Franklin Innovation Forum: 7 Ways To Drive Innovation

Our Innovation Forum brought together cross-sector life sciences leaders to debate how best to drive innovation for patient benefit in the UK, to launch the new Franklin science strategy.

Strong themes emerged which are relevant to research funders, policy makers and the UK scientific community. This blog shares seven key messages that were consistently raised as important factors to boost innovation in UK life sciences.

1. Define the challenge to focus research efforts

The need to define bold research challenges to drive innovation was identified by a number of speakers. Paul Matthews, Director of the Franklin, explained that this principle is at the core of the Institute’s new science strategy. “We want to radically innovate, and we know that is best driven by having clear and ambitious goals.” The Franklin’s mission, to create and advance technology which will improve human health, is now focused around clear Technology Innovation and Life Science Challenges.

The importance of addressing real world problems was also consistent theme. Sarah Stock, the In Utero Program Director for Wellcome Leap, felt this should be led by patient need. “Patients have to be our most important stakeholders. They have a strong desire to see breakthroughs and we need to do more to hear their views. In women’s health, for example, we often see institutions say they are working in the area, but we need to see them actually leverage the opportunities.”

She shared her view that projects that address a significant underserved clinical need, such as the Franklin project to understand the biology of the placenta to reduce stillbirth, should be commended.

From an industry perspective, Steve Reyntjens, Senior Director of Product Marketing from Thermo Fisher Scientific, told the Forum that their work to develop new scientific instruments is driven by need and tractable challenges. “We have to first understand what researchers need. For long term projects, such as developing a new electron microscope, we need to fully understand how we will help researchers achieve their goals. Which is why collaboration, like the ones we have with the Franklin, are at the core of successful innovations for us.” He told the Forum.

2. Build the commercial skills needed to work with industry and attract investment

Academia must understand the needs of industry to fully translate the potential of research into patient benefit, many at the Forum felt. David Rees, Chief Scientific Officer of Astex and a Franklin Trustee explained that involves effort, “Finding a pharma partner at Astex involved extensive scientific discussion with many people in different institutions which took time. We also needed highly skilled people in commercial development to help us work out the intellectual properly rights, contracts and agreements.”

This legal knowledge needed to start up new life sciences companies is challenging but critical to get right. Hilary Newiss, a solicitor and Franklin Trustee, told the Forum, “The legal aspects around IP, and the legal background to setting up a company, can be a challenge in academia. Patent law is particularly difficult to understand, you need expertise to develop your patent, make sure it is useful, and understand whether it is worth filing. But getting the IP right is essential to attract venture capital investment.”

3. Embrace risk taking and blue skies thinking

There was widespread agreement that we need to build a research culture that values innovative thinking.

The Franklin was established on precisely this principle, and the new strategy cements what Paul Matthews describes as “an environment designed to continually push the envelope of what we are able to achieve,” built around long-term ambition and addressed by highly agile, multi-disciplinary teams. 

David Rees agreed about the importance of blue skies thinking. At Astex they have found new ways to encourage and value innovation, “We have an unwritten rule that people can spend say a proportion of their time on blue skies research. It is a way to encourage people to try to take risks.”

Peter Mathieson, Principal and Vice-chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, felt there needed to be a greater focus on giving researchers the freedom to experiment.  “As much as we incentivise success, we must celebrate and learn from failure. We need to remember the famous Einstein phrase – anyone who never made a mistake has never tried anything new. We won’t make progress if we don’t innovate, and that inherently means taking a risk.” He told the Forum.

“I think there’s no shortage of creativity and new ideas and energy across the UK. There are some universities that prioritise and reward entrepreneurship and innovation, but it’s still not uniform.” Peter continued.

4. Put teamwork at the heart of science

Steve Reyntjens stressed the importance of team working for innovation, exemplified by the work of Thermo Fisher Scientific to develop new electron microscopes, which he described as a ‘team sport’. “Whether you are in academia, a company developing drugs, or a company developing instruments, it is clear that you win as a team or you fail as a team. There is no way round it.” He said.

Collaboration must extend beyond the boundaries of individual teams and organisations for Sarah Stock. She told the Forum “Having a common goal has to be important. We might have 15 research teams around the world working separately on different aspects of a health goal, but when we put them all in the same room collaborations happen naturally.”

5. Champion cross-sector careers

Breaking down the siloes to allow researchers to work across- and move- sectors was championed by many speakers as key. Sam Barrell, CEO of LifeArc, believes training for cross-disciplinary careers is becoming even more important. “We struggle to spend the time and effort we need to, on training people for cross-disciplinary careers. This is especially true for clinician scientists. I am hearing this more and more from colleagues, across sectors and around the country, that we are struggling to keep the career path and pipeline of talent strong” she said.

Paul Matthews highlighted the importance of researchers being able to move sectors during their career, saying “Moving from academia to industry is wrongly seen as a risky move. At the Franklin, we put effort into training our researchers with the skills to give them the confidence needed to be excited about moving into either academia or industry.”

6. Create a balanced ecosystem

The discussions brought to light the need for a balanced ecosystem to allow innovation to flourish. For Sarah Stock, this was something that brought to mind Donald Stokes’ Model of Innovation from his 1997 book.  She told the Forum audience, “In the model there is a quadrant for curiosity-driven research, a quadrant for fundamental science, and a quadrant for applied research that might have a commercial element, and finally a quadrant for inspiration research. To have a strong and thriving ecosystem, you need to have all of these elements.”

Ruth McKernan, Operating Partner at SV Investors, said, “Innovation is much more than just research”. Ruth underlined the need for different investment types across the innovation cycle, from creative discovery research at early readiness levels, moving through venture capital and then into industry (consumer) funding at the latter stages. An ecosystem which enables innovation to move through these levels seamlessly is essential.

7. Build diverse teams who think differently

The importance of bringing people who can think differently into science, to work in more diverse teams, was widely seen as important to stimulate innovation. But Hilary Newiss stressed that having diverse teams is not enough, cultural change is needed. “Having people of diverse backgrounds working together is important, but it needs to sit alongside a culture that allows people to challenge the accepted view. It is only when people are empowered to speak up that you reap the benefits of diversity,” she explained.

For Sam Barrell, health science could learn from the imaginative and entrepreneurial thinking that has revolutionised other areas of our lives in recent years, from the way that Uber has changed transport or the way Spotify and Netflix have changed the way we consume TV and music. She said, “These examples are controversial – in each of these situations, traditional players lose out. It’s a paradigm shift. And it doesn’t always feel comfortable. But it prioritises the needs of the end-user over traditional ways of working. What if we did that in our world too? One clear example is being willing to let go of our preconceptions about how drug discovery and development happens, including being more innovative and tackling inefficiencies.”

Find out more about the Franklin's new science strategy Find out more about the new strategy