---

Science and Technology

My Lords, I should like to focus on the contribution that medical research makes to the UK economy. The contribution of biomedical and clinical research going on in our universities and hospitals across the country is remarkable, but largely unquantified, quite apart from its contribution to the nation’s health. That is in addition to the large input made by the UK pharmaceutical industry. I intend to show that, if we extrapolate from the USA, where they have done the calculations, the UK probably gains £5 for every pound invested in medical research. Let me start with a few examples of the fruits that UK basic and clinical research have provided, from the invention and development of CT and MRI scanners through to the first development of hip replacement operations, monoclonal antibodies, H&2sub;  receptor antagonists, beta-blockers and new treatments for cancer and leukaemia. In each of those few examples, researchers in the UK have played the prime role in discovery and development from the laboratory to the bedside. All those medical and technological developments have contributed to longevity and good health. It is now clear that we are living longer. Anyone born today will live two years longer than someone born 10 years ago. We seem to gain two years of extra life for every 10 years that go by. That is, we gain 12 minutes in every hour, so for the two hours of this debate, someone born at the end of it will live 24 minutes longer than someone born at the beginning of it. It may seem even longer. It is not simply that we are living longer; we are living longer in a healthy state, that is, we are delaying the onset of disability and dependency. The improvements in health mean less time off work, less absenteeism, lower sickness benefit payments, lower burdens on carers, fewer and shorter hospital stays per person, longer employment and increased labour productivity. The increased productivity out of all of that is what we must weigh against the money that goes into research. A great deal of money goes in both directly from the Government through its research councils and from industry and the medical research charities—here I must express an interest as scientific adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities. If you total all that up, it comes to a massive £5.5 billion per annum, of which I can say that the charities put in £634 million a year, the Government, through the MRC, £435 million, the Department of Health through its R&D programme, £650 million and the drug industry a huge £3.5 billion per annum, which makes up about one quarter of all UK industry R&D. But when we come to try to measure the economic returns from that investment, there is such a variety of ways to look at outcomes that it is not straightforward. In the UK, we have lagged behind in trying to calculate those returns, but efforts have been made in the United States and in Australia. Their figures suggest that the value to their economies is enormous. Conservative estimates suggest that in the USA, its large investment—much larger than ours, of course—is repaid at least fivefold. Let me reiterate some US statistics. For a cost to the US of about $1 trillion per year, research in both basic biological sciences and the development of new drugs and technology, the returns were calculated at eight times that figure—$8 trillion to $10 trillion per annum. In a study of morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer, the major causes of death and disability, it was calculated that only a 10 per cent reduction in mortality from those diseases would give a return of about $10 trillion per annum. All those calculations are provided in a very important book by two highly respected economists from Chicago, Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel. I commend the book to noble Lords. Their calculations provide very large figures that are difficult to grasp, but for every $1 trillion dollars invested, the return is around five to 10 times greater. Similar figures have been obtained in Australia. Of course all those figures are based on a number of assumptions and may not be entirely applicable here, but, whichever way you do the calculations, you still find extremely valuable economic returns. Even on the most pessimistic calculation, it is hard not to conclude that investment in medical research makes sense not only for social and well-being reasons but for economic ones, too. We have to make those calculations in the UK, and we have not yet done so. Help is at hand because the Academy of Medical Sciences, of which I am a fellow and an ex-vice-president, has initiated a study that I hope will provide some of the data fairly soon. I am aware that this Government do a great deal to stimulate investment in medical research. The current Chancellor of the Exchequer is well disposed towards it and has made medical research a high priority. The Department of Health has joined in; it is extremely supportive of the need for medical research and is also investing in that field. The Minister is making sterling efforts to encourage investment here by the bioscience and pharmaceutical industry and doing his very best to combat animal terrorist groups, for example. The industry is very concerned about a number of factors that inhibit its natural desire to invest here. It works in a global way and has direct access to many countries where it can do research with less stress and sometimes more economically. So it is vital that we lean over backwards to encourage the industry to invest here and not elsewhere, but not only in its own R&D because we also want it to strengthening its links with the clinical and academic community in the NHS and UK universities. I finish with the message that investment in basic biomedical and clinical research and pharmaceutical industry R&D yields very impressive dividends, not only in health and longevity, but in economic terms it gives returns that would be the envy of any top FT100 company.