State strategies of governance in global biomedical innovation: the impact of China and India

Lead Research Organisation: King's College London
Department Name: Political Economy

Abstract

The aim of this research is to examine the nature and impact of China and India's strategies on the governance of biomedical innovation at national, regional and global levels and the implications for UK policy. Medical biotechnology is a government priority in the UK, which claims a world-leading position in several sectors. Policy priorities and the design of the present research were debated in a high-level workshop with UK policy makers who endorsed the research. Two priority fields of medical biotechnology are investigated, each focused around two case studies of substantive biomedical/economic activity: Regenerative Medicine (Stem cell research; Tissue-engineered wound care); and Stratified/Personalised Medicine (Bioinformatics; Pharmacogenomics). These areas of scientific research and development of products promise to revolutionise healthcare globally, and respond to major public health needs. The 'Rising Powers', especially China and India, are becoming increasingly influential in these fields, and national governments, regulators, scientific institutions, industry actors and other stakeholders are moving to develop new strategies to maintain and improve their positions in the global biomedical economy. At the same time, the increasing use of 'bio' science and technology and the development of complex biosocial databases and human cell banks ('biobanks') for therapeutic exploitation raise a host of ethical, social and legal issues which different societies approach in very different ways.

The research draws together concepts from disciplines of political science, innovation studies, and sociology of biomedicine and healthcare, to provide a new evidence base of these emerging developments. Building on the platform of an ESRC Rising Powers Network project, the research focuses on relations between India, China and the UK, in the global context of US, EU and South East Asian scientific and economic influence. Focusing on the four case studies, the research will: 1. Describe the primary components and directions of China and India's innovation policies, strategies and actions; 2. Analyse how these strategies align with or depart from those employed by the developed economies of the UK, EU, North America, and Japan; 3. Assess the extent to which the Rising Powers strategies engage with, challenge or confirm existing cross-cutting regional and global governance institutions and actions in both private and public spheres; 4. Evaluate the implications for UK policy around these priority strands of biomedical economy and health policy.

The research uses a combination of research and policy analysis methods, comprising secondary analysis of quantitative datasets, primary fieldwork data collection (interviews, observation of conferences) in the UK, India and China. Data collected will include: patent/intellectual property trends; standard-setting activity; investment trends; 'private' regulatory initiatives such as via professional associations or scientific networks; formal regulatory initiatives; modes and content of patient and public engagement with governance processes; public policy visions of future healthcare. Throughout the research, policymakers in the UK and Rising Powers countries will be involved in debating the research through a series of expert workshops. Similarly, public/patients forums will be convened in the UK to provide involvement of these stakeholder groups. The research team will advance the theory of global biomedical innovation by aligning political science theory of states' competitive and cooperative global interaction with sociological/innovation studies' analysis of how emerging medico-economic sectors emerge and stabilise. This theoretical work will be of broader application, beyond the substantive field of medical biotechnology. The substantive findings of the research will inform UK policy for medical biotech innovation for developing the healthcare of the future.

Planned Impact

The future of medicine and the health and well-being of society is being shaped by today's governance of biomedical R & D. The objective of this project is to understand the challenges for national and trans-national governance posed by important bioscience developments, and to provide a core research-based foundation of evidence for the range of policy end-users. We will integrate our academic infrastructure with the most concerned policy actors in the UK and internationally, taking forward a new conceptual framework with a suite of critical case studies. The project will examine the capacity of current UK institutional structures to respond to the governance demands of biomedical innovation.

To maximise policy impact, UK end-users have been involved in our project development discussions, including the DH, Office for Life Sciences, the Division of S&T Policy, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry within the OECD, clinical and commercial participants, and public ethics stakeholders. The non-academic impact is geared primarily to public and private organisations responsible for biomedical investment, policy oversight and regulation, and concerned publics and patient groups. The project's policy aims will be channelled through the two biomedical fields that the Project is organised around, activating a wide range of existing links to policy networks that we will further build upon:

1. Stratified biomedicine: Issues include: economic, clinical and public value of new genetic tests; pharmacogenomics regulation; regulatory adaptation to global developments; ethics of bioinformatics international data set integration. . The House of Lords S&T Select Committee recently reviewed genetic tests, calling for a new White Paper. We will seek to provide evidence to the S&T Committee and Commons Health Committee and the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology to help shape public policy. We have links to the MHRA's personalised medicine initiative and will provide policy advice to inform the Agency's ongoing work, and to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society which is interested in the opportunities and risks of stratified medicine, and in the wider public/patient domain, the Consumers' Association and specific patient organisations. We will provide evidence to education/skills policymakers and pharma industry, in the area of public and private bioinformatics capacity and related Rising Powers policy.

2. Regenerative biomedicine: Issues include: scale-up, business models and IP; safety standards issues in testing and clinical trials; product regulation; Health Technology Assessment and reimbursement policy. We have existing strong links to the UK Stem Cell Bank and UK Stem Cell Network, the Regenerative Medicine Industry Group of the BioIndustry Association, the Office of Life Sciences review of regenerative medicine, and the Research Councils/TSB Forward Look on regenerative medicine. On research policy, we will link to the European Commission's Research DG's Directorate F (Health), Unit F2 Medical and Public Health Research and the European Society of Cardiology; and, for product regulation, the MHRA including its Medical Technology Forum. We will use participation in NICE to mobilise interest in technology adoption policy.

More broadly, we will engage (through web-based and face-to-face methods) with, and provide evidence to, UK and overseas patient organisations and concerned public constituencies about selected biomedical innovation developments, as they play increasing parts in innovation/governance structures and activities.

Publications

10 25 50
 
Description Key Finding 1 - Political economy: hegemony, markets and the 'dualistic' state
The aim of the research was 'to produce conceptually advanced evidence on the nature and impact of China and India's strategies on the governance of biomedical innovation at national, regional and global levels, and the implications for UK policy'. In addressing this aim, one of the important theoretical advances has been the novel application of Gramsci's theory of hegemony to the case of globalised biomedical innovation, integrating this approach with an analysis of the global health consumer market as the vehicle for the emergence of a counter-hegemonic challenge. China, India and the UK were then positioned in terms of their contribution to the political struggle between the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic forces.

Taking stem cell science as the empirical case, this aspect of the research concluded that health consumers are able to challenge the hegemony of the science-based paradigm of stem cell innovation though the exercise of their demand in a global market of practice-based medical innovation. Despite the global reach of biomedical science (the blocco storico), its ideological cadre of bioethicists acting as its traditional intellectuals, its total dominance of the research funding market, its extensive political network of transnational scientific institutions and its established alliance with agencies of the state in the UK and to a lesser extent in China and India, the hegemony has proved fallible in the case of stem cell innovation. A counter-hegemony of consumer values and action has begun to emerge in an economic territory over which the hegemony has little control, where consumers are geographically mobile, and where the demand-supply relationship is engineered through an elusive system of internet-driven information. Health consumers are able to choose and purchase new health treatments generated by practice-based medical innovation in ways regarded as illicit by the orthodox paradigm of innovation. As the counter-hegemony gains strength, so the collision in biomedical innovation between the logic of consumer choice and the logic of orthodox science becomes ever more apparent. Even within its own territory the hegemony has suffered reverses as some states such as the UK, impatient with the implacable adherence of science to its discovery-based values without apparent regard for the patient-based values of medicine, have begun to engage in trasformismo and make governance changes to enable greater responsiveness to health consumer need and so draw their citizens back within the hegemonic boundaries.

China and India have other options. Lacking fully-developed systems of governance predicated on the values of the science-based hegemony of innovation, they have adopted a 'dualistic' position where they publicly adopt a position in support of the hegemonic model but privately allow practice-based medical innovation to occur in unregulated political spaces. This approach allows them to retain the benefits of membership of the transnational biomedical community whilst at the same time accessing the wealth of the growing market of stem cell treatments generated by the mobile health consumer. Thus, judicious but limited biomedical innovation governance becomes a means for simultaneously exercising control and creating market opportunities.



Key Finding 2 - STS: Lessons from the case studies
Regenerative medicine
There are received, stereotyped notions about the laxity of certain national regulatory regimes which may be better understood in terms of different levels and locations of legitimation. In the case of controversial stem cell therapy, for example local bespoke ethical review committees and sub-national regional state authorities are providing legitimation and resourcing support that in principle 'contradicts' national positions, especially outward-facing adaptation to dominant western scientific models. During the lifetime of the project we observed regulatory policy developments that can be read as showing some convergence at national policy level: the rise of 'exceptions and exemptions' and early access schemes in the UK/EU and in India the recent central policy restriction of stem cell therapy to 'research-only' status.
Stem cells/regenerative medicine has become framed as a distinct sector and industry in the UK much more explicitly and coherently compared to India and China. This is reflected in government stated 'life science' policies and funding organisations and regimes. In both India and China the comparable support structures and incentivisation routes are much more diverse and regionally dispersed.
Bioinformatics
The few social science accounts of bioinformatics to date have focused mainly on'internalist' analysis, for example of disciplinary conflicts between biology and informatics/IT. Acknowledging a strong forward-looking steer from our UK national regulatory and health policy advisors, we have opened up a socio-political analysis of the governance of bioinformatics innovation in recognition of its increasingly central place in global life science. We found that the history of the emergence of bioinformatics varied enormously between the three nation-states, India for example having an initial focus on IT infrastructure, and China building on a move of physicists and engineers into biology, and then more piecemeal support of individual research centres.
Because bioinformatics is a platform technology (at least in the sense of it being susceptible to a wide variety of applications), its policy framing by different polities and bioeconomic ambitions is indicative of particular states' approaches to innovation governance in the life sciences. Thus, we find that China's research funding profile has been broadly aimed toward stimulating a bio-industry including a service sector (BGI the Beijing Genomics Institute being the recurrent reference point globally) with little focus on particular disease applications. India on the other hand, shows a commitment to some elite genomics driven academic centres alongside some commercial service stimulation (mirroring the well-known phenomenon of outsourced clinical trials), more explicitly gearing toward nationally important infectious diseases, and a current attempt to resource a national facility through a public-private partnership model. The UK's position is conspicuously driven by the presence of the European Bioinformatics Institute and its very strong partner and funding networks, and together with the advent of 'Genomics England' we see here a very strong commitment to developing bioinformatics within a nationally coordinated (and internationally, especially US, linked) public-private genomics-for-research-and-health bioeconomic project.


Advanced wound care (AWC)
We have produced unique analysis of this field which, whilst important in the UK's life science policy, has been greatly neglected in social science analysis, though the field's struggles with 'evidence-based medicine' has been documented. AWC is an acknowledged policy object in the UK but not in India or China. The UK has developed a coordinating governance infrastructure that ties R&D (for example in cell therapy and bio-sensing) into the NHS and commercial enterprise through a brokering function (Healthcare Technology Cooperatives), which is not paralleled in India or China. In both India and China R&D in this field takes place especially in burns centres, including in the military sector. India has just supported a single such centre to stand as a national centre, industrial and domestic burns being a major government health concern.
Conceptual advance
The above work advances theorisation at the interface of political science and sociology of biomedicine and regulation, by deploying in parallel notions of consumer and stakeholder challenge to hegemonic biomedical science, with notions of the sectorisation and stabilisation of emerging life science innovation, in global, transnational and national contexts.

Key Finding 3 - New research networks: a platform for the next project
A key part of the project methodology was interviews with scientists, policymakers and industrialists in the UK, China and India working in the fields of regenerative medicine and personalised medicine. Whilst the team's previous research experience provided numerous access points in the UK, these were more limited in the case of China and India. Here we report on the new networks established in the latter two countries which we plan to use as a platform for further research on the global politics of health consumers (documented under Key Finding 4). The networks span the domains of science, government and industry, often linked by 'gatekeepers' with access to more than one domain. The total membership of these networks is approximately 100, often characterised by individuals working across the science, policy and industry arenas . Below are examples of how the networks were created through the 'snowballing' technique of interviewee recommendation, their institutional locations and key members.

China
In personalised medicine academic colleagues at the Institute of Science, Technology at Tsinghua University helped the project gain access to leading bioinformaticians such as Professor Jingchu Luo. This led to institutional links being formed with organisations such the Centre for Bioinformatics at Peking University and the Beijing Genomics Institute. In regenerative medicine, leading stem cell scientists and clinical researchers were approached through the good offices of Professor Zhenzhen Li, Director of the Centre for Science and Technology Ethics, Institute of Policy and Management in the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Access to senior government officials in China is often challenging. Here we were fortunate in the help provided by Dr Wang Ge (Chinese Academy of Science and Technology for Development (CASTED) within the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)) to conduct interviews with officials in MOST and the China Food and Drugs Administration (CFDA). Further introductions to policy makers were provided by Professor Xiaomei Zhai, Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Peking Union Medical College and member of China's National Health and Planning Commission.

India
Our Indian networks centre on science and technology policy makers in New Delhi, and scientists and industrialists in the Bangalore and Hyderabad biotech clusters and the global innovation hubs of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). Professor Vijay Raghavan, Secretary of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), linked the project, firstly, to the Delhi policy maker networks (for example, Dr Alka Sharma, Stem Cell Task Force of India), secondly, to senior scientists relevant to our research (for example, Professor Balasubramanian, head of the LV Prasad Eye Institute in Hyderabad) and, thirdly, to the Bangalore biotech cluster. Professor Balasubramanian then facilitated access to India's Hyderabad biotech cluster including the 'Genome Valley'. Within the IIT organisation, Professor Sanjeev Srivastasa at IIT Mumbai and Professor Naveen Thayyil at IIT Delhi enabled interviews with leading scientists and industrialists in our case study domains. In the stem cell science case study, Professor Sujata Mohanty, head of India's translational Stem Cell Facility at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) introduced the project to a number of senior scientists in the field.

Key Finding 4 - Taking the theory forward: Performativity and (counter) hegemonic biomedical markets

The project has produced a developmental theoretical framework that works to better integrate our existing Gramscian analysis of healthcare markets (Salter et al 2015) with existing Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature. In doing so we opened up important new research questions to be explored in a pattern of subsequent empirical work to inform ongoing theoretical development. This programme of work began by extending our repertoire of Gramscian ideas to include civil society, base and superstructure relationships, and consent and coercion relationships. We then theorised the connectivities to two key ideas under current consideration in the STS literature: market performativities and publics.

The market performativities literature extends arguments found in the sociology of expectations (Brown and Michael 2003) to economic contexts. Important work by Callon (1998), MacKenzie (2005), and Pollock and Williams (2010) explore the ways in which economic and market rationalities are mobilised not only to understand market relations but also to shape them. Existing work on this 'performative turn' centres on financial and procurement markets. We expand this in two important ways. Firstly we consider biomedical markets, with their distinctive sets of actors (large and small companies, public and private healthcare providers, patient representative groups). Secondly we situate this work in dialogue with our Gramscian analysis of hegemonic markets - based upon an ethic of scientific evidence - and counter-hegemonic markets - based upon an ethic of care - in biomedicine. This is productive in at least two important ways: (1) It allows an STS influenced inspection of Gramsci's understanding of the relationship between base and superstructure, with notions of the performativity of economic actions bringing novel insight to the relationship between economic base and the social structures that surround it. (2) It allows us to develop the novel theoretical model of hegemonic performativities and counter-hegemonic performativities, to explore theoretically and empirically the differing typologies of performative action that provoke economic relations and bring market forms into being. Importantly, our argument is that the typologies of performativity in the existing literature consider only hegemonic performativities and our work seeks to address this imbalance.

Our second site of intersection between STS and our account of Gramsci inspects the relationships between Gramsci's notion of civil society and subalterns and recent STS scholarship on publics. A framework of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic publics incorporates STS notions of counter publics (Haran 2013) and unruly publics (de Saillea 2015) invoked in imaginaries of publics fostered by states (Hess 2015, Welsh and Wynne 2013) and institutions (Stephens, Atkinson and Glasner 2013) into a Gramscian account of hegemony secured through consent and coercion. Recognising the national and international component here we situate in dialogue Jasanoff and Kim's (2009) notion of socio-technical imaginaries of nationhood and science policy with Gramsci's account of the national-popular. By integrating Gramsci with STS arguments on market performativities and publics we provide a framework to further inspect how rising and established powers construct and contest global healthcare markets.

References:
Brown, N., and Michael, M. (2003) A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15 (1): 3-18.

Callon, M. (ed) (1998) The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell.

De Saille, S. (2015) Dis-inviting the Unruly Public Science as Culture 24(1) p99-107.

Haran, J. (2013) The UK Hybrid Embryo Controversy: Delegitimising Counterpublics Science as Culture 22(4) p567-88.

Hess, D. (2015) Public as Threats? Integrating Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Social Movement Studies (SMS) Science as Culture 24(1) p69-82.

Jasanoff, S. and Kim, S. (2009) Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea Minerva 47(2) p119-46.

MacKenzie, D. (2006) An Engine not a Camera: how financial models shape markets, Cambridge (Massachusetts): The MIT Press.

Pollock, N. and Williams, R. (2010) The business of expectations: How promissory organizations shape technology and innovation Social Studies of Science 40 (4): 525-548.

Salter, B. Zhou, Y. and Datta, S. (2015) Hegemony in the marketplace of biomedical innovation: Consumer demand and stem cell science Social Science & Medicine 131 p156-63.

Stephens, N., Atkinson, P., and Glasner, P. (2013) Institutional imaginaries of publics in stem cell banking: the cases of the UK and Spain Science as Culture, 22 (4): 497-515.

Welsh, I. and Wynne, B. (2013) Science, Scientism and Imaginaries of Publics in the UK: Passive Objects, Incipient Threats Science as Culture 22(4) p540-66.
Exploitation Route The project's Pathways to Impact plan involved the engagement of policymakers and academics in a series of five workshops in China, India and the UK (see http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Index.aspx) which created important expert networks in the three countries (see Key Finding 3). Ideas and material will continue to be fed into these networks in the course of design of the next project on 'The global politics of health consumers' as part of a consultative exercise (Key Finding 4). In addition, the project will be participating in the Rising Powers impact programme through a contribution to its 'innovation' theme on transnational regulation.
At the same time the findings of the project on the biomedical innovation process with regard to the different contributions in the three countries of health consumers, the scientific community, and regulation suggests that an inter-country dialogue on these issues would be mutually beneficial (Key Findings 1 and 2). The project has an established network in consumer, science and regulatory organisations that could be used as the initial platform to bring together relevant actors.
Sectors Healthcare

URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/index.aspx
 
Description Since the end of its ESRC funding in September 2015, the project has continued to enhance its impact through the engagement of team members with policymakers, new projects, publications in scientific journals and policy workshops. The platform and networks for these activities was established in the course of the project through its seven workshops in the UK, China and India with participants drawn from government, industry and NGOs (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Index.aspx) The object was, and is, to influence policy and professional practice by providing evidence derived from the project findings on more efficient and effective means for governing biomedical innovation. Team members have contributed directly to the policy making process. Faulkner submitted written evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology's inquiry into EU regulation and the life sciences (June 2016) and made a presentation to the All-Party Parliamentary Health Group as part of its discussion of 'Regenerative medicine: the ground-breaking opportunities it offers for improving patient healthcare' (November 2016). Both were informed by his membership of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) Medical Technologies Advisory Committee. His contributions have helped to increase awareness among policymakers and regulatory officials of how linkage can be created through their regulatory initiatives between the funding, business models and delivery mechanisms of new modes of regenerative medicine in order to provide patients with improved treatments at the earliest opportunity. In the field of the governance of personalised or precision medicine, Hogarth's contribution to the Department of Health's Emerging Science and Bioethics Advisory Committee and an external strategy group advising the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on EU regulations for diagnostic devices has drawn on project findings to illuminate the need for regulatory connection between the diagnosis and the treatment of particular diseases: governance domains that are normally separate and distinct. By showing policymakers how and why the domains need to be integrated, Hogarth has helped prepare the ground for the policy changes required to deal with the advent of genomic medicine. The policy influence dimension of this work will be continued through the prestigious ERC Starting Grant Hogarth has recently been awarded to conduct a comparative analysis of the political economy of diagnostic innovation, focusing on the development and diffusion of new technologies for screening and early detection of cancer in the UK, USA and France. Meanwhile in China, Zhou has recently presented a paper on the regulation of precision medicine at a workshop for policymakers from the Ministry of Health and the National Centre for Science and Technology Evaluation organised by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (December 2016). Given that China has a strategic commitment to the development of precision medicine but lacks the governance expertise to facilitate it, it is intended that Zhou's explication of UK, EU and US approaches to the regulatory issues involved will provide Chinese policymakers with concrete models of innovation governance on which they can draw. In the course of the project, Chinese policymakers have consistently shown themselves to be eager to learn from the Western experience. The intention is that this stream of policy impact work will continue through a project on the path of innovation in precision medicine Zhou has submitted to the China National Science Foundation. In terms of raising awareness in the scientific community of the intricacies of biomedical innovation and the scientific role within it, in India Datta gained a Newton-Bhabha Fellowship in 2015 based at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, supervised by Professor Gagkar -President of the Indian National Science Academy. Here her focus was on engaging with stem cell scientists about the important role to be played by health consumers in the innovation process. In the UK, the influence of the project as a result of scientists' involvement in its seven policy workshops is evidenced by the invitation from the journal Regenerative Medicine to publish two articles exploring the problems in the field of translation from bench to bedside (Salter is a member of its editorial board). In the field of bioinformatics and its presence in the emerging economies, Salter's continuing dialogue with the UK's European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) drawing on project findings has included discussion with its senior officers of how countries such as China can be supported in their development and governance of the bioinformatics field. This discussion recently coincided with a visit to China by members the EBI senior management team to further explore these issues.
First Year Of Impact 2013
Sector Communities and Social Services/Policy,Healthcare,Pharmaceuticals and Medical Biotechnology
Impact Types Policy & public services

 
Description Alex Faulkner is a member of the Regenerative Medicine Expert Group (RMEG)- Subgroup on Evaluation and Commissioning (reimbursement).
Geographic Reach Local/Municipal/Regional 
Policy Influence Type Participation in a advisory committee
Impact The impacts were put forward in The Regenerative Medicine Expert Group Report now available from the Department of Health websitehttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regenerative-medicine-a-uk-pathway
URL https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regenerative-medicine-a-uk-pathway
 
Description House of Commons All Party Parliamentary Group for Social Science and Public Policy Select Committee Meeting
Geographic Reach National 
Policy Influence Type Participation in a advisory committee
Impact http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldsctech/23/23.pdf
URL http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldsctech/23/23.pdf
 
Description Regenerative Medicine Expert Group - Subgroup on Evaluation and Commissioning (reimbursement)
Geographic Reach Asia 
Policy Influence Type Participation in a advisory committee
URL https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289322/2014_01_22_Regenera...
 
Description Rising Powers at The University of Manchester
Geographic Reach National 
Policy Influence Type Influenced training of practitioners or researchers
URL http://www.risingpowers.net/
 
Description King's Together
Amount £19,420 (GBP)
Organisation King's College London 
Sector Academic/University
Country United Kingdom
Start 03/2019 
End 03/2021
 
Description Newton-Bhabha PhD Placement Fund
Amount £1,000 (GBP)
Organisation Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy 
Department UK Science and Innovation Network
Sector Public
Country United Kingdom
Start 08/2015 
End 02/2016
 
Description Belgium VF-Pierre 
Organisation University of Liege
Department Department of Political Science
Country Belgium 
Sector Academic/University 
PI Contribution Research collaborations
Collaborator Contribution Visiting Fellow
Impact Politics; Social Science; Economics.
Start Year 2013
 
Description Brazil VF-Edison 
Organisation University of Sao Paulo
Country Brazil 
Sector Academic/University 
PI Contribution Research collaboration
Collaborator Contribution Visiting Fellow
Impact Book: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/worldwide/initiatives/global/brazilinstitute/NewsandEvents/newsrecords/Dr-Edison-Bicudo,-book-release-Pharmaceutical-Research,-Democracy-and-Conspiracy.aspx
Start Year 2010
 
Description CAMS-MOH 
Organisation Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS)
Country China 
Sector Academic/University 
PI Contribution -Publications -Workshop/Seminar -Joint research/fieldwork
Collaborator Contribution -Publications -Workshop/Seminar -Joint research/fieldwork
Impact -Publications -Workshop/Seminar -Joint research/fieldwork
Start Year 2014
 
Description CAMS-MOH 
Organisation Government of China
Department Ministry of Health of the People's Republic of China
Country China 
Sector Public 
PI Contribution -Publications -Workshop/Seminar -Joint research/fieldwork
Collaborator Contribution -Publications -Workshop/Seminar -Joint research/fieldwork
Impact -Publications -Workshop/Seminar -Joint research/fieldwork
Start Year 2014
 
Description Cardiff VF-Maki 
Organisation Cardiff University
Department Cardiff Business School
Country United Kingdom 
Sector Academic/University 
PI Contribution Research collaboration
Collaborator Contribution Visiting Fellow; Research collaboration; presentations; working papers; reports.
Impact Research collaboration; presentations; working papers; reports: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/publications/workingpapers/Working-Papers-41-50.aspx
Start Year 2012
 
Description China CAS CASTED Tsinghua 
Organisation Chinese Academy of Sciences
Country China 
Sector Public 
PI Contribution Research collaborations
Collaborator Contribution Research collaborations
Impact Workshop II (Beijing, 2013) titled The Political Economy of the Global Stem Cell Therapy Market held on 31 October 2013 at Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. Read more at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Index.aspx
Start Year 2012
 
Description IIT-Delhi 
Organisation Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
Country India 
Sector Academic/University 
PI Contribution -Workshop/Seminar -Fieldwork in India
Collaborator Contribution -Workshop/Seminar -Fieldwork in India
Impact -Workshop/Seminar -Fieldwork in India
Start Year 2015
 
Description India JNU 
Organisation Jawaharlal Nehru University, India
Country India 
Sector Academic/University 
PI Contribution Joint fieldwork and interviews in India; presentation at Joint Workshop/Conference III (New Delhi, 2014) titled Biomedical Innovation and the Public held on 13 and 14 March 2013 at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, India; fieldwork and interviews in India.
Collaborator Contribution Overseas Partner; Joint Workshop/Conference III (New Delhi, 2014) titled Biomedical Innovation and the Public held on 13 and 14 March 2013 at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, India; fieldwork and interviews in India.
Impact Partner Workshop URL: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Delhi-2014/Index.aspx Conference Report: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Delhi-2014/Index.aspx Conference Flyer: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Delhi-2014/Workshop-Flyer.pdf
Start Year 2011
 
Description Spain VF-Vincenzo 
Organisation Institute of Public Goods and Policies
Country Spain 
Sector Academic/University 
PI Contribution Research collaboration
Collaborator Contribution Visiting Fellow
Impact Politics; Social Science.
Start Year 2012
 
Description Sussex U 
Organisation University of Sussex
Department School of Global Studies Sussex
Country United Kingdom 
Sector Academic/University 
PI Contribution Research collaborations
Collaborator Contribution Co-Investigator
Impact Global Health (International Relations)
Start Year 2006
 
Description 1A House of Commons All Party Parliamentary Group for Social Science and Public Policy Select Committee Meeting 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? Yes
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldsctech/23/23.pdf
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2013
URL http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldsctech/23/23.pdf
 
Description 1A Web Resource for the Rising Powers Research at the Global Biopolitics Research Centre, King's College London 
Form Of Engagement Activity A magazine, newsletter or online publication
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Participants in your research and patient groups
Results and Impact http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/index.aspx

Wider reach for the research project; collaborative interest from India, China, USA, Belgium, Brazil.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2012,2013,2014
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/index.aspx
 
Description A Workshop I (London 2013) Global Governance of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Therapy - An Example from India 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact A policy workshop was held on 15 March 2013 at King's College London as part of the ESRC funded research 'State strategies of governance in biomedical innovation: the impact of China and India'.

The objective of the workshop was to better understand the regulatory, medical, commercial and legal community's perception of innovative biomedical practices in the emerging nations, and to identify the most relevant debates in the field of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) therapy in the context of a dynamic global marketplace, uncertain science and variable regulation globally.

Dr Geeta Shroff, a professional gynaecologist and embryologist, and founder and practitioner of embryonic stem cell therapy clinics in Delhi, India, presented her work in India. Dr Shroff is known widely as a controversial practitioner, involved in providing treatment to numbers of 'stem cell tourists' with unmet medical needs from both India and elsewhere in the world. Discussions after Dr Shroff's presentation centered on the global market, the scientific community, the national Indian context, ethical and regulatory dimensions of stem cell research and therapy and current central areas of resistance to human embryonic stem cell therapies in 'western'-centric scientific and policy perception, while emphasizing some of the local and national Indian positions and responses to these perceptions.

The workshop helped provide pointers for future research and policy development to understand the 'global biopolitics' and policy implications of this innovative field.

Requests for i) workshop report, ii) final report of the research project, iii) participation in similar future activity.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Index.aspx
 
Description A Workshop II (Beijing, 2013) The Political Economy of the Global Stem Cell Therapy Market held on 31 October 2013 at Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact The workshop was held to discuss the political economic analysis with a strong demand side analysis as presented in the forthcoming paper by Salter, Zhou and Datta (2014). The paper and the presentation in the workhop argued that the problem of what is termed 'stem cell tourism' is embedded in the demand-supply relationship of the health consumer market and its engagement with different types of stem cell therapy innovation and that to be meaningful, discussions of regulation must recognize that analysis or risk being sidelined by a market which ignores their often wishful thinking.

Requests to participate in future similar events
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Index.aspx
 
Description A Workshop IV (London 2014) Models of Biomedical Innovation and Consumer Demand Held on 29 May 2014 at King's College London, London, UK. 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact The workshop explored the political, ethical and regulatory challenges posed by the new models of cell therapy innovation that are emerging in China and India in response to consumer demand, with a view to identifying a possible UK policy response.

Requests to participate in future similar events.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Index.aspx
 
Description A Workshop/Conference III (New Delhi, 2014) Biomedical Innovation and the Public Held on 13 and 14 March 2013 at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, India. 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact The Centre for Studies in Science Policy (CSSP), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi in collaboration with King's College, London organised a two day workshop to explore the linkages between biomedical innovation and governance with a focus on consumers of biomedical innova-tion. Addressing the question of the implications of emerging governance space of bio-medical innovation for consumers in different biomedical innovation models?

The event was attended by a mix of 50 eminent scholars from all over India, policymakers and select industry leaders.

Requests to participate in future similar events.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Index.aspx
 
Description AA Presentation / Speaker at Tsinghua University, Beijing, China 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.)
Results and Impact Salter, B. 'Political Economy of the Global Stem Cell Therapy Market.' To be presented at Tsinghua University, Beijing, China on 30 October 2013.

Further interest
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2014
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/publications/forthcoming...
 
Description AA Presentation / Speaker at the University of York 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.)
Results and Impact Salter, B. 'Political Economy of the Global Stem Cell Therapy Market.' To be presented at 'Regenerative Medicine; Science Industry and Social Science Conference' at University Of York, York, United Kingdom from 1-3 October 2013.

Interest in Rising Powers research
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2014
URL http://www.york.ac.uk/satsu/news-events/regenerative/
 
Description Presentation 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.)
Results and Impact 31 May
Saheli Datta. (2 oral presentations: Workshop 2)
•Models of biomedical innovation and global governance: the case of stem cell treatments
•Markets and professional cultures in conflict in stem cell innovation
1st International Consensus Conference of the EUCelLEX project held 30-31 March 2015 at Hospital Pierre Paul Riquet (INSERM U 1027). Organised by UMR U 1027, Inserm, Université de Toulouse - Université Paul Sabatier -Toulouse III (Team 4: " Genomics, biotherapy and public health : interdisciplinary approach"). Toulouse, France


-Share knowledge/information
-Future research collaborations
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/people/Saheli-Datta-Pres...
 
Description Presentation / Speaker at the School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Peking Union Medical College 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Schools
Results and Impact The dissemination of our research findings and discussion of future collaboration for fund raising.

The school showed interests of our research findings and expressed will of future collaboration.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
 
Description Presentation and Lecture 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact May 18- 19, 2015
Stuart Hogarth. Lecture. Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society Workshop for EU Regulations in Medical Devices. Brussels, Belgium.

-Share knowledge/information
-Future research collaborations
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/publications/Presentatio...
 
Description Presentation at Conference 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Local
Primary Audience Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.)
Results and Impact 18 May 2015
Saheli Datta: Oral Presentation: King's India Institute Graduate Forum Conference 2015: Sources and Manifestations of 'Change' in comtemporary India.
•Models of biomedical innovation and global governance: the case of stem cell
treatments(Panel 4: Technology Policy and its Discontents).

-Share knowledge/information
-Future research collaborations
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/people/KII-Third-Annual-...
 
Description Presentation at Department of Sociology, Sun Yat-sen University 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Schools
Results and Impact The dissemination of research findings.

Audiences are very interested in the topic on the conflict on professional cultures in stem cell innovation.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
 
Description Presentation at ISSCR Conference 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Public/other audiences
Results and Impact Saheli Datta: Poster Presentation: International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) 2015 at Stockholm, Sweden.
•From information to regulation. An 'informed trust' approach to stem cell tourism. (Panel: Ethics and Public Policy: pp 381 - poster T-1537)

-Share knowledge/information
-Future research collaborations
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/people/ISSCR-2015-Abstra...
 
Description Workshop V (Sussex 2015) Global Biomedical Informatics: Innovation, Governance and Societal Engagement. 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? Yes
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.)
Results and Impact The heralded revolutions in global medicine and healthcare fuelled by the life sciences and genomics require the harnessing of the ever-increasing waves of data that are being generated, through development and deployment of informatics tools, databases and data interpretation. There is a need to better understand the governance and steering of bioinformatics by national governments' and other governance actors' on the global stage. Social and scientific trends such as open access and consumerisation underpin developments in the field. This workshop addresses this challenge by bringing together a range of stakeholders from academia, policy-making and industry.

-Publications
-Further research and research/collaborations
-Regulatory recommendations
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Index.aspx
 
Description Workshop VI (KCL, London 2015) Regulatory challenges of personalised medicine: a transnational perspective 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? Yes
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.)
Results and Impact The workshop explored the regulatory challenges of personalised medicine from a transnational perspective, as part of the ESRC project State strategies of governance in global biomedical innovation; the impact of China and India. The focus was on two critical issues: the challenges associated with rapid
technological advances in next generation sequencing, and the changing regulatory status of laboratory-developed tests. The workshop was attended by a variety of experts from government (US FDA, UK MHRA, UK NICE, EU EMA), industry (Illumina, Janssen Diagnostics, NIBSC-UKSCB) and academia (KCL, INCa-France, UCSF-USA) from Europe, North America, India and China.

-Publications
-Further research and research/collaborations
-Regulatory recommendations
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Index.aspx
 
Description Workshop VII Advisory Group Meeting (London 2015) 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? Yes
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.)
Results and Impact -Future grant application
-Further research and research/collaborations
-Information sharing
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/biopolitics/Workshops/Index.aspx