Shining the ‘jewel in the crown’: how government can build a new life sciences plan
Richard Sloggett, Founder and Programme Director
| Future Health
Looking back at the last three life sciences strategies can help us better understand how Labour’s sector plans can deliver for the UK economy, the NHS and patients
It was in 2011 that David Cameron labelled the life sciences sector the ‘jewel in the crown’ of the UK. Against a backdrop of demographic and economic pressures, along with competition from other countries, it was Cameron who launched the UK’s first-ever life sciences strategy. The aim was to keep the UK ahead on the global life science stage.
Political support for the sector has been one of the few consistencies in British politics in the last 20 years. Gordon Brown was a strong supporter of science and research investment as both Chancellor and Prime Minister and set up the Technology Strategy Board (which then became Innovate UK). The sector was a strategic priority for Theresa May’s industrial strategy, and Boris Johnson launched a new vision in 2021 looking to lock in the learnings and accelerate changes in working practices from the pandemic.
Indeed, the successes of the UK’s pandemic response – particularly the discovery and deployment of new vaccines and treatments – serve as a testament to the policies built upon and delivered by successive governments.
Before the election, the new Labour government published a blueprint for how life sciences would support the delivery of both the party’s economic and health missions. The document, A Prescription for Growth, rightly stressed the importance of any new plan building and learning from what has come before.
As part of our research programme at Future Health exploring how to build policy that better links health and the economy, we have sought to understand these learnings in more detail by reviewing the last three government life sciences plans from 2011, 2017 and 2021.
The research, sponsored by Novartis UK, involved speaking to 15 former and current ministers, advisers and officials involved in the development and execution of these plans. We found that while there have been some clear successes, there is a set of challenges in building and delivering effective life sciences policy.
Past strategies have mostly seen the business department in the lead role, with a stronger focus in the plans on attracting inward investment as a result. This has meant that the NHS has at times felt disconnected from the strategy development process, making the translation of government life sciences ambitions into health service delivery and priorities more challenging. The use of a ‘mission’ based approach in the most recent Life Sciences Vision was widely welcomed as a means to address this, but it was felt that progress had been stymied by both political instability and a lack of clarity about how delivering the missions interlinked with NHS operational and clinical imperatives.
While co-ordinating central government structures for policy and delivery have matured over time into the Life Sciences Council, it was felt that the Council’s remit and objectives have not always been clear. The Office for Life Sciences received warm support from a majority of interviewees, but it was argued that it had not always been given the tools, role and power to drive cross-government and NHS action.
Finally, while there has been some use of fiscal incentives to underpin the delivery of the wider goals within the strategies – such as greater investment in early-stage life sciences R&D – funding has been relatively targeted and piecemeal.
To address these issues, our research puts forward an eight-part framework for how the new government can develop a successful life sciences plan for the future.
At the top of government, this includes promoting and maintaining a consistent long-term approach to an active industrial strategy, with senior-level sponsorship from the Prime Minister and Chancellor, alongside making a smaller number of longer-term ‘bigger bets’ for life sciences and innovation R&D investment.
In building and delivering government policy, the new plan should boost the Office for Life Sciences and refresh the Life Sciences Council so that life sciences policy priorities are closely aligned across No 10, HMT, DHSC, DSIT, DBT and NHS England.
To address the challenges of NHS connectivity, the life sciences missions will need to evolve and align with the three shifts in the forthcoming NHS 10-year plan. A new Life Sciences Director, with requisite experience, should be appointed to the NHS England Board to oversee and drive NHS progress on the new life sciences plan, and regulators and bodies involved in supporting the life sciences ecosystem will need to be properly resourced to deliver it. New metrics and targets should be set to track advancement against the plan’s goals and embed these within government and NHS accountability frameworks.
The UK has a long and rich heritage of medical discovery and innovation, and today’s politicians are right to champion the sector and its contribution to both the nation’s health and wealth. A new life sciences plan presents an opportunity to make the ‘jewel in the crown’ sparkle for many years to come. But for this to happen, it will require learning from what has come before.
If Labour’s plan can do that, it could be one that truly delivers for UK patients, the health system and the economy.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
