At Curia’s parliamentary report launch, “Transforming Care, Saving Lives: Revitalising UK Life Sciences and Diagnostics” in partnership Revvity, the panel discussion brought together some of the UK’s leading experts to discuss the evolving landscape of healthcare innovation in the UK.
The speakers included:
- Simon Opher MP (Chair)
- Richard Scott: CEO of Genomics England
- Professor Dame Lyn Chitty, Deputy Director of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust Biomedical Research Centre
- Professor Sir Mike Richards, CBE MD, DSc, FRCP, Chair, UK National Screening Committee
- Helen Dent, CEO, BIVDA
- Dr Stuart Adams, Honorary Associate Professor at UCL and Consultant Clinical Scientist at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust
Streamlining Regulation in the UK
A recurring theme was the complexity of the regulatory framework and the need for flexibility to support advancements in technology while also managing risk.
Helen Dent, the CEO of BIVDA summed up the action the Life science industry would like from the government:
“I think that research does need a framework of rules to work through, but I think that is one of the possibly the opportunities is to look at the regulatory framework and identify what can be taken out so that the things that do matter, that you’ve referred to, they can still be undertaken and bring that down and really take a good look at what rules can be looked at, what can be changed and what can make that system quicker. Certainly from an industry perspective that’s very important, but also for the patient and to work within a risk managed, risk based regulatory framework to enable us to get through from a technological perspective and be safe for the patients”
In a practical example of how the process of approval could be sped up , Sir Mike Richards, Chair of the UK National Screening Committee suggested more dialog between researchers and regulators, stating:
“One of the ways we’re doing that is for the screening committee to work closely with researchers and actually say, is the research going to answer the sort of questions that the screening committee is going to want to have? … Because what you don’t want is to do a research study and then say, oh damn, we haven’t actually answered the questions we need. So we are working on that really hard”.

Investing in NHS Infrastructure
Another critical focus of the discussion was the need for more capital investment in NHS infrastructure. As one member of the audience pointed out, there is increasingly a bottle neck between projects going from research into fully fledged programs. That is why in Curia’s report, one of the recommendations is for rapid access to diagnostic tools through fully resourcing Community Diagnostic Centres as well as streamlining national reimbursement pathways to speed up adoption of new and effective technologies.
Richard Scott of Genetics England showcased just how much of an impact having the proper infrastructure can have, commenting:
“Genomics England was set up first to deliver the 100,000 genomes project. The recruitment to that project finished in 2017. In 2020, the NHS launched a world first, the first national whole genome sequencing diagnostic service that Stephen was talking about. That shows that with the right investment, some of it’s about how decisions are made, some of it’s also about having the right infrastructure that you can build and make more rapid decisions”.
Better Use of Data for Improved Outcomes
The NHS’s vast patient data resources were a key topic of discussion. Bureaucratic hurdles, particularly in obtaining data-sharing agreements between NHS trusts, were described as “a complete nightmare” by one member of the audience. As Revvity outlined in Curia’s report
“Health data often exists in isolated, fragmented, and incomplete silos, reducing its potential effectiveness. The real value of data comes to light when diverse datasets are connected and made interoperable” That is why the report echoes calls made by members of the audience at the panel event to better join up NHS data and improve digital infrastructure.
Another key aspect when it came to data was how it was used in relation to AI. Richard Scott highlighted the need for clear standards when it came to ensuring patient privacy in AI learning models, saying,
“We need to be clear that when that model is taken away, people don’t become identifiable within the data that’s held in the model. That’s something that we need to like, be clear on the standards, be clear on the expectations so that we can deploy this at scale.”
Sir Mike Richards recommended AI will need to learn of a diverse and representative set of data, commenting,
“Looking at a skin lesion, if you’ve got different types of skin color and skin texture, does it work equally well across those, do we Know whether even with breast screening in AI, does it work for the whole population? Does it work better in certain ethnic groups than others? Those are questions that are. We are wanting to answer, which is why studies of AI need to be in large populations and representative populations”.
Final Thought
The panel event underscored some of the key challenges that both the industry, academia and the NHS face when it comes to fostering innovation and advancing health outcomes for patients. Yet what did shine through were the countless examples of success stories such as the Generation study and the UK’s response to the COVID pandemic.
These successes can provide the Government with a blueprint for building the infrastructure, both physically and in the regulatory space, that is needed for the life science industry & the NHS to achieve its full potential.
To watch the full panel discussion, please click the video below and subscribe to Chamber UK’s YouTube channel
To read the full synopsis of the event, please visit our previous article here.
Please download the full report here.