Corporate report

UKHSA Advisory Board: Science and Research Committee minutes

Updated 13 December 2023

Date: Thursday 30 November 2023

Sponsor: Jon Friedland

Recommendation

The Advisory Board is asked to note the minutes of 4 September 2023 meeting of the Science and Research Committee. The minutes were agreed on 8 November 2023.

Minutes, UKHSA Science and Research Committee, Monday 4 September 2023

Present at the meeting were:

• Jon Friedland – non-executive Chair
• Lucy Chappell – Chief Scientific Adviser, DHSC
• Jennifer Dixon – non-executive member
• Graham Hart – non-executive member
• Susan Hopkins – Chief Medical Adviser
• Isabel Oliver – Director General, Science and Research
• Steven Riley – Director General, Data, Analytics and Surveillance
• John Arne-Røttingen – International Impact Expert - Ambassador for Global Health at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway

In attendance were:

• Mary De Silva – Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser, DHSC
• Richard Gleave – Director, Scientific Strategy and Development
• 7 attendees with names and titles redacted
• 1 attendee with name and title redacted (minutes)

Apologies from:

• Raj Long – Associate non-executive member

Welcome, apologies and declarations of interest

23/097 The Chair welcomed participants to the Science and Research Committee and noted apologies.

23/098 There were no declarations of interest.

Minutes of previous meeting, matters arising and updated terms of reference

23/099 The minutes of the previous meeting of 3 May 2023 (enclosure SRC/23/016) were AGREED.

23/100 The Committee noted the actions report (enclosure SRC/23/017).

23/101 The Committee noted the Annual Report for the Science and Research Committee 2022/23 and agreed the actions detailed within arising from the effectiveness review.

Science strategy implementation update

23/102 A paper (enclosure SRC/22/018) was presented by the [Title redacted]. The paper provided a briefing to the Committee on the proposed initial milestones, plans to build scientific capacity and capability and the development of an outcome metric for impact of scientific work. The paper had been developed with the support of an implementation group with membership from across the organisation.

23/103 The work was closely aligned with the corporate strategic plan and current business plan. The Committee were reminded that the science strategy was over a 10 year period. The implementation paper would be considered by the Executive Committee through the Science Futures and Research Governance Board once the Science and Research Committee had provided comments. The final paper would be considered by the Executive Committee at the beginning of October 2023 and would establish reporting with strategy and performance colleagues.

23/104 The implementation approach was described in the paper. Appendix 1 showed the aims for the end of the first year, end of current strategic planning round and for further into the future.

23/105 There had been external engagement on approaches to assess impact and existing models had been reviewed. The proposal to measure health, prosperity and scientific advancement went further than then the Public Sector Research Establishment (PSRE) Framework, and was not looking to replicate the University Research Excellence Framework (REF) model.

23/106 The discussion of the committee raised the following points:

• REF may be useful because it required a clear evidence trail to demonstrate impact had been achieved and delivered. University staff involved in the REF process would be keen to discuss it
• Health Protection Research Units would be able to provide examples of impact case studies
• the proposed perceptions audit should include appropriate short, medium and long term metrics
• intangible areas were important (for example building capacity, confidence, security and helping reassure people) but it was acknowledged that it was difficult to demonstrate outcomes
• the impact on processes for policy making and policy makers should be considered
• the paper should include an over-arching sense of what the strategy was trying to achieve. The long-term outcomes were listed but there was a need to understand how they related to one another and the dependencies, process outcomes and outputs. More should be included on how the strategy would achieve its outcomes and how progress would be evaluated
• there was a need to consider longer-term time horizons. An analysis of capabilities and an external review of progress was suggested
• a list of milestones or deliverables should be developed in line with the strategy
• there should be an outcomes framework, business planning, and strategic owner for each strategic priority and a system to monitor its delivery. This would help reduce the risk of reporting the same things to multiple forums
• a fuller discussion was needed on the REF / PSRE value framework and the reasons for developing something different. It was suggested that the PSRE Value Framework could serve as a starting point
• there was a need to relate the proposal to the Science Strategy and the operational plan behind it. There were numerous activities which should - be prioritised. There was a need to link to areas that were important to the strategy such as health outcomes and economic prosperity
• it would be helpful to include an analysis of risks and the potential effects on impacts
• the proposal should help the executive operationalise what to do next and how the strategy could be turned into an operational plan to deliver. Information about background enablers had been included but these were considered elsewhere
• it would be useful to have a clearer understanding of the purpose of an impact report and how it complemented the reporting as part of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) agreement and performance assessment and the reporting as required by the PSRE value framework

23/107 As regards to REF, the Committee noted that it was not designed to look at all activity and instead was designed to identify the best work of a department and compare to other departments based on their best work (using outputs or case studies).

23/108 It was clarified that the purpose of the Science Strategy was to set a level of ambition to help deliver better health outcomes, prosperity and scientific advancement than without it. The corporate strategy sets the strategic objectives for the organisation and the Science Strategy will help ensure that we make greater and faster progress towards those.

23/109 The Science and Research Committee recommended:

• outcome metrics for the impact of our scientific work should be developed in line with the discussion
• a progress and impact report should be developed
• to the development of an impact ‘prize’
• the development of guidance to ensure planning for impact was built into the design stage of scientific projects
• there should be clear strategy in relation to research funders and this would be considered in more detail at a future meeting

(Richard Gleave / Isabel Oliver)

23/110 The Committee also noted that the Secretary of State had asked to have sight of DHSC and other arms’ length bodies’ research spend.

Genomics

23/111 The Chief Medical Adviser presented a paper (enclosure SRC/23/020) which updated on the progress of the pathogen genomics programme and set out the upcoming strategic plan.

23/112 The paper highlighted the importance of pathogen genomics for public health. UKHSA priorities were within the sample to identify genes associated with severe disease, toxins and antimicrobial resistance that would affect patient level treatment (for example TB, gram-negative bacteria, Staph aureus) and outcomes and between samples to identify new variants or relatedness between pathogens identifying clusters which facilitate rapid outbreak detection and control (for example SARS-CoV-2, Salmonella, Listeria). UKHSA was also pursuing work on metagenomics – where the techniques used were pathogen agnostic and could be used to determine the causative pathogens for syndromes (for example pneumonia on Intensive Care Units (ICUs), fever returning travellers, individuals with brain infections) and could potentially be used to identify novel pathogens as part of emerging infection and pandemic preparedness programmes.

23/113 During the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health pathogen genome sequencing capability and capacity was increased from 80k to 100k per year to 10-15k per week, working with academic and industry partners across the four nations. However, scaling genomics for a single pathogen, such as SARS-CoV2 was more straightforward from a laboratory and pipeline analysis than delivering genomics across a wide range of pathogens.

23/114 An Immunisation and Genomics Board had been created with 3 main arms to its programme:

• Stabilisation – moving to a cloud-based infrastructure providing a more resilient, robust and scalable capacity and reviewing the current pipelines in operation
• Development of high priority areas such as gram-negative bacteria and RSV
• Future Preparedness – to identify emerging novel threats using metagenomics

23/115 UKHSA remained reliant on the NHS to provide pathogen samples and information related to these samples. The Committee discussed the extent to which the quality of information had changed during the Covid-19 pandemic. Much of the data information was obtained from the NHS was through automatic data flows from NHS laboratory systems. The Director General, Data, Analytics and Surveillance was working to improve this to maximise the routine data which could be obtained without individual case reporting.

23/116 Some of the established pathogen genomics pathways were also challenged by the lack of availability of clinical samples. For example, the NHS were increasingly moving to molecular (PCR) detection of gastrointestinal infections meaning that traditional culture-based samples were not available. This would require UKHSA to work with NHS partners to consider new flows of samples and information. The NHS was also working with UKHSA and partners to pilot the use of genomics in ICU infections.

23/117 Genomics data helped support and inform the development of diagnostics, vaccines, therapeutics and countermeasures and it was an area where industry was interested in forming partnerships with UKHSA. Genomics transformation was an important area for public health surveillance and response work and would help realise the ambitions of the Science Strategy.

23/118 The relationship with the UK National Genomics Board was discussed noting that pathogen genomics was not a priority area in previous discussions but UKHSA now actively engaging with the Office for Life Sciences, DHSC and NHSE.

23/119 It was clarified that Genomics England focused on inherited disease and risk factors for cancer rather than pathogen genomics. Discussions were underway to understand how UKHSA could link in to improve visibility of UKHSA’s work now and the shared work with NHS in the future. It was also clarified that ‘Our Future Health’ was a large scale Innovate UK grant funded project and was not focussing on infections or pathogens.

23/120 The Committee commented that it was important to replace the standard workflows with genomics and measure its impact and there was an opportunity to measure the impact of this at a national level and to develop a related set of metrics. It was also important to learn from international examples of established good practice. The UKHSA network of laboratories provided a great opportunity to have a world leading national genomics network.

23/121 The Committee also commented that:

• for stabilisation, a forward-looking view was needed as better techniques were adopted. Improved genomics had a very different data footprint and rapid evolution was required to keep up with new developments
• there were examples of where far fewer targeted samples/specimens would provide faster and better insight, and it was critically important to consider the purpose of surveillance and design an appropriate sample
• there were opportunities to be more specific about local insights such as clusters in hospitals as opposed to characteristics of regular pathogens or variants – and UKHSA needed to clarify its role in this work

23/122 The Committee asked about capital and whether this had been planned to match ambition. It was explained that the stabilisation work would assist with this but there was further work to do on metagenomic sequencing and the sequencing work undertaken in other areas.

23/123 The Committee discussed the need to develop capacity and capabilities. Previously investment had been through the Covid-19 response, including equipment needed in laboratories. However, developing the workforce with the skills to deliver was important and would require continued work.

23/124 The Committee asked how dependent UKHSA was on the Wellcome Sanger Institute to assist with future work. It was explained UKHSA was not dependant and had sufficient resources for the delivery of the programme, but if UKHSA wanted to scale up for high throughput and high volume as for Covid-19, it would become essential to develop partnerships with organisations such as this.

23/125 The Committee emphasised the importance of this work and the need to support the genetic sequencing capabilities of UKHSA and to ensure continued access to high quality data. The Committee NOTED the paper thanked the Chief Medical Adviser for the update.

Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre

23/126 The Deputy Director, Vaccine Development, Evaluation and Preparedness presented a paper on progress with the establishment of the Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre (VDEC).

23/127 VDEC has been established by bringing together laboratory-based capabilities within UKHSA which were focused on the development pathway for vaccines and therapeutics as countermeasures for infectious diseases. This capability has been developed as a focal point to work with partners from across all sectors to accelerate countermeasure development and implementation for pathogens of pandemic potential, high consequence infectious diseases and high-risk infectious diseases.

23/128 The Committee discussed current and potential future funding models. It was explained that VDEC was an integral part of UKHSA and was critical to its pandemic preparedness and response. There was more that could be done with the skills available and a greater contribution to pandemic preparedness.

23/129 UKHSA’s contribution was different and complementary to industry and academia. Incremental change to increase income was underway, but multiple small projects would not secure the capability needed long term. Therefore, the ambition was to transform to deeper and more meaningful academic and commercial partnerships that aligned to UKHSA’s mission. The combination of long-standing research expertise in assessing vaccine efficacy and in the design and operation of the associated high containment capabilities (including in-vivo) was a particular selling point.

23/130 The Committee discussed whether the plans were scalable depending on the level of funding achieved. UKHSA is engaging with industry to develop vaccines. The Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser, DHSC, would arrange for the Deputy Director, Vaccine Development, Evaluation & Preparedness to be invited on an oversees visit to promote international links. (Mary De Silva)

23/131 It was clarified that for commercial and business development, VDEC was working closely with the UKHSA Commercial Director and Head of Business Development.

23/132 The Committee asked about the business plan to improve the return on services from 18% to 30%. It was explained that work was currently underway with colleagues in Finance and Commercial to build the costing framework and to provide different options depending on the partner.

23/133 The Committee also recommended that UKHSA enter into discussions with the Medical Research Council concerning longer term investments.

23/134 The Committee expressed their enthusiasm for VDEC and suggested that it could serve as blueprint for other areas.

PhD studentship scheme

23/135 The [Title redacted] presented a paper (enclosure SRC/23/022) which described the mechanism for a review of the UKHSA PhD Studentship Scheme.

23/136 The evaluation of the PhD scheme was proposed to be commissioned through the academic honorary contract route

23/137 The discussion raised the following points:

• prioritising the needs of the student
• training PhD students for independence as scientists and UKHSA team members
• that PhD students achieved greater success when they were part of doctoral training programmes
• consideration be given to the establishment of a ‘UKHSA Academy’ where all the students could be brought together for support, oversight and care
• further promotion of UKHSA at Health Protection research Units hosting PhD students

23/138 It was agreed that the outcome of the PhD Studentship Scheme would be reported back to the Committee.

23/139 The Committee discussed the wider PhD community, including clinical fellows. There was a need for an understanding of everyone who was undertaking a PhD or supervised. It was confirmed that, at a high level, elements of this could be included within the review, although the focus should remain on the internal scheme.

23/140 It was clarified that UKHSA funding as currently distributed allowed for 8 to 12 PhD students every year.

Forward look and topics for future meetings

23/141 The Science and Research Committee noted the topics for future meetings as listed in the paper (enclosure SRC/23/023).

23/142 The Committee agreed the following agenda items for the next meeting:

• Research funding / partnerships / income landscape considered as a whole issue
• Climate Centre
• A report provided by the Director General, Science and Research

23/143 The Committee considered discussing workforce as an agenda item for a future meeting given it remained the highest risk for science group. The Committee concluded that to avoid duplication with the work of other Committees, it would be best be addressed through the People and Culture Committee, but with Science and Research Committee members attending for that agenda item. The Chair would discuss further with Chair of the People and Culture Committee, Sir Gordon Messenger. (Jon Friedland)

23/144 It was noted that a report on the Health Effects of Climate Change was planned for publication by UKHSA in November 2023. The draft would be circulated to the Science and Research Committee for input. (Isabel Oliver)

Any other business and close

23/145 There being no other business, the meeting ended at 3.53pm.