Corporate report

UKHSA Advisory Board: Science and Research Committee minutes

Updated 11 March 2025

Date: March 2025

Sponsor: Jon Friedland

1. Recommendation

The Advisory Board is asked to note the minutes of 19 November 2024 meeting of the Science and Research Committee. The minutes were agreed on 29 January 2025.

2. Minutes (confirmed), Science and Research Committee, 19 November 2024

Present at the meeting were:

• Jon Friedland – Non-Executive Member of UKHSA Advisory Board (Chair)
• Graham Hart – Non-Executive member
• 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

• 12 attendees had their name and title redacted

Apologies:

• Sarah Collins – Commercial Director
• Susan Hopkins – Chief Medical Advisor
• Raj Long – Associate Non-Executive Member

3. Welcome, apologies and declarations of interest

24/121 The Chair welcomed participants to the Science and Research Committee and noted apologies.

24/122 The Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser, DHSC had been appointed as an Honorary Professor at the London School of Tropical Medicine on 1 May 2024 and declared this as an interest.

4. Minutes of previous meeting and matters arising

24/123 The minutes of the previous meeting of 11 September 2024 (enclosure SRC/24/024) were agreed.

24/124 The committee noted the actions report (enclosure SRC/24/025). The appendix provided a detailed update on Vector Borne Diseases (Action 77). The Committee emphasised the importance of communication to the wider public of Vector Borne Diseases.

5. Growth Through Science

24/125 A paper (enclosure SRC/22/026) was presented by [title redacted]. The paper described the work being undertaken at UKHSA to grow science as part of the implementation its Science Strategy, specifically to increase readiness to work with industry and other external partners to maximise the public benefit from our scientific assets.

24/126 It was explained there was a need to recognise there was a broad offer to partners but certain specialisms have the greatest potential for growth. Initial thoughts included an expanded offer around vaccine development and evaluation, diagnostics development and evaluation, consultancy around climate change adaptation, development of an SME offer, radiation protection advice for the development of new diagnostics and treatment, and data.

24/127 The committee recommended that:

• the framing of the issue should make clear that UKHSA contributes to the UK’s economic growth beyond just providing services to industry – it would to useful link this work with the work on economic impact
• the opportunity of using data should be emphasised further
• government growth and UKHSA growth were scaled differently – UKHSA should focus matters such as how public health campaigns contribute to the growth agenda (it was recognised that UKHSA could contribute by enabling the work of industry such as through data, but quantifying this was very difficult)
• the implications of growth on UKHSA’s science workforce and its skill set should be considered – for some areas there was greater internal readiness than others
• the paper was overly modest about UKHSA’s achievements – the extent and excellence of UKHSA’s work was not widely understood and should be emphasised
• partnerships with PSREs should be examined together with linkages with DHSC
• SME offers could often lead to rapid and unpredictable growth and should be encouraged
• getting something started in a limited number of scientific areas was better than waiting for something perfect to be started

24/128 The committee also commented that Therapy was likely a shrinking area.

24/129 The committee discussed data and UKHSA’s role in data insight and being the ‘organiser and explainer’ of data. UKHSA was working on quick mechanisms to access data through the Data Release team. There was background work taking place to support this, such as the bringing together of fragmented systems. Operational principals for the sharing of data had been agreed. There was a cost for UKHSA to share its data and the creation of new data sets and therefore careful consideration was needed for how costs were recuperated e.g. by using a cost recovery model.

24/130 The committee endorsed the plan for delivery of growth in the impact of UKHSA’s scientific assets through the Growth Through Science Working Group, chaired by Ian Peters.

6. Consideration of strategic risk

24/131 The [title redacted] presented a paper (enclosure SRC/24/027) which reviewed the Strategic Risk Register and considered the implications of the risks from a science and research perspective.

24/132 It was noted that at the risk workshop meeting of 15 November 2024, it had been agreed there would be more engagement with colleagues that were delivering so that the strategic risks were more reflective of what was being done. There was recognition that areas such as Pandemic Preparedness could be looked at in different ways and therefore a single risk rating may not be appropriate.

24/133-24/136 [Information redacted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.]

24/137 The committee offered its support to help develop the science elements of the revised Strategic Risk Register prior to it being considered at the Audit and Risk Committee or Advisory Board.

7. Identification of research needs

24/138 The [titles redacted] presented a paper (enclosure SRC/24/029) which provided an update on the implementation of a research prioritisation framework to support the UKHSA Science Strategy and recent work to identify research priorities during incidents.

24/139 The committee noted:

• the progress on the UKHSA Research Prioritisation Framework and its deliverables
• the update on research prioritisation activities in incident response during the past 12 months
• the update on the recommendations provided by the committee in May 2023
• the details on the summary of the wide range of colleagues involved with the collaboration efforts for MPox and avian influenza H5N1 research and evaluation activities in support of recommendation 61.a following the Chief Scientific Officer’s report
• the actions against recommendation 61.e from the Chief Scientific Officer’s report regarding UKHSA’s leadership in collaborative research and alignment with organisational priorities

24/140 The committee welcomed the changes to prioritisation in the context of the UK Government Funders Research and Innovation Framework for pandemic preparedness and response. Recent incidents had shown UKHSA had reverted quickly to the cross-government funders group with a clear set of priorities.

24/141 It was clarified that research priorities would be confirmed by the Science Committee which reported to the Executive Committee. The  team would have overall co-ordination. Teams would be supported to apply the framework locally. A central repository for research priorities was under development.

24/142 The committee recommended the framework should include:

• research needs should originate from organisational strategies, needs and priorities
• stakeholders should advise on prioritisation and addressing the gaps rather than research priorities
• either a comprehensive list of stakeholders should be included or examples or stakeholders rather than a partial list
• research prioritisation needed be clearer about research outcomes and how evaluation was built into the research
• the sequence of events should be refined so it was clear what outcomes are expected from research and what effect those outcomes might have

8. Pandemic preparedness and risk assessments

24/143 The [titles redacted] presented a paper (enclosure SRC/24/028) paper to update on pandemic preparedness activities, including links to research and development (R&D), and an update on the current risk landscape.

24/144 The committee noted the information provided on pandemic preparedness and risk assessments.

24/145 The committee discussed the National Security Risk Assessment (‘NRSA’) which was considered a good way to look at a broad basket of threats. However, there were competing efforts in this space and a more strategic approach may be beneficial. The reasonable worst-case scenario was a respiratory pandemic. It remained an open question as to how useful this was as a planning tool as it assumed a short unmitigated wave with a large number of infected people.

24/146 The committee commented that DAS had contributed to the development of the NSRA having reviewed the planning assumptions but it required further refinement. There was too much reliance on older evidence and potentially not enough info supporting planning.

24/147 DHSC in collaboration with UKHSA were considering how the NRSA return could be updated and strengthened. Variations could include a series of worst case scenarios, which tied into the recommendations of the module 1 report. This provided for a more broad-brush approach to the SRA which the Cabinet Office were not yet convinced about.

24/148 An update was provided on the 100 Days Mission and preparatory work. This was difficult and complex but progress had been made. The difficulties had been amplified as no additional funding was available for priorities identified in the 100 Days Mission.

24/149 UKHSA’s work included analysis of priority pathogens. The Director General, Science and Research noted that for diagnostics there was an in-house diagnostic test for most of the priority pathogens. For 75% of these there was currently no commercial solutions available. Infrastructure that was adaptable would be needed to address the problem. This approach would be similar to the cross-government funder’s framework which used a toolkit of capabilities to deliver different kinds of research and which are pivoted when needed.

24/150 For medicines and vaccines a trial platform was needed that was in constant use with efforts moving to before a pathogen emerged. It would be extremely unlikely that a vaccine could be developed and a trial completed in 100 days. The 100 Day Mission recognised this and identified activities that were needed in advance of the 100 days. This was also reflected in the UKHSA workshops, which also noted difficulties agreeing R&D priorities and securing funding.

24/151 On wider work the Director General, Science and Research noted care was needed with the Diagnostic Preparedness work. This was different from having worst case scenarios for planning at high level and needed to be translated into practice for UKHSA’s preparedness work. Some questions couldn’t be answered at the moment due to uncertainties. A pragmatic approach that provided simple answers (such as for diagnostic capacity) was required.

24/152 Broader comments on the paper noted the importance of preparing for infections that moved quickly in a different way to those that spread more slowly. The committee asked if UKHSA was working in relation to wider public health intervention – such as Public Health and Social Measures – noting their criticality in a public health response. It was confirmed this was the case but hadn’t covered these in the scope of the paper and could provide further updates.

24/153 The committee recommended that:

• UKHSA’s ability to drive forward development of therapeutics should be added to the list in Appendix A
• social behavioural sciences should also be added to Appendix A
• lessons learned from the previous pandemic should be applied

24/154 It was agreed that the reports from the 100 Days Mission workshops would be circulated to the committee for information.

9. HPRU outcomes

24/155 The [title redacted] presented a paper (enclosure SRC/24/030) which provided summary of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (‘NIHR’) Health Protection Research Units (‘HPRUs’) funding competition, internal process, and provides details on the outcome.

24/156 The committee expressed support for the positive outcomes for UKHSA and for smaller awards directed at specific issues.

24/157 The committee noted:

• the update on the NIHR and HPRUs funding competition
• the updates provided to Action Log recommendation 60 (HPRUs and pandemic preparedness) and 61 (relationships with HPRUs and appointment of new HPRU leads and developing a greater leadership role in collaborative research)

24/158 The committee discussed the balance between HPRUs and BRCs.

24/159 It was further noted that the Director General, Science and Research, Director General, Data, Analytics and Surveillance and Chief Medical Adviser would share oversight of specific HPRU groups.

24/160 The committee recommended that prior to the next HPRU renewal for future HPRUs 2030 to 2035, there might be a need to undertake research in emerging topics requiring additional funding. A smaller award call for specific topics could help plug these gaps. This may encourage applicants not previously involved in HPRUs to collaborate with UKHSA and engage with the model. UKHSA should continue to work with NIHR to inform them of emerging needs.

10. Forward look and topics for future meetings

24/161 The Science and Research Committee noted the topics for future meetings as listed in the paper (enclosure SRC/24/024).

24/162 For the next Science and Research Committee meeting on 29 January 2025, the following agenda items would be included:

• review of the Centre for Climate and Health Security – sponsored by Graham Hart
• review of the Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre – sponsored by Raj Long

24/163 The PSRE Recommendations Review was currently on hold by DHSC and would be deferred to a future meeting after January 2025.

11. Any other business and close

24/164 There being no other business, the meeting ended at 4.15pm.