Cambridge life sciences group launches global future vision – and a local plan

A cohesive Cambridge life sciences strategy is emerging in a bid to maintain the region as a global hub now and for future generations – and the group behind it found its voice at last week’s launch event at The Cambridge Building on Babraham Research Campus.

Since 2021, Cambridge University Health Partners (CUHP) has been working, in collaboration with key partners, on developing its Vision for Life Sciences strategy. Jointly, with Innovate Cambridge and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, CUHP hosted the launch to showcase delegates’ commitment to brand Cambridgeshire as a globally competitive destination for health and life sciences.

The agenda was split into short talks on the five pillars of the strategy: place, talent, network, funding and data, which together aim ‘to accelerate the cycle of discovering, demonstrating and delivering healthcare innovations to improve lives and support economic growth’. It was, says Kristin-Anne Rutter, executive director of CUHP, a very productive afternoon.

The Life Sciences Strategy welcome was given by Laurel Powers-Freeling​, chair of CUHP; Diarmuid O’Brien, chief executive of Cambridge Enterprise; Tabitha Goldstaub, executive director, Innovate Cambridge; and Andy Neely, senior pro-vice-chancellor at the University of Cambridge.

Attendees at the event represented companies including CIC, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, AstraZeneca, Illumina, BioMed Realty, CMR Surgical, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Deloitte, Lazard and Cambridge Biomedical Campus among many others.

“It went well, I thought it was very well received,” Dr Rutter said the following day. “The background to this launch goes back to pre-pandemic days when the Business Board of the Combined Authority identified four sectors vital for the growth of the local economy, which need a strategy around them, and that includes a life science strategy.”

The four growth sectors are life sciences, agri-tech, digital & information technologies, and advanced manufacturing & materials.

“They wanted someone to take it forward,” continued Dr Rutter, “and, around the same time, Cambridge Biomedical Campus was also updating its strategy and its leadership group said life sciences needed to fit in around a broader vision. Both groups published their vision in April 2021.

“So those two things happened at the same time so then it was how do both get taken forward and implemented, and lead to changes in our ecosystem. CUHP, with two universities and three hospitals on board, took up that mantle – that’s why CUHP is leading this work: it’s a Cambridgeshire and broader region vision with CUHP leading. So this event was an update on two years of work.”

Dr Rutter took on the executive directorship at CUHP in May 2021 just as the vision of a unified Cambridge ecosystem moving forward in lockstep was there to be taken forward.

“We’re not saying we have all the answers, nor are we being critical, but there’s a recognition that we have got something special here. This ecosystem can contribute to life sciences globally but we can’t take it for granted, we have to have a plan, things can go backwards too, people need to recognise that.

“The idea of a single vision that is supported by the ecosystem is gaining momentum, which is why Babraham Research Campus was there, the University of Cambridge was there, One Nucleus was there… The launch was about getting the commitment to move forward.

“The overarching vision is to accelerate the mission of discovery breakthroughs and innovations. So if we want those breakthrough discoveries then we need to address any gaps in infrastructure, and the talent and processes that keep our system interlinked, plus ensure there’s sufficient funding. We’ve looked at the gaps and organisational challenges faced by other systems and hubs in the world. Those gaps are well documented: the point of yesterday was what are we going to do about them.”

The life sciences group has developed 14 recommendations, for the ‘Place’, ‘Talent’, and ‘Network’ pillars, to encourage commitment from stakeholders for the development of the sector.

“I was struck by the fact that no one criticised the recommendations or withheld their support,” noted Dr Rutter. “The life sciences community here is relatively well connected and has come together. And this is broader than life sciences: we’re working closely with Innovate Cambridge, and they have said that this agenda is fully integrated with their own goals for the region.”

So what are the challenges facing Cambridge as it bids to underpin the foundations of its position in the global life sciences community?

“I think the recommendations about funding need to be further developed,” says Dr Rutter. “Some are practical, for instance transport and digital infrastructure, and others include government funding, which needs to continue.

“There are concerns from all parties about how growth is distributed and that it genuinely does improve lives.

“There’s challenges around the growing inequality in the region…. we’re not elected officials or local authorities but for instance we can ask what role local parks and facilities could play in the success of the region. As well as the amazing discoveries and hospital work, the whole community must benefit. We’re not taking it on alone, but it’s recognised as a challenge and one that leads to a lot of work.

“The situation is not a totally altruistic worry as the stakeholders are employers and want to be able to attract talent at all levels. When we ask them to rank the challenges they start with the affordability of housing and transport, and that’s why, if we haven’t sorted out what’s happening locally, we won’t be able to attract talent – and that is a concern.

“In terms of the discussion on how involved we get, it goes from ‘it’s all great’ to ‘we need to do more’ – and that could include more outreach to schools and mentoring.”

The group is aware of Cambridge City Council’s ‘Our Cambridge’ transformation programme.

“One of the recommendations is whether employers could get together to consider some sort of collaboration solutions for employees, perhaps an alternative to the affordable housing policy, so there is potential for collaboration there, plus a commitment to be active in the debate around transport solutions.

“There are differing views among the stakeholders, but they are saying we can’t be silent on this.”