.
We recommend that the assessment of science
base activities for Higher Education Funding Council purposes
will require a wider range of weighted criteria than used previously,
covering not just publication record but relevance of quality
research (aligned with Foresight), links with teaching, impact
and value to customers of research (particularly industry). We
ask that the current Funding Council Fundamental Review is rigorous
in addressing the fundamental issues. In support of the goals
of mission differentiation, pluralism and industry interaction,
it is important to find new ways to encourage secondment between
industry, academia (and government) so that perspectives and competencies
are better shared. However, R&D-intensive industry does not
ask that universities take on the primary role for applied research
and development work—we look to the science base for the
longer-term and "blue skies" perspective.
The recent third stream initiative, "Higher
Education Reach Out to Business and the Community" fund is
a welcome experiment that may merit increasing resources providing
that this venture is strategically well-integrated with the networking
framework of other university-industry links initiated by different
government departments
The degree to which entrepreneurship can be
taught is debatable but Higher Education Institutions do need
to communicate enhanced awareness of business, management competencies,
the innovation process and the opportunities for public support
of innovation. A general understanding of the importance of patent
protection in enabling innovation is also highly desirable but
this does not mean that universities should be encouraged to hold
and develop their own patents—this task is often better
assigned to industry.
Since the 1993 White Paper, much has been written
about the importance of improving the flow of skilled scientists
to industry and we will not now repeat all the points agreed during
the Committee's inquiry on the SmithKline Beecham-GlaxoWellcome
proposed merger. We would like, however, to take this opportunity
to emphasise two issues:
— by comparison with the US; the UK
can do much more in building diversity in its workforce, stimulating
creativity, by encouraging greater recruitment from outside the
UK, from Europe and elsewhere. The UK should continue to take
a lead in Europe in encouraging student and researcher mobility
and, more generally, should take a less restrictive approach to
work permits and visa arrangements;
— we are concerned at the flow of clinical
researchers into industry and, in particular, we are worried that
the proposed revalidation procedures being developed by the General
Medical Council may have an, unintended, adverse effect upon the
recruitment of highly-qualified physicians. If talented physicians
become unwilling to join the pharmaceutical industry because they
fear that it will be difficult to return to clinical practice,
then companies would not be able to maintain their present, extensive
clinical research base in the UK.
ACCESS FOR
SMES TO
INNOVATION SUPPORT
PROGRAMMES
It is generally agreed that government can and
should do better to recognise and reward innovation, but there
is a danger that innovation policy becomes preoccupied with the
SME sector, confusing the objectives of innovation policy and
employment policy.
Nonetheless, since the Science White Paper and
in consequence of the series of Competitiveness White Papers,
there has been significant progress on resolving management, regulatory
and financing issues for SMEs and for commercialising university
research. The European Business Environment Simplification Task
Force comprehensively explored the barriers for innovative SMEs
across Europe and their recommendations (on venture seed capital,
tax rates, capital allowances, incentives for mentoring) provide
a rational starting point for action.
But, many start-up companies are moribund because
they lack a viable business plan. Rescuing this tail of mediocrity
should not be a priority for government. It is vitally important
that incentives to invest in innovation are as applicable to the
established innovative companies as to the SMEs. Spin-out of technology
and people from larger companies will become a major source of
start-ups and large companies also help SMEs to flourish by acting
as partner and customer. It is essential to understand, however,
that large, successful, R&D-intensive companies have also
created an internal environment of entrepreneurship—their
creativity should not be judged only in terms of their relationships
with SMEs. We are highly interested in the recent recommendation
from the Science and Technology Committee (Forward Look Inquiry)
that there is a strong case to be made for extending R&D tax
credits to large companies and, moreover, to cover the costs of
market research and product launch within the scope of tax credits.
REORGANISATION OF
THE RESEARCH
COUNCILS AND
APPLICATION OF
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY FOR
WEALTH CREATION
AND IMPROVED
QUALITY OF
LIFE
The modification of the Research Councils in
consequence of the White Paper recommendations has been broadly
positive. We find that, in developing best practice, the Research
Councils have been proactive in seeking industry's advice on research
funding priorities and the mechanisms by which their funds are
disbursed. There is still some variability in these respects between
the Research Councils—the best should serve as a model,
with regard not only to practice, but also to structure, and a
commonality of approach between the Research Councils would improve
their effectiveness.
The potentially greater co-ordination between
Research Councils, exemplified, by the recent over-arching statement
of their future instrumentation and technology needs (Long Term
Technology Review) is greatly welcome. We applaud the recognition
of the need to establish multidisciplinary programmes across the
Research Councils, the alignment with the activities underway
in Foresight and the enthusiasm to collaborate with industry.
This over-arching, Long Term Technology Review is a highly-important
development in taking forward the three key issues for the Research
Councils: Quality, Interdisciplinarity, Partnership.
We wish to take this opportunity to emphasise
two general concerns associated with taking forward these objectives:
1. The continuing difficulties in providing
career progression for fixed-term contract research staff and
in properly funding PhD students (by comparison with the higher
stipends offered, for example, by The Wellcome Trust and Imperial
Cancer Research Fund). We welcome recent Research Council proposals
for greater flexibility in support for doctoral-level training;
we believe the remedy is to reduce the number of studentships
(and, perhaps, go to four year studentships) but increase the
stipend. We also urge the Research Councils to continue to experiment
with a range of funding models to ensure the subsequent encouragement
of the younger, less-established researchers, early in their careers.
2. The continuing issues relating to the
translation of basic into clinical research and the problems with
training clinical researchers (as described in previous reports
from the Rex Richards Inquiry and the Academy of Medical Sciences).
These issues—vitally important in facilitating knowledge
transfer—can also be addressed by building further partnership
between the Research Councils industry, other medical research
funders and the NHS. But, our worries on clinical research training
compound our growing concerns on other aspects of the UK clinical
R&D environment. For example, there are significant issues
for pharmaceutical companies with respect to prolonged start-up
times for clinical trials in NHS facilities, for the transparency
and level of costs imposed (high overheads) and because fragmented
capacity at NHS sites creates problems for achieving critical
mass in patient recruitment. There are also unrealised opportunities.
The NHS is a substantial but underused research resource—for
example in population genetics and in health outcomes—and
there is significant potential for building partnership by sharing
data and analyses in order to deliver improved quality health
care and to develop better clinical research training. Reinforcing
the point made earlier, we need to establish the infrastructure
to permit adequate capture of health care and health economic
data in order to ascertain the impact of innovative therapeutic
solutions to medical conditions.
CAMPAIGN TO
SPREAD UNDERSTANDING
OF SCIENCE
AMONG SCHOOL
CHILDREN AND
THE PUBLIC
The public is not an homogenous group. Scientists
and policy-makers often err in their predilection for tailoring
a desired message rather than engaging in scientifically-informed
debate. It is easy for the community at large to feel underestimated
and coerced. We agree that it is the responsibility of scientists,
whether in academia, industry or public service, to do more to
enunciate the benefits that can accrue from R&D. We support
the many excellent recommendations from the recent House of Lords
Science and Technology Committee Report on Science and Society,
relating to the need for cultural change in favour of open and
timely public debate with the Government giving a lead at European
level in fostering public dialogue. As the recent Eurobarometer
survey confirms, public attitudes toward research in Europe remain
a significant problem. Furthermore, misguided attacks by opinion-leaders
on genetic technologies and medical informatics (for example,
in terms of exaggerated privacy concerns) increase public sensitivities
and may severely restrict the R&D environment. We believe
that industry can work in partnership with government, academia,
NGOs and others to promote the sharing of perspectives and informed
discussion.
Young people are the key to achieving and sustaining
the vision of the knowledge driven economy. We welcome the recent
Government and other proposals relevant to developing science
education: the Department for Education and Employment documents
on the post-16 learning framework and on Teachers ("Meeting
the challenge of change"); the national curriculum changes
(from September 2000) and the Nuffield Foundation recommendations;
the Council for Science and Technology recommendations on Science
Teachers; the Capital Modernisation Fund to upgrade science laboratories;
the incentives to increase specialist teacher recruitment and
to promote long-term teaching performance. These initiatives are
all valuable, provided that there is shared understanding of the
goals and methods of measurement for monitoring impact. However,
we believe that there are significant challenges still to be faced
in providing effective support to teachers and attracting high
quality recruits into the profession. This may require new incentives,
it certainly requires that teachers are themselves given the opportunity
to contribute to developing the learning process and that teachers
are given better support through continuous professional development
schemes and appropriate administrative support.
SmithKline Beecham is committed to maintaining
the reputation of the pharmaceutical industry as a leader in industry-schools
liaison, at a local level—with links to more than 90 schools,
events for more than 2,500 young people annually and hosting 50
work experience students this year—and more broadly. For
example, we organise the Health Matters School Awards (secondary
level school research projects in health-related subjects) across
Europe and we sponsor science museum activities in several countries.
We have worked with the British Association for the Advancement
of Science during UK Science Week/Annual Festival to bring sixth-form
students together from across Europe to learn about R&D and
explore related social issues. We believe that our efforts with
schools and the community at large have been highly useful—but
there is room to do much more in an integrated way across Europe,
First, however, it is necessary to find a mechanism to share best
practice and we look to the forthcoming Science White Paper to
provide a lead in proposing ideas to this end.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Perspectives in national science policy and
strategy have changed for the better since Realising our Potential.
For example:
— initial scepticism about Foresight
has been allayed by recognition of the value of building broader
partnerships between academia and industry;
— R&D evaluation has become a routine
objective embedded in research funder's expectations;
— the research community no longer
assumes that concerns expressed by the public at large and their
elected representatives can be countered by scientists merely
speaking more loudly, scientists are now more ready to learn about
public expectations, the effect of the media and the impact on
Whitehall;
— the concerns expressed about declining
public funding, the consequent decay in research infrastructure
and employer difficulties in recruiting and academic collaboration
were heard and have begun to be addressed by infusion of additional
funds.
This progress is highly welcome but we must
avoid the false dawns and frustrated expectations that characterised
some earlier epochs in science policy. There is, of course, much
more to be done in resolving the problems identified in the 1993
White Paper and taking forward the debate into the 2000 White
Paper: prioritising public investment in science and maintaining
long-term commitment to R&D; optimising the curriculum and
its delivery in schools' science; promoting innovation across
government; facilitating translation of R&D advances into
improved health care and quality of life. Pervading all these
issues is the co-operativity challenge—ensuring that government,
academia, industry and the other research-funders work together
to exploit the new opportunities. To reiterate our previous points,
building partnership will require developing new forms of research
infrastructure, for example, in constructing and sharing medical
information databases; will require facilitation of technology
transfer, will require a coherent, integrated view across government
to promote innovation and avoid the silo budget mentality. The
building of public-private partnership must remain central in
UK science policy activities. It is essential to be radical in
UK agenda-setting to these ends and in energising the next generation
of scientists, innovators and policy-makers.
6 June 2000
|
