Share
The Appraisal - with Dr Iain Foulkes
Scientific disruption - what is it, and do we need it?
A recent Nature paper has suggested ‘disruptive’ science is declining. So, what actually is disruptive science in terms of cancer research, and should we think of it as negative or positive? In other words, is it important? Do we really need ‘disruption’ at all - maybe steady iteration is more productive? Let some big picture thinking from Iain Foulkes help clarify your thoughts around all this...
Some useful links:
"The number of science and technology research papers published has skyrocketed over the past few decades — but the ‘disruptiveness’ of those papers has dropped, according to an analysis of how radically papers depart from the previous literature"
The Nature paper on 'disruption' - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5
"Grants, for example, often err on the side of safe bets, resulting in published research that only marginally advances existing knowledge."
STAT News article by Juergen Eckhardt of Leaps by Bayer and George Church at Harvard Medical School and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - https://www.statnews.com/2023/02/01/disruptive-innovation-science-leaping-forward/
More episodes
View all episodes
3. Reward and recognition in research – can we create a nation of entrepreneurial life scientists?
21:39Cancer Research UK’s newly launched Manifesto for Cancer Research and Care – a vision for how the next UK Government can transform cancer research and care – has a number of policy recommendations, one of which revolves around building commercial innovation into reward systems. As translation of research into patient benefit is CRUK’s ultimate aim, it’s clear we have skin the game here, and a real interest in figuring out the best way to do this.So, what is the problem with the way researchers are recognised and rewarded now? Is there still a cultural divide between academic research and more commercially based science? And can we change things?Time to get some big-picture thinking on all this from Iain Foulkes…Some useful links: Read CRUK’s Manifesto for Cancer Research and Care.Read CRUK's article summarising our Manifesto asks aimed at improving the UK's research environment. H. Holden Thorp Editor-in-Chief, Science journals and long-time academic and university administrator, writes in Science suggesting that endeavours to change the way research is rewarded are nothing new… and he is not hopeful that things will ever change. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl2369Episode of our sister podcast, Cancer Research Matters, with Simon Boulton. Simon is a Principle Group Leader at the Crick Institute, and also holds the Assistant Research Director of Translation Position, he suggests that one roadblock for academics dipping their toe into translation is the lack of a real framework for recognising scientific achievement in a translational setting. The relevant comments in this episode start around 16.30mins.https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/01/20/latest-episode-of-our-podcast-for-researchers-6/
2. Big pharma, big money, big risks - does a charity have a role in biotech and pharma innovation?
17:32A recent report from Deloitte has shed new light on the staggering cost of developing new drugs - an expense that now exceeds $2 billion per therapy on average. It's a cost only matched by the huge risk in undertaking the research and development needed to get a drug or intervention to market. So, is the 'innovation economy' of drug discovery sustainable? What can - perhaps should - be done about this? And does a charity like CRUK have a role here? Time to get some perspective on all this from Iain Foulkes...Some useful links:Cancer Research Horizons is CRUK's innovation engine built to complement it's network of researchers. They take innovations from the lab bench to the bedside, translating them into effective treatments and diagnostics for cancer patients - https://www.cancerresearchhorizons.com/The report from Deloitte showing the staggering cost of developing new drugs—an expense that now exceeds $2 billion per therapy on average.FDA Commissioner Rob Califf says drug prices are too high.