Who gets a voice in decisions about the direction of science and innovation? How do we choose where to prioritise public funding? And with ambitious targets from government to increase public and private investment in R&D, how to do we realise its potential - for our economy, for our health and wellbeing, and for the pursuit of new knowledge?
These are some of the questions explored in a new report - The Biomedical Bubble - published in July 2018 by Nesta. Described as “lacerating” by the Financial Times, and “challenging, informed, superbly written” by Jeremy Farrar, Director of the Wellcome Trust, the report has caused a bit of a splash in the tranquil pond of research policy, as seen here.
Its central argument is that the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors have dominated policy thinking for far too long. These sectors are in deep trouble, with R&D productivity plummeting and investment falling. Meanwhile, much of the innovation needed for the NHS, public health and social care has been under-resourced. Greater emphasis needs to be given to the social, environmental, digital and behavioural determinants of health, and decisions about research priorities need to involve a greater diversity of perspectives, drawn from across the country. The creation of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) is the right moment to rethink this balance.
This HE Policy Network launch of the report explored whether, why and how the UK needs to escape the biomedical bubble if it is to realise the economic, social and health potential of extra investment in R&D. Our panel brought together the report's authors with national and regional experts in innovation, health and productivity to debate its findings.
Our panel included: