This Article Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jones, B Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jones, B

Public service summit: science & innovation, 2004

Department of Clinical Oncology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TH, UK

	Introduction

Top Introduction Individual speakers Discussion

 
The public service summit, held in London on the 24th of September 2004, was designed to announce important changes in Science and Innovation funding within the UK. Attendees were from the various Government Agencies, Universities, NHS and Industry.

Phyllis Starkey MP (Chair of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology) provided the formal introduction and reminded the audience that The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, had announced enhanced spending on basic research in the previous budget statement. The political aim is to increase what is regarded as an existing relatively strong science base as a necessary requirement for future prosperity in view of the increasing scientific development of larger countries, such as China and India. It is envisaged that improved cooperation between Universities, Research Councils and Industry will be modelled on the successful practices of the Pharmaceutical industry.

	Individual speakers

Top Introduction Individual speakers Discussion

 
Daniel Storey, a senior economist from HM Treasury, provided retrospective data, starting from Renaissance times and modified by wars, that investment in technology leads to benefits in society at large. It was not until the early 1950s that Solow identified prospective causal evidence of this relationship. The formal recognition that investment is insufficient in the UK was made by a group at Sussex University in the mid 1990s. There is to be a 5.75% per year real increase in research spending for 10 successive years (2004–2014), which will bring the overall level to around 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP). A framework for measuring performance with time is to be developed. It is acknowledged that the entire structure of science education, from schools onwards may require attention. Charities, Regional Development Agencies, Universities and Research Councils are all expected to participate in a positive and constructive way in order to "catch up with the USA". The phrase "virtuous circle" was used, but Keynes was not mentioned, which perhaps reflects modern political correctness rather like the frequent omission of Beveridge and Bevan in health spending debates.

Professor Hugh Clare (Director of the UK Micro and Nanotechnology Network) reviewed the successes and future potential from nanotechnology, with anticipation of a post petrochemical world. The UK had been late to formally acknowledge and actively fund this area, which should transform industrial processes and products. A few years ago, France, Switzerland and Germany were well advanced in terms of a good infrastructure. It was typically necessary for the UK to commission a report (The Taylor Report), but its rapid implementation did lead to substantial improvements. There is now good activity in 12 British Universities and the potential benefits extend from improved health care products to water purification and antiterrorism measures.

Professor Susan Greenfield (Royal Institution and University of Oxford) impressively covered the topic of how science is funded, with examples from her own field of neuropharmacology. She delivered a rational critique of existing public sector peer review mechanisms, which for a variety of reasons are risk averse, of the vicissitudes of industry (e.g. market conditions, take-overs, lack of basic understanding at the top level) and of the frequent discrepant agendas in "spin out" companies and technology transfer companies formed by Universities with Investors: all of these can produce delays in the achievement of successful innovation. Recommendations included better arrangements for secured intellectual property, formation of syndicates of risk taking companies in order to reduce the risk to individual companies, tax breaks on profits related to investment and crucially a better choice of personnel for liaisons between academia and commerce. To solve the latter, the presence of "talent scouts" on University campuses were suggested: perhaps we have something to learn from the Football Association after all!

Professor Julia Goodfellow spoke on behalf of all the Research Councils and explained that the concept of joined up working between the respective Councils is increasing, with development of Networks and longer term projects such as Faraday Partnerships and Follow on Funds. It was emphasised that the "Development Gap" in the UK is huge: development requires approximately 10 times the funding of pure research. Much of British Industry has a notorious reputation in this respect (my words). It is the duty of Government to create more efficient and well regulated pathways for investment in long term projects.

There were two relatively long break-out sessions, separated by lunch, with reasonable times allowed for questions from delegates, mainly about their concerns of excessively complex bureaucracy.

The afternoon session consisted of a more holistic approach. Allan Mayo (Department of Trade and Industry) outlined the wide remit and priorities for areas which require research and development. These included environmental safety, reduction of disease risks, better transport etc., but the number one issue was that of the "ageing society". The increased use of cross-over technologies, design simulation, mathematical modelling, grid computing and nanotechnology are to be encouraged.

The Government is naturally disposed to encourage more social science research within the overall framework of advances in Science. Professor Ian Forbes (Academy of Social Sciences and University of Nottingham), described the increasing use of quantitative methods to enable assessment of improved quality of life. Large scaled investigations of social issues are relatively rare but could have major impacts if integrated within the conduct of science. One interesting problem is that, rather like in subatomic physics, if you measure a social parameter it tends to move and in any case changes with time. Some advanced research groups now include a social scientist in order to better inform scientists as to the potential impact of their discoveries. He made an interesting suggestion that the present antipathy to collective goods, such as nationally owned facilities, must be reversed. This has obvious implications for the NHS and Universities, where very expensive facilities may not be affordable in the private sector particularly if the market opportunities are considered to be too small, as is the case with the investigation and treatment of many rare diseases.

James Wilsdon, from the Demos "think tank" group, gave a superlative exposition of the importance of "see through science", with improved public understanding and anticipation of events that will emerge from the new blue sky approaches, which are now relabelled as an "upstream turn". Mark these new buzz words.

Paul Snaith (Group Director, Science and Engineering, Shell Global Solutions) exemplified how business could interact in science and innovation. His company has an enviable reputation in this respect, with an emphasis on product diversity in energy technology. One interesting fact is that all Shell employees can propose new ideas, which are formally assessed within 1 week.

Christopher Henshall (Office of Science and Technology), described the preparations for co-ordination and monitoring the increased expenditure, which will mostly fall under the wing of his department. There is to be an emphasis on improving what are regarded as the weaker areas of science and technology. This admission is heartening, for not long ago many of our senior politicians were of the view that if the UK was no longer particularly efficient at the production of a commodity, this should cease in order to concentrate activity in our service "industries", heritage and tourism; such policies were always anathema to the scientific community.

	Discussion

Top Introduction Individual speakers Discussion

 
Most rational persons will applaud the proposals, but some may ask the inevitable question is this too little and too late? The National Debt in the 50 years after World War II arguably precluded these enlightened policies, but in that time there have been numerous misplaced public spending projects. Those employed in the delivery of healthcare will remember that vast human resources, many from social sciences backgrounds, have been committed to a series of conflicting administrative reforms and initiatives since the early 1970s, with marginal changes in outcomes emergent from a sea of confusion. Perhaps, as a result of the collective experience of successive Governments, there is a new dawn where carefully controlled incremental funding into the science base will deliver real advantages, unlike the old faith in the "grand projects" such as Concorde and other prestigious defence related schemes that frequently had to be abandoned because of spiralling costs. The "white heat of technology" promised by Harold Wilson in the early 1960s was never fully realised – apart from the expansion of the Universities – but perhaps this new initiative is the way to achieve this long desired goal. It may be our last chance to maintain our status as a proud industrial nation.

All those involved in the radiological sciences, particularly in the academic units, will be pleased to note these changes and should start thinking of how to become involved in the new framework. For example, the advances in grid computing will be of potential application to both diagnostic and therapeutic radiology, since they will allow more complex analysis, storage, rapid transfer of images for second opinions, national quality assurance systems and also as part of national clinical trials; the use of microbeams (e.g. protons, X-rays) to identify pathophysiological changes and aid diagnosis at the subcellular level is another important new area for the radiological sciences; nanoparticles will surely be useful in improved imaging interactions (e.g. improved contrast media for functional studies) and applications in targeted radiotherapy.

In "questions", Professor Colin Blakemore (Director, Medical Research Council) acknowledged the huge contribution made by British physicists and engineers in the development of CT and MRI and that further advances are expected in biotechnology and nanotechnology, with a high degree of cooperation expected from the pharmaceutical industry. He also praised the successful expansion of cancer therapy clinical trials, to which the MRC/NCRI remains highly committed.

There is a huge remit for biological research which will clearly include cancer studies, although the disappointments associated with gene therapy were readily admitted by several speakers. Whilst there are significant difficulties with the provision of cure for inherited monogenetic conditions, human cancer is a polygenetic disorder and acquired on a stochastic basis, which represents a much more complex problem.

At present there is no formal inclusion of healthcare within the Accelerator Science division of the Research Councils, despite the fact that over 120 000 patients per year receive therapeutic radiation from linear accelerators in the UK. In terms of therapeutic radiation, there seems to be a lack of integration between the funding agencies, although credit must be given for the new MRC Radiobiology Research facility proposed at Oxford. The prospect of funding a National Centre for Particle Radiotherapy remains a distant prospect under the current funding limits and arrangements, although such a sophisticated project seems ideal in the context of the new emphasis for cross disciplinary working between Research Councils (the Central Laboratories, EPSRC, MRC and DH would need to be involved as a minimum) as well as the suggestion for more national ownership schemes coupled with improved quality of life outcomes. Improvements in biotechnology and molecular imaging will almost certainly produce reliable earlier diagnosis of cancer. These advances will lead to a huge requirement for "smart" applications of atomic and medical physics, such as cyclotron/synchrocyclotron and laser produced particle therapy. The fair and respectable "British" answer to this issue would classically be for the Government to commission a report, as in the example given above that resulted in vastly improved nanotechnology funding; but perhaps the need for more and more expensive reports will diminish due to improved interdisciplinary cooperation and a greater decisiveness in the upper echelons of research about what is really necessary.

	Acknowledgments

 
The author is a member of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK) funded Medical Applications of Ion Beams Network and a trustee of The Cyclotron Trust (UK). Birmingham University Hospitals Endowment Funds and NHS Trust are thanked for allowing professional leave.

Received for publication September 30, 2004. Accepted for publication November 2, 2004.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B Jones HCPBM [Heavy Charged Particles in Biology & Medicine] and ENLIGHT [European Network for Light Ions] Meetings, Oropa (Italy), June 2005. Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2006; 79(940): 278 - 284. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B Jones The case for particle therapy Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2006; 79(937): 24 - 31. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jones, B Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jones, B