Written evidence submitted by the Health
Protection Agency (TIC 48)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Health Protection Agency was established
with a prime duty "to protect the community (or any part
of the community) against infectious diseases and other dangers
to health" (Health Protection Agency Act 2004). In carrying
out its prime duty the agency is organised to provide a wide range
of services and public health actions that in turn deliver the
following key strategic health outcomes:
- (a) Reduce key infections
- (b) Minimise the health impact from environmental
hazards, including radiation, chemicals and poisons
- (c) Promote safe and effective biological
medicines.
1.2 These health outcomes are achieved through
the detection and monitoring of threats, the provision of appropriate,
independent and expert scientific advice and effective public
health actions at local, national and international level. The
agency generates scientific knowledge through primary and applied
research, health surveillance and the analysis of information;
it undertakes commercial activity on an international scale that
generates knowledge, enhances UK capacity and produces income
in support of the agency's functions; and it converts that knowledge
into expert advice and action at the right level to improve public
health - from individuals making choices about their own actions
to government developing policy.
2.0 SUBMISSION
TO THE
INQUIRY QUESTIONS
2.1 Health Protection Agency notes the response
of PraxisUnico to the broader issue of technology transfer and
innovation in the UK and therefore limits its response to the
following comments on Question 5: "What effect would the
introduction of Fraunhofer-type institutes have on the work of
Public Sector Research Establishments (PSRE) and other existing
research centres that undertake Government sponsored research?"
2.2 Fraunhofer-type institutes undertake applied
and translational research and technology development, providing
a link between fundamental research and industrial applications.
As such, they undoubtedly make an important contribution, particularly
in facilitating the interface between German universities, government
and industry in that country.
2.3 As has been noted in a number of reports
and ministerial statements, applied and translational research
is relatively weak in the UK, and measures to strengthen the translation
of research into improved health outcomes and economic benefits
would be welcomed by HPA. The key question is whether the formation
of Fraunhofer-type institutes would accelerate or distract from
this goal.
2.4 By international standards, the UK has relatively
sophisticated models for bridging the gap between PSRE research
and industry. Although not as well-established or well-funded
as technology transfer in the academic sector, most PSREs are
encouraged to develop co-operative links with industry and many
have benefited from government funding in order to facilitate
this, most notably through the PSRE Exploitation Fund, which has
been one of the few available sources of proof-of-concept funding
and support for technology transfer. Some PSREs have proved highly
entrepreneurial, generating start-up companies, embedding business
skills within the organisation, and employing innovative business
models.
2.5 In addition, programmes such as those funded
by Technology Strategy Board (TSB), have encouraged innovative
companies to seek partners in the PSRE community, while a number
of initiatives within the NHS have sought to build links between
the NHS and industry, both as sources and users of innovative
technology.
2.6 Despite the progress noted above, funding
for innovation, industry liaison, and technology transfer in the
public sector has been patchy at best. For example, funding under
the PSRE Exploitation Fund will end in March 2011 and it is unclear
whether or when this will resume. The funding of such activities
within the NHS is equally uncertain. In reality, the main limitations
to the ability of HPA to offer a broader range of translational
and applied research to services to UK industry are facilities
and funding rather than a lack of enthusiasm; emerging biotechnology,
vaccines and diagnostics companies find it difficult to meet the
full cost of research carried out in highly-specialised facilities
such of those of HPA laboratories. Our laboratories themselves
are, in some cases, aging and can struggle to meet modern standards.
2.7 Consequently, while we would seek to develop
productive relationships with Fraunhofer-type institutes if established
in the UK, our concern would be that these could cause further
dilution of the very limited funding pool for applied and translational
research. Our conclusion is that it would prove more cost-effective
to build on existing structures and programmes, in particular
selective investment in PSRE facilities that are targeted in order
to meet the needs of industry, support for work with high growth
innovative companies unable to meet the full economic cost of
PSRE research, enhancement of funding for proof-of-concept studies
designed to bridge the gap between PSREs and industry, continuing
support for TSB initiatives designed to stimulate innovation in
small companies, and an extension of programmes designed to facilitate
technology transfer from PSREs.
3.0 DECLARATION
OF INTERESTS
Health Protection Agency currently benefits, directly
and indirectly, from UK government funding for applied research
and technology transfer.
Dr David Rhodes
Head of Business Development
Health Protection Agency
2 December 2010
| 
