Emerging biotechnologies: full report - Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Emerging biotechnologies: full report - Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Emerging biotechnologies: full report - Nuffield Council on Bioethics
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
E m e r g i n g b i o t e c h n o l o g i e s<br />
other instances where charities fund research, the aim of research is to have an impact<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sistent with the charitable aims of the organisati<strong>on</strong> in questi<strong>on</strong>, for example the improvement<br />
of public health, rather than the improvement in profit margins in the pharmaceutical industry or<br />
indeed improvements to the UK ec<strong>on</strong>omy itself. 504 The documents we reviewed (strategic plans,<br />
grant writing guides etc.) also reflected the difficulty of properly assessing n<strong>on</strong>-ec<strong>on</strong>omic impact:<br />
there was little in the way of explanati<strong>on</strong> as to how such impact could be properly quantified and<br />
measured, although the Wellcome Trust has produced an ‘assessment framework’ (“established<br />
to enable progress to be tracked against… ten key indicators of progress…” 505 ).This attempts to<br />
capture both quantitative and qualitative informati<strong>on</strong> with regard to the impact and outcome of<br />
Wellcome Trust funded research. 506 However, such documents are retrospective in nature and<br />
understandably offer little in the way of a framework for predicting impact <strong>on</strong> this basis of past<br />
work. Other documents reviewed that dealt with issues relating to funding decisi<strong>on</strong>s noted<br />
c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>s such as “tangible impacts <strong>on</strong> health” and “discernable impact <strong>on</strong> wider policy<br />
development and practice”; 507 novelty and relevance; 508 and, “relevance to cardiovascular<br />
disease, scientific merit, [and] timeliness”. 509<br />
C H A P T E R 7<br />
7.19 Published sources provide little guidance <strong>on</strong> how charities identify research priorities, although<br />
the main three medical charities all stress scientific excellence and impact <strong>on</strong> human health as<br />
key criteria. As with Government policies, there appears to be no special role granted to the<br />
c<strong>on</strong>cept of emerging <str<strong>on</strong>g>biotechnologies</str<strong>on</strong>g> within the published policy documents of those charities.<br />
Framing research policy<br />
7.20 In view of the history of commercialisati<strong>on</strong> in the life sciences, there is a dilemma for policy that<br />
is orientated by expectati<strong>on</strong>s of substantial nati<strong>on</strong>al ec<strong>on</strong>omic benefit: if past evidence is<br />
irrelevant to newly emerging <str<strong>on</strong>g>biotechnologies</str<strong>on</strong>g> then it provides no basis for the expectati<strong>on</strong>; if the<br />
evidence is relevant then the expectati<strong>on</strong> is likely to be misplaced. 510 Understanding this<br />
dilemma involves examining the comm<strong>on</strong>places and assumpti<strong>on</strong>s that frame the dominant<br />
policy discussi<strong>on</strong>s. This is, of course, not to explain these claims <str<strong>on</strong>g>full</str<strong>on</strong>g>y (since it merely begs the<br />
questi<strong>on</strong> of how those comm<strong>on</strong>places came about in the first place), but to draw attenti<strong>on</strong> to the<br />
lack of explicit reflecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> this <strong>on</strong> the part of those who assert them. In this secti<strong>on</strong> we<br />
therefore discuss the background assumpti<strong>on</strong>s in the documents to which we have already<br />
referred. Specifically, we look critically at the framing of choices through which important<br />
c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, namely funding of different technology trajectories, are set.<br />
504 In a review of some of the five largest (by expenditure <strong>on</strong> medical research) charitable funders’ policy documents we found<br />
that <strong>on</strong>ly Arthritis Research UK explicitly menti<strong>on</strong>s ‘ec<strong>on</strong>omic’ impact as a specific goal, stating that it aims to “[r]educe the<br />
ec<strong>on</strong>omic impact of arthritis <strong>on</strong> the individual patient, their family and the wider ec<strong>on</strong>omy”. See: Arthritis UK (2012) Annual<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> and financial statements 2010-11, available at: http://www.arthritisresearchuk.org/about-us/~/media/Files/Annual-<br />
Review-and-Reports/12570-Report%20-Accounts-2010-11.ashx, p5.<br />
505 The Wellcome Trust (2011) Assessment framework <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2010/11, available at: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Aboutus/Publicati<strong>on</strong>s/Reports/Biomedical-science/WTVM054494.htm.<br />
506 See: Wellcome Trust (2012) Assessment framework <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>: <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> summary 2010/11, available at:<br />
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communicati<strong>on</strong>s/documents/web_document/WTVM054488<br />
.pdf.<br />
507 Wellcome Trust (2005) Strategic plan 2005-2010: making a difference, available at:<br />
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communicati<strong>on</strong>s/documents/web_document/wtd018878.pd<br />
f, p27.<br />
508 Cancer Research UK (2006) Grant writing guide, available at:<br />
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/science/prod_c<strong>on</strong>sump/groups/cr_comm<strong>on</strong>/@fre/@fun/documents/generalc<strong>on</strong>tent/grantwriting-guide.pdf,<br />
p1.<br />
509 British Heart Foundati<strong>on</strong> (2012) How we fund, available at: https://www.bhf.org.uk/research/research-grants-1/how-weaward.aspx.<br />
510 Part of this explanati<strong>on</strong> may lie in understanding the ‘productivity paradox’ that has puzzled ec<strong>on</strong>omists, which was summed<br />
up (in relati<strong>on</strong> to computer technology) in the observati<strong>on</strong> that “we see the computer age everywhere except in the<br />
productivity statistics.” (Brynjolfss<strong>on</strong> E and Hitt LM (1998) Bey<strong>on</strong>d the productivity paradox Communicati<strong>on</strong>s of the ACM 41:<br />
49-55, citing Robert Solow. While this may point <strong>on</strong>ly to the unanticipated length of time by which productivity benefits lag<br />
behind technological diffusi<strong>on</strong> owing to the costs and complexities of innovating (i.e. the benefits will show up eventually), the<br />
paradox relates to technologies that have already been developed and diffused. Development and innovati<strong>on</strong> are formidable<br />
hurdles that still lie ahead when <strong>on</strong>e is speaking of emerging <str<strong>on</strong>g>biotechnologies</str<strong>on</strong>g>.<br />
121