- Geoff Watts, freelance journalist
- 1London
- geoff{at}scileg.freeserve.co.uk
“It ain’t broke, but let’s fix it anyway.” Although this is not a sentence you will find anywhere in the text of David Cooksey’s 2006 report on the funding of medical research in Britain,1 this coarse description does capture the thinking that underpins it. Generous praise for the achievements of UK health and medical research—then a “but.” It’s rather like a school report: doing pretty well, but could do still better. And this teacher is having his way: the report’s central recommendations are being implemented. So what is happening—and should researchers be nervous?
It was Gordon Brown who set the ball rolling a couple of years ago with his announcement that Medical Research Council and National Health Service research and development funds were to be combined in one ring fenced pot to be held jointly by the secretaries of state for health and (as was) trade and industry. Brown was responding to the widely held view that too many of the products of British biomedical research have been left for others to exploit commercially. He had been persuaded that a single research fund, strategically deployed and with economic benefits in mind, could improve matters. The plan had three objectives (box). The man chosen to devise a means of meeting them, David Cooksey, has experience not only in business but in the oversight of medical research, including a governorship of the Wellcome Trust.
Objectives of reform
Health—Research priorities to be closely aligned with government health objectives. Research to be a greater priority for the NHS
Science—Maintaining the UK as a world class performer in basic biomedical science. Support for excellence across the full spectrum of …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Ethical considerations
Published 14 February 2012
Re: Diagnosis and management of Raynaud’s phenomenon
Published 14 February 2012
Re: Raised inflammatory markers
Published 14 February 2012
Re: Physical activity for cancer survivors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published 14 February 2012
Smokefree cars in Wales: Laws are better
Published 14 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (8 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (8 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
How much of a social media profile can doctors have? (7 responses)
Published 23 Jan 2012