Corporate report

UKHSA Advisory Board: Science and Research Committe minutes

Updated 28 January 2025

Title of paper: Science and Research Committee minutes

Date: January 2025

Sponsor Jon Friedland

1. Recommendation

The Advisory Board is asked to note the minutes of 11 September 2024 meeting of the Science and Research Committee. The minutes were agreed on 19 November 2024.

2. Minutes (confirmed), Science and Research Committee, 11 September 2024

Present at the meeting were:

• Jon Friedland – Non-Executive Member of UKHSA Advisory Board (Chair)
• Sarah Collins – Commercial Director
• Graham Hart – Non-Executive member
• Susan Hopkins – Chief Medical Advisor
• Isabel Oliver – Director General, Science and Research
• Steven Riley – Director General, Data, Analytics and Surveillance

In attendance:

• Mary De Silva – Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser, DHSC -Richard Gleave– Director of Scientific Strategy and Development
• 4 attendees had their name and title redacted

Apologies:

• Raj Long – Associate Non-Executive Member

3. Welcome, apologies and declarations of interest

24/087 The Chair welcomed participants to the Science and Research Committee and noted apologies.

24/088 There were no additional declarations of interest.

4. Minutes of Previous Meeting, Matters Arising, Annual Report and Appointment of International Impact Expert

24/089 The minutes of the previous meeting of 8 May 2024 (enclosure SRC/24/015) were AGREED.

24/090 The Committee noted the actions report (enclosure SRC/24/016). It was confirmed Action 56 had now been completed.

24/091 The Committee noted the SRC Annual Report (enclosure SRC/24/017) and agreed the actions from the Effectiveness Review.

24/092 The Committee noted the delay in the appointment of the International Impact Expert. [Title redacted] would follow up with Science Private Office to ensure the matter was progressed.

5. Report provided by the Director General, Science and Research

24/093 A paper (enclosure SRC/22/018) was presented by Director General, Science and Research. The paper provided an update on Science and Research activities in UKHSA and highlighted achievements and other issues since the last update to the Committee.

24/094 The Committee noted the report. In addition, the Committee noted that:

• the Health Protection Research Unit (‘HPRU’) award results would be communicated shortly once DHSC had received ministerial confirmation
• data on UKHSA’s annual research would be published on 12 September 2024
• as part of the Science Strategy Commitments, UKHSA held its first Academic Partnerships Day in Chilton in June 2024. It had been attended by Graham Hart and was a very positive experience that would continue. UKHSA had improved its engagement with academia and would now look to achieve something similar with industry

24/095 The Committee discussed the issue of UKHSA obtaining grants. In a recent skills census, over 200 colleagues had been identified as Principal Investigators and so there were opportunities to increase the number of grants. One of the challenges was to ensure the right balance of grant funding. Graham Hart would be leading a grantmanship workshop for aspiring Principal Investigators. There was a need a distinguish the areas where UKHSA was leading and collaborating. The nature of the engagement, generation of new knowledge and impact were also important. Academic metrics were not appropriate to measure UKHSA’s success.

24/096 There was a continuing need to publicise the work of the agency to generate further outside interest and to be more strategic about collaboration. There was a risk that pursuing many smaller grants might prove to be a disproportionate distraction to colleagues already successfully managing larger established grants.

24/097 Almost all research UKHSA does is in collaboration. A lot of the research undertaken by UKHSA in the past had been driven by others, but UKHSA could have a greater leadership role and be more intentional in the R&D work that it does.

24/098 Reforms were being introduced to the HPRU contracts. HPRUs working on pandemic preparedness would be required to be part of the cross-HPRU network on academic science to help provide centralised view. It would also be clearer that their purpose was to provide the research priorities. HPRUs had responsibility for delivering needs and priorities as part of UKHSA’s remit. It was AGREED the Director General, Science and Research would discuss this matter further with the Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser, DHSC.

24/099 The Committee recommended:

• producing a summary of the wide range of colleagues involved with the collaboration efforts for mpox and avian influenza H5N1 and the cost to UKHSA of dealing with these issues
• explaining how increased engagement with academia had resulted in more grants being obtained
• listing the number of unsuccessful grant applications as well as the successful grants
• there would be an opportunity to reset the relationships with HPRUs with the contract reforms and appointment of new HPRU leads
• developing a greater leadership role in collaborative research and aligning it with organisational priorities

6. Health and Economic Impact

24/100 The Director of Scientific Strategy and Development and [Title redacted] presented a paper (enclosure SRC/24/019) which explained the health and economic impact of UKHSA’s work and provided an update on the information currently available.

24/101 It was explained that there were different ways to approach measuring the benefit and impact. Different organisations tended to support a particular method as a definitive approach. For example, universities mainly used the case study approach as their main method. UKHSA was a different organisation, and recognised there were a variety of approaches that could be used. There were methodological challenges that underpinned the work, such as the prevention challenge and the attribution question.

24/102 The Committee commented that:

• they agreed that the Research Excellence Framework was unsuitable for the type of work of UKHSA
• there needed to be a balance between different metrics including those of impact, effect and economics.
• harm avoidance was a complex area.
• some of the case reports were too modest as drafted and understated UKHSA’s impact

24/103 It was agreed a Treasury approved method needed to be developed, this could help decide which effects to cost in and how to do this. The starting point should be to be provide a proposal to Treasury for further discussion. It was acknowledged that the modelling of ramifications was difficult, costly and time consuming. UKHSA’s involvement with Pandemic Preparedness meant planning for unknown events and effects and this was a complex area. Therefore, the initial focus should be on UKHSA’s other activities such as antimicrobial resistance and prevention of childhood illness.

24/104 It was further agreed that the Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser, DHSC would provide contact details for DHSC analysts who had experience of work with Treasury. A robust return on investment analysis was very important. The DHSC model should be developed rather than a new model created if possible.

24/105 The Committee also recommended that:

• the approach going forward should combine a Treasury approved economic model, with case studies and evidence modelling
• additional UKHSA-wide investment that could be leveraged from elsewhere should be considered
• there was an opportunity to link this with the overarching cross-government narratives of UK productivity and growth generally
• contact should be made with HPRUs which had expert modellers and health economists in-house that could assist
• the other wider economic benefits should be articulated

24/106 It was agreed that Health and Economic Impact would be further considered either by a future Science and Research Committee or by the Advisory Board.

7. Scientific Workforce: Talent for Science Action Plan Update

24/107 [Title redacted] presented a paper (enclosure SRC/24/020) which provided an update on Talent for Science since the last Committee meeting in February 2024.

24/108 The Committee noted the current collaborative cross-Group programme of work and progress to fulfil commitments in respect of People, as outlined in the Science Strategy.

24/109 The Committee also noted that:

• progress had been made and there had been a great deal of engagement across UKHSA
• the extent to which changes could be made internally was restricted by funding
• [Information redacted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000]
• one of the key difficulties was constrained progression opportunities for experts and scientists
• there was a need to publicise UKHSA’s work externally to encourage recruitment because UKHSA was not broadly perceived as a great place to do science
• there was a lack of awareness and understanding of the issues in Government. UKHSA was only perceived as being involved with operational science or research
• younger scientists were being recruited but were difficult to retain
• there were limited succession plans in place for when experts leave UKHSA
• UKHSA’s unique research infrastructure meant it was uniquely placed to undertaken certain types of specialist research
• there were cross-government initiatives on pay supplements in which UKHSA is engaged

24/110 The Committee recommended that:

• operational science was fundamental to all operational sponsors. The value of this should be factored into operational research work
• R&D case studies could help show the impact of UKHSA’s work. Mpox was a good example of applied science being needed at very short notice
• training may help compensate for lower salaries but if training opportunities were removed the problem could be made worse
• UKHSA had experienced a period of growth but was now much more constrained. There was a need to think more strategically in balancing staff numbers
• it was essential to clearly articulate that a constrained budget would result in valuable areas of work ceasing and risks increasing
• it should be part of the HPRU remit to promote UKHSA science

8. Vector Borne Diseases (‘VBD’)

24/111 [Titles redacted] presented a paper (enclosure SRC/24/021) and a presentation to update on UKHSA vector surveillance progress.

24/112 The UKHSA Chair had requested a paper on VBD for the Advisory Board and for the paper to be reviewed at Science and Research Committee first. This had not been possible due to resources being diverted to the mpox response. Therefore, this VBD paper had focused on the vector surveillance component to start the discussion.

24/113 The Science and Research Committee noted the activities underway at UKHSA to build capacity and capability in vector surveillance systems.

24/114 The Committee were impressed with the extent of the work undertaken with little resource.

24/115 The Committee also noted that:

• the immediate issue from a public health perspective in the short term was the role of UKHSA and the capacity of local government to mount a response. UKHSA was already working with local authorities but was highlighting issues that required resource at a time of severe budget constraints. [Information redacted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.] There is a need to consider the model most likely to provide health security
• surveillance undertaken by UKHSA was good but its capacity was limited. Its activity was supported heavily by Research and Development funding
• surveillance represented a growing future risk and there would be high demand for it in the future
• this was a cross-government issue and there were policy questions on managing some of the risks (eg: ticks and Lyme disease). Local Authorities were already working on de-carbonisation and re-wilding/nature-based solutions. It was Important this was done in such a way as not to increase risks in VBD

24/116 The Committee recommended that:

• connections with others were important to scale up surveillance effectively and there were opportunities for linkages with HPRUs under their new arrangements and the involvement of other government departments (eg: DEFRA)
• there was a need to ensure a robust mechanism was in place suitably prioritise surveillance
• UKHSA needed to be clear about its role and clearly articulate the limits and boundaries of its activities. This should also be communicated to Ministers
• surveillance data should be published promptly as this would potentially generate interest from research funders, internally and across government and may result in an increased level of surveillance activity
• visibility of surveillance data could be improved. For example, consideration could be given to publishing data on a dashboard
• the costs of eliminating vectors should be made clear
• the impact on human disease/health security should be considered. The greatest impact currently was with imported cases. These needed to be treated separately to the domestic response

9. Centre for Climate and Health Security Update

24/117 The Committee noted the paper.

24/118 The Committee commented that the formatting and presentation of information could be improved.

10. Forward look and topics for future meetings

24/119 The Science and Research Committee noted the topics for future meetings as listed in the paper (enclosure SRC/24/024).

24/120 The Chair and Director General, Science and Research would be meeting later in the week to discuss the forward look in further detail. Members were encouraged to continue to submit topics for consideration.

11. Any other business and Close

24/121 There being no other business, the meeting ended at 4.00pm.