To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for health research in the United Kingdom of the funding cuts to the National Institutes of Health announced by the government of the United States of America.
My Lords, the United Kingdom’s world-class health research ecosystem makes us a natural partner for the United States’ research and life sciences communities. When UK health researchers collaborate internationally, it is most commonly with researchers in the United States. While it is too soon to make a full assessment of the impact of any changes in National Institutes of Health funding on health research in the UK, we continue to monitor and remain committed to strategic UK-US health research collaboration.
I thank the Minister for her reply. It is part of the Government’s policy to emphasise health research to improve the health service and to power economic growth, which is why the announcements of arbitrary and material cuts to research in the US have potentially bad effects, given the extent of international collaboration in research and joint funding. Will the Minister give a clear commitment to do whatever it takes to protect health services research in this country from the madness being perpetrated in Washington?
I note my noble friend’s observation. I certainly can give the assurance that the United Kingdom will continue to support and promote its research capability at home and, where we can, internationally. It might be helpful if I tell your Lordships’ House that, on 10 February, a United States district judge temporarily blocked the Administration’s cuts following a lawsuit which was led by attorneys from 22 US states. There is a further hearing scheduled for 21 February, so it is wait and see, and we continue to keep a close eye.
My Lords, NIH is the world’s largest supporter of biomedical research. A long time ago, I was a part beneficiary of its funding. It is renowned for developing many technologies for medical care, the two latest being CRISPR technology for treating disease and messenger RNA for developing vaccines. The UK is the first country in the world to license using CRISPR technology to treat sickle cell anaemia and thalassemia. In view of the cuts in NIH funding, we have an opportunity to increase our recruitment process for talented scientists who will be now be looking for a new home. As the country with the second-largest research profile in biomedical research, we may be able to benefit from it, so I hope the Government will refocus their efforts in the life science strategy and remove the impediments to the recruitment of talented scientists.
The noble Lord makes an important point. Decisions made by other countries, including the United States, are a matter for them. As the noble Lord said, if this goes ahead—I have made comments on a lawsuit, so I am limited in what I can say—while the US is indeed one of the UK’s closest partners in this area, we will seek every opportunity internationally and continue our commitment to see research at the heart of our NHS into the future.
My Lords, as my ally the noble Lord, Lord Patel, rightly says, uncertainties in the United States with health funding presents an opportunity for the United Kingdom. The research funded by the MRC alone led to spin-out companies which created value of more than £6.1 billion, 3,800 jobs and £10.2 billion of external investment. Will the Minister and her department commit to campaigning for ongoing research and investment through what will be an uncertain and difficult SR for health and medical research?
As we move towards the 10-year plan, it will be key. Research, the contribution of life sciences and innovation will help us deliver an NHS that is fit for the future. I agree with the noble Baroness about the major contribution that is made to the UK economy. This is not just about healthcare, important though that is; it is also about growth. There are some 6,800 businesses generating more than £100 billion in turnover. Life sciences is one of the most dynamic and significant sectors. It drives economic growth, but it also provides a future in terms of the quality, availability and efficiency of the healthcare that we can provide in this country.
My Lords, I hope the House will understand me when I say that I deeply regret the fact that my noble friend has had to ask this Question in the first place. The cuts to which it refers have been described as an apocalypse for American science, but that is a matter for them. What do the Government think the consequences might be of the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization? And does the Minister not agree that, in the event of an emerging global health threat, we will be less well placed to deal with it, to contain it and to understand what may be done without the United States in the World Health Organization? Are the Government already beginning to plan for this very sad eventuality?
My noble friend has made the point which I would emphasise: withdrawal from the World Health Organization is a matter for the United States to decide. The UK, however, will continue to work with all international partners and the WHO. It is a key factor in ensuring we have a healthier and safer world because disease does not respect borders. The UK Health Security Agency is carefully considering the impact of proposed changes in the United States, including its proposed withdrawal from the World Health Organization.
My Lords, the head of the UNAIDS agency has warned that global HIV infection could increase 600% by 2029 if the US continues its suspension of the UN HIV/AIDS programme. This means higher infection rates here in the UK, as communicable diseases do not recognise national borders. What specific steps will the Government take to support the UN and other nations in ensuring this programme’s effectiveness and efficiency?
Our commitment in this country to supporting humanitarian aid and development across the world, including in this area, remains steadfast. It will not be affected by any external decisions. With respect to the US decision to pause foreign aid funding for three months pending a review, as I have said previously, this is a matter for the United States. We note that decision, but the experience of the Covid pandemic is writ large and shows us that disease respects no borders, so it is in the interest of all of us to do the kind of work the UK did, for example in developing vaccines at that time.
Can I take this opportunity to ask a question about the UK’s wider health research ecosystem? The Government have talked a lot about moving towards prevention. How is this translated across to the health research environment? And while it is right that we look at cures and get better cures, given that testing and diagnosis are an important part of prevention, have the Government thought how we could focus our research on ensuring that simple tests such as blood tests or breath tests can detect more conditions and diseases earlier—for example, cancers including less survivable cancers?
Yes, very much so, because it is by doing so that we will improve prevention and make the move from sickness to prevention. I can tell your Lordships’ House that the Government are continuing to support commercial clinical research delivery, including through new NIHR commercial research delivery centres that work with industry and other research infrastructure. I was pleased to visit one of them in Leicester, meet patients and hear how they were very engaged in doing exactly what the noble Lord is referring to.