Full article here
 |
| Full article here |
 |
| This article was written for the aspiring professionals hub, click for full write up |
OneStart: The future of bio-entrepreneurship in the UK
EVA Diagnostics, OneStart Finals 2014
LONDON, United Kingdom – OneStart, the world’s largest bioscience competition, saw its finale this year take place on 16th May at the Barbican centre in London, with over 200 attendees from industry, academia, venture capitalist and other non-scientific organisations alike. Launched in 2012, the competition aims to inspire, encourage and assist in the translation of scientific research into viable business models. OBR’s Hephzi Tagoe spoke to guests at this year’s finale about their opinion on the state of bio-entrepreneurship in the UK and the potential role of student initiatives such as OBR and OneStart in harnessing the country’s biotechnological innovation.
Listen to the OneStart Finals podcast here
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/155825945″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_artwork=true&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]
According to industry leaders attending the event, a crucial factor in the mobilisation of bio-entrepreneurship is investment, particularly government support. Referring to the 2011 strategy for UK life sciences report by the Department for Business Skills and Innovation (BIS), Adam Hill, Chief Medical Officer at Sectra highlighted a significant lack of investment in the sector, and suggested that there would be “no further movement” without it. In the report, the government pledged to invest £310m to support the discovery, development and commercialisation of research. This covered £130m for Stratified Medicine and £180m for a Biomedical Catalyst Fund. Since then, there have been a number of growing hubs, although more is needed for sustained development.
In Hill’s opinion, the UK needs to assert itself in the right position where the life sciences are concerned and with this strategy, we are moving in the right direction. Similarly, Ian Tomlinson, Head of Biopharmaceuticals R&D and Worldwide Business Development (WWBD) at GSK also commented on the importance of government support, especially at the early stages. Said Tomlinson:
“One thing we’ve seen already is the reliance on government funding through the Biomedical catalyst, so I think government support, matching funding, is particularly important for early stage companies”
However, there still seems to be a long way for the UK to go before catching up on the bio-enterprise world stage. Current manufacturing figures shows the UK falling behind the rest of the world.
Ian Church, Service Manager at CSC Healthcare Group and mentor of OneStart finalist Gyroglove, commented, “We were probably doing better about 20 – 30 years ago and we’ve since fallen behind so we need to do better with manufacturing in particular.
So, is the UK making the right moves to fill this gap?
According to Church,
“Things are pretty good and there are more start-ups coming out so we can be positive about it, but I will like to see more here and across Europe.”
Also key to the UK’s bio-entrepreneurial growth is a change in the mindsets and training of young researchers in the country. Roger Bone, Senior Vice-President Research and Early Development at J & J innovations highlighted the fact that having to think about the commercial aspects of one’s research is a relatively new concept in the UK compared to the United States, where it is embedded in the system. This is what makes OBR and Onestart particularly attractive and timely.
“I think what you are doing in terms of encouraging recent grads to think about business aspects of science is really important. Getting that in their minds early can follow them through their career…to start something new,” expressed Bone.
As Veronique Birault, Director of Respiratory Therapeutic Area at GSKand a mentor of the program said, “It’s not just about having an idea but the applicability of the idea and how you translate your idea into something useful.”
This is how OBR and the Onestart program hope to bridge the gap between ideas and businesses, encouraging and providing a viable platform from which young researchers are able to develop entrepreneurial experience in the life sciences.
Church commended the competition, “The OBR initiative is absolutely vital for any kind of start-up preparation because it is great having an idea but to commercialise it you need some skills and some knowhow and most importantly some experience to take you through the hurdles that will inevitably occur during the start-up phase”.
On the whole, bio-entrepreneurship in the UK is poised to turn the corner and it is the hope and aim of OBR that with initiatives such as OneStart, it might play a part in embarking the country on a sustained era of development and growth.
Hightable with Tracey Brown: Asking for Evidence to make Sense about Science
Tracey Brown, Sense about Science
Tracey Brown is the managing director of Sense about Science, a charitable trust that equips the public with the necessary information to make sense of science and to ask for evidence underlying scientific claims. Tracey has been with Sense about Science since its inception in 2002 and has worked on various campaigns, including the ongoing All Trials campaign, encouraging evidence based medicine as well as libel reform. The Science Council has recently named her one of the ten leading scientists in policy making in the UK. Her book In the Interests of Safety: the absurd rules that blight our lives and how you can change them, co-authored with Michael Hanlon was published by Sphere this week.
OBR’s Hephzi Tagoe had the pleasure of speaking with Tracey about her job, influencing the public’s perception of science and impacting policy.
You have been director of Sense About Science for over 10 years, what is the secret to your success?
A large part of it is probably that I am, and we are, hard on ourselves, always asking whether we’re really making a difference. I hate complacency. It means I tend to see the mountain in front of us rather than being pleased with what we’ve climbed, which probably drives the team crazy at times, but it gives us a self-critical culture that drives us on. My job has changed enormously as we’ve taken on new challenges and the other big source of successes is having a team that thrives in a challenging environment and takes on new responsibilities really quickly.
What do you find most exciting about your job?
Externally, shaking things up, getting more of a contribution to public life from other organisations, trying to solve problems and seeing the world around us change as a result. Sometimes it’s those little things like helping someone hold a company to account for evidence, other times it’s big things such as changing national policies.
Internally, I love seeing people in our team and our wider network of thousands of researchers take on difficult things and do well. I’m constantly being put out of a job by them and having to rethink my role.
What is your typical day-to-day like as the charity’s director?
Mornings are always precarious. The best-laid plans get disrupted by what comes in overnight and by stories in the morning’s news and calls for help. I prefer to write in the morning and have meetings in the afternoon, but because we’re responsive and dealing with issues that are constantly changing I have to be flexible. I tend to do the most routine things later in the day. Because days are full and lively, there’s a danger that planning gets squeezed out, so I keep notes for things like the next board meeting or the next AllTrials campaign group, and make time to review those pretty much daily.
One of your most prominent causes is the “All Trials” Campaign. How is that going?
AllTrials is an initiative that calls for all past and present clinical trials to be registered and for their full methods and summary results reported.
We’re at a juncture where we could see it snowball quickly or dissipate because of the people who are trying to make it sound more difficult than it really is. It has been an amazing first year, with 400 organisations around the world signed up and some significant commitments from companies, research funders and regulators to get clinical trials past and present reported. We have also seen some regulatory changes in Europe. But to succeed, AllTrials needs a strong presence in every country and more urgency of action so that the clinical trials relating to the medicines we use today, often conducted many years ago, are not lost forever. We are pretty good at engaging others in our work – we have to be as we’re small and our aims are big – but coordinating and pushing that is then quite a task and one we are trying to work out right now.
And how do you decide what cause is worth fighting for?
The main question for us is whether there is anyone else who is or should be taking action. We much prefer to encourage organisations and individuals to take more responsibility for public life than to take everything on ourselves, because then the net benefit to society is much greater. But other organisations are sometimes limited in what they can do or we find ourselves the only ones able to articulate a particular perspective. For example, with the AllTrials campaign, a lot of good people have tried for years to change the culture of secrecy around clinical trials reporting. They have been frustrated by the lack of progress and when they came to us to say it needed a campaign that would engage the public we realised they were right and that we had to do it.
We also always weigh up what’s at stake, whether the difference we can make will contribute in a significant enough way to our mission to equip the public with sound science and evidence. We consult a lot and having 6,000 people on our database to give us help is invaluable, and we review things every day as a team. For anything that is going to take considerable resources or where we have different perspectives we take the discussion to our board of trustees, who are very active. We also have an advisory council whose job is to challenge the board from time to time. The people selected for that are very opinionated and may hold minority views on what we should be doing, but it’s important to hear that perspective and be challenged.
Through Sense about Science, you actively encourage the public to ask for evidence on claims? How do you go about this?
In the first place, just ask. Lots of people have been doing this and sharing the replies they’ve been sent. And we’ve been helping, along with the people on our database, to make sense of the evidence they get. Sometimes claims have been backed up by solid evidence while other times we’ve seen anecdotes, testimonials and tenuously related science put forward. Even in the campaign’s modest form, organisations have changed advertising, product claims have been withdrawn, policy makers have apologised and vulnerable patients have been helped. This has convinced others and us that this is the best route to the culture change we seek.
Later this year we will have a lot more in place to support people asking for evidence. We are creating an online tool that lets people “Ask for Evidence” in one click through our website, keep a diary and get help when they need it. We will be able to track all ‘asks’ and responses received, making the campaign activity quantifiable and shareable.
We’re also launching a major publicity campaign this autumn. You don’t have to be an expert to Ask for Evidence. If people want your vote, your custom or your readership, if they want you to believe them, then you have the right to ask why.
What are the main challenges you face in educating the public on sound science and evidence?
There are plenty and probably chief among them is the problem that some authorities avoid discussing the evidence on a particular issue – on drugs policy for example, where the mismatch between evidence and policy would have to be explained and no-one really wants to do that. Much of what we have had to do over the years has been getting people and organisations to be less afraid of the public.
Our remit is wide and demanding so the big challenge for us as an organisation is to continue to work out where our efforts are best spent. Inevitably we are going to go wrong sometimes, because doing something new means we cannot be certain of the benefits or what is possible to achieve. But we must be clear: the challenges are us and not them. I dislike it when people blame the public for the failures of their own initiatives or arguments.
What would be your advice to young graduates who are interested in a career in this area?
You can come at it from any kind of specialism, from the social sciences to chemistry, but you definitely need to have some understanding of evidence and its limitations. Some people think you get that from the natural sciences alone, but I don’t think it’s necessarily true. It can also be an advantage not to be immersed in a subject you are trying to help people make sense of. It means you start from the same place that most people do.
If you are thinking of leaving a research career then I really recommend getting some experience before you make the leap. Not surprisingly a lot of people [get cold] feet as they reach postdoc level, particularly if they have been in the same research team for a long time, but this might not mean that a shift to a public engagement role or a campaigning style job is for you.
Finally, what does the future hold for Sense about Science?
A lot more international work, encouraging others to take up our mission and no doubt, plenty of change and disruption. It’s not a cosy world and we don’t have cosy jobs. But trying to make something in the world better is a good thing to wake up to each morning.
More about Tracey Brown: Tracey is a regular public speaker and writes about scientific evidence, policy and the public for national media, periodicals and books. She was a Commissioner on the UK Drug Policy Commission from 2009 to 2012, a trustee of Centre of the Cell until December 2013, and is now a trustee of the Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, and of Jurassica.
Published on Modern Ghana
Hightable with Professor Athene Donald: On women in science
Professor Athene Donald
Meet Professor Athene Donald, Professor of Biological Physics at the University of Cambridge. She joined the Cavendish Laboratory in 1983 and became a Professor in Experimental Physics in 1998. In 2009, she was described by the New Statesman as one of ten people who will change the world. The Guardian featured her in the top 100 women in science and medicine 2011 and in 2010 she was made Dame Commander of the British Empire.
Professor Donald was awarded the L’Oreal UNESCO for Women in Science award for Europe in 2009 and she received a Lifetime Achievement Award at the UKRC’s 2011 Women of Outstanding Achievement Awards. She chairs the Gender Equality Group at the University of Cambridge and is the University’s Gender Equality Champion. She was personally involved in the recently published book “The meaning of success: Insights from women at Cambridge“, which she talks about here.
OBR’s Hephzi Tagoe had the pleasure of speaking to her about what it’s like to be a woman in science.
You are very passionate about women in science. What is your take on the lack of girls taking subjects such as physics?
We are very culturally stereotyped. The problem starts in the home and at school when kids are very small. I think the way we bring up young girls, the toys we give them, the messages we give them, except for the most determined, may put them off looking at subject like engineering. There is a lot of work coming out of the Institute of Physics which shows how very differently different schools perform in the number of girls who go on to study physics at A-levels. It’s the case that single sex schools are more likely to see girls progress than co – educational schools and it seems that the teachers themselves are subtly encouraging the boys more than they are the girls [to pursue subjects like physics]. I’m sure it is often completely unconscious but just the way they interact. Furthermore, the messages that the media give out all tend to discourage girls from doing subjects like physics.
What in your experience are some of the obstacles facing women in science? Have you experienced any personally and how did you overcome these?
The problems that face women now tend to be subtle. There is evidence to show that identical CVs are regarded less favourably if they have a woman’s name on them rather than a man’s. It is still all too easy for women to be ‘heard’ less on committees, or to find their work is less cited. In the face of these problems all one can do is remain strong and forceful and do the best science that one can. Being a woman in physics wasn’t a particular issue for me when I started out. I went to an all-girls grammar school so I guess that no one discouraged me so it all seemed quite straightforward. I was very aware, though, when I was an under-graduate how few girls there were [in my discipline]. But again there were enough support systems around that it wasn’t a problem. It’s been a lot harder for me as I’ve become more senior, not in the science itself but in places such as sitting on committees and stuff like that, that I have been aware of it. The first time I went to a research council grant-giving committee some of the men there thought I was a secretary and that was irritating. So it’s there.
What in your opinion is the way forward to eradicating gender bias in the work place?
Clearly providing equality and diversity training, including the discussion of unconscious bias, is a good start. Making sure that people realise they have their own internal but unconscious views can make them much more self-aware overall. Having good role models, and images of successful women on the walls, can help too. And making sure that no one tolerates ‘bad’ behaviour – be it talking over women, making casual sexist remarks or allowing verbal aggression to pass without remark.
As a champion for equality and diversity, what initiatives have you / are you putting in place to promote equal opportunities for women in science?
Within the University we have been modifying the procedures we have around promotion and recruitment to make sure they are fair, transparent and that all involved understand the issues. We run workshops to support women across the University and talks by senior women scientists and career talks for those setting out. All STEM departments either have or are in the process of applying for the Athena Swan awards, which means that they have to look closely at their own departmental statistics and practices and draw up an action plan to resolve the issues they identify for women. We have to put out the message that it is not the women that need fixing but the structures and processes that do.
Do you think that academia is doing enough to accommodate women who want to have both a family and a career? And what advice would you give to women looking to balance work and family life?
I think academic life is actually very flexible and in principle should work well if you want to combine a family and career, but I think it is important to move towards the position where families feel children are a joint responsibility and not just a problem for women. I hope shared parental leave will facilitate this. In my University we have professors who work part-time and we work hard to combat the myth that taking time out or working less than flat out means you can’t progress. Of course compromises have to be made about where time and effort needs to go if you have children, but it is perfectly doable and women should have the confidence to go ahead.
Finally, what advice would you give to early career researchers looking to find their niche?
Do not worry if you don’t know exactly what you want to do. Do what looks like the best thing at that time and gain experience. You can then find out what it is you want and what doesn’t work for you, but it might well be that the first things you do are not right for you. It is an illusion that people you have succeeded have always known what they wanted to do. That’s untrue of the people I know. If you’re unsure don’t let that hold you back.
[In terms of whether or not to stay in academia,] those starting out should think very hard if it is the right thing for them. If, at the end of the PhD, they come to the conclusion that they don’t like it, they should not see that as failure. I think it is very easy for people to imagine that anything other than academia is failure and that is absolutely not so. We need scientifically educated people right across the board be it as teachers, journalist, MPs etc. There are so many opportunities out there that they shouldn’t feel they couldn’t hack it as an academic; rather they should just think academia wasn’t right for them.
Hightable with Professor Averil MacDonald – Physicist, science communicator, mother: “You can have it all!”
Professor Averil MacDonald, University of Reading
When Professor Averil Macdonald decided to leave her teaching position to raise a family, she knew she would have to go the extra mile to get back on the career ladder when she returned. Going back to university as a mature student, she moved up the ranks steadily and is now a renowned professor of public engagement at the University of Reading. She is a keen advocate for supporting and advancing women in science, encouraging young people to study science, and engaging the public with science research. Averil believes in encouraging employers to change their attitudes and practices towards female employees. She also believes that women should not have to change their career priorities.
She is a fellow of the Institute of Physics and currently holds the position of Chair in Science Engagement at the University of Reading. She has been awarded the International Bragg medal and prize by the Institute of Physics, London for her significant contribution to Physics education; The Royal Society Millennium Award for her outreach work; The UKRC Women of outstanding Achievement in Science Award; the Plastics Industry Award for Personal Contribution to the Industry; and also an Honorary Doctorate from the University of York in recognition of her work supporting and advancing women in science. She has co-authored several school textbooks, produced a wide range of free teaching resources for schools, and is well known for pioneering Science engagement through a wide range of projects. Averil is a Trustee of the Science Museum and a Director of the Cheltenham Festivals. She is also an elected member of the Council of the Institute of Physics and a Board member of WISE.
OBR’s Hephzi Tagoe had the privilege of speaking with Professor MacDonald about her journey.
You began your career as a physics teacher and are now a very successful Professor of Science Engagement. Did your teaching background influence your interest in public engagement?
Teaching definitely influenced my interest in public engagement. I always enjoyed the challenge of enabling young students to get the ‘light bulb moment’ and to see physics as fascinating, rather than frightening. I learnt a lot about how to take my audience’s perspective and this helps enormously when engaging with the public.
So, why Physics?
I originally chose physics A – level when a maths teacher said to me that as a woman in science I would never have any trouble getting a job. This was a very important fact to persuade my father that sending his daughter to university was a good thing. There’s no doubt that my maths teacher was right!
Regarding the general lack of female physicists, what is your opinion on the current attitude of girls towards physics? Have you seen any positive / negative changes throughout your experience?
For a long time, the approach was simply to try to inspire the girls to find the subject interesting in the belief that they would choose it in the same way that boys do. There is a much more subtle level of understanding now about what girls are looking for – and it’s not simply jobs working with people. Research shows that girls are much more focused and pragmatic about their subject choices than boys and that simply being interested in a subject is not enough to make them choose it beyond age 16. Girls want to be sure that they can be successful in their chosen area, that their subject choices keep open as many career doors as possible, and that they will be able to make the life choices that they want while continuing in their chosen career. Unfortunately Physics has a reputation in girls’ minds for closing down their options and for requiring them to make sacrifices in their lives such as not being able to have a family or work part time while also being successful – hence it does not offer what they are looking for and they choose to go elsewhere. You can’t really blame them – they are simply making sensible choices based on the evidence provided.
Going back to you, you returned to education after taking a break from working to start a family. Did you find the transition challenging? If yes, what was your greatest challenge?
The challenge was the same as for anyone trying to juggle childcare with work – simply being really organised about how I used my time. In fact if I compare my experience with that of students who had come straight from undergraduate degrees, they certainly didn’t have the time management skills I had and so I made far better use of my time than they did (and had far fewer hangovers!). I returned to study when my youngest daughter started school in October 2000 – I was 42 at the time and I completed the PhD in 4 years 5 months. People returning to education as mature students often fear that the younger students will remember so much more about the subject. In fact I found that this isn’t necessarily true, and that the younger students don’t seem as likely to question what they read or are told as us ‘oldies’, which is an essential skill in a PhD.
How did you find your PhD experience and did it influence/ shape your career today?
The PhD experience was extremely satisfying. After my BSc I didn’t see myself as the sort of person who [would do] a PhD, However working alongside those who had PhDs I started to think, “If they can get one then why shouldn’t I?” Getting the PhD was proving something to myself and gave me the confidence to reach further in my career than I would have done otherwise. I think more people should be encouraged to take PhDs as mature students.
On a personal note, you have two daughters and a very successful career. Did you ever feel discriminated against as a female physicist?
This is a question that often comes up. I don’t really think I have felt discriminated against, but I now understand a lot more about “unconscious bias,” where people make unconscious judgements about what is ’suitable’ for a man or woman to do based upon their experiences and what they have seen happen in their lives. What this means is that it’s unlikely that women will see overt discrimination but may well have been subjected to unconscious bias, but as it’s so subtle it’s almost impossible to pinpoint. What usually characterises women who are successful in non-typical areas is that, if they encounter a barrier or something doesn’t quite work out, they simply take a different approach and get on that way. Most will point out that they have had a career that was unplanned and that their success happened by them taking often-unexpected opportunities as they arose. Men are more likely to have had a more linear career path. Perhaps that’s how unconscious bias shows itself and how successful women overcome it.
Aside from your day job, you also write, travel, lecture and sit on a number of boards and committees. How do you juggle all your commitments?
That comes back to the time management again. People often say that if you want something doing, you ask a busy person. You will find lots of people do lots of different things and that time expands to accommodate what’s required. It is a bit like juggling but as they are all things I really want to do and get great satisfaction from doing, then I make them happen. I’m certainly never bored!
Bottom line is, you don’t put today’s task off till tomorrow, because tomorrow won’t have room.
One of your popular initiatives is “Science with coffee and hobnobs.” Tell us a bit about how that came about and its general response.
Science with Coffee and Hobnobs was a coffee morning scenario for carers of primary age children. When my two daughters were at primary school it was clear that parents were involved in listening to their children, reading to them, or reciting their times tables, to improve their literacy and numeracy. But the school did not seem to engage parents in supporting their children with science. These Science with Coffee and Hobnobs coffee mornings aimed to help parents and carers see what their children were learning, to realise how much they, themselves, knew and could help, and to provide ideas for science activities they could do at home with the children. The events were extremely successful with many mums saying how they hadn’t realised how much science they knew and how much more confident they were in helping their children.
You’ve been recognised as an influential woman, received numerous awards for your work, and are an inspirational role model. Did you have any role models growing up?
I’m not sure I had role models that I identified as such. I was educated in a girls’ grammar school, which had some very strong female teachers so this must have influenced me. However I do remember one teacher making a particular comment that “it is for you to pave the way for the girls that are to follow.” I didn’t really understand this at the time but it has certainly been borne out in my life subsequently and probably underlies and shapes all the activities that I have been involved in.
What advice would you give female graduates looking to pursue academic careers along with family life?
The first and most important thing is to realise they are entitled to both a successful career and a satisfying family life and are not required to make sacrifices to achieve both. The academic world needs creativity and productivity. Providing a work environment that excludes half the population simply reduces the overall average quality of the workforce. The academic system is now fully aware of this and realises that the work environment should be flexible enough to accommodate women’s and men’s life choices while enabling their quality to be recognised and rewarded, for example by enabling promotion to higher levels based upon quality rather than quantity of work. This means that those who choose to work part time should be promoted as readily as those working full time rather than the old fashioned approach of viewing part time working as somehow demonstrating a lack of commitment to the job. So my advice is to ask for what you need to ensure your work and home lives dovetail rather than accepting compromises. A good employer will provide what you need.
Finally, what does the future hold for you?
If only I knew! My career has been characterised by spotting unexpected opportunities and applying for them – some work out and some don’t. There certainly has not been a career ladder – more career snakes and ladders – every time something doesn’t work out I slide down the snake but usually find myself at the bottom of a better ladder that I wouldn’t have seen otherwise. So I’m looking for more ladders but risking the snakes on the way.
Hightable with Harriet Fear: On women with careers and One Nucleus
Harriet Fear, CEO of One Nucleus
Ever found yourself in an environment that filled you with nerves? Harriet Fear, the CEO of One Nucleus overcame her anxiety during these times by recognising and believing she had the ‘right to be there’. Leaving school with just O-level qualifications, Harriet rose through the ranks of government and is now the CEO of the largest membership organisation for the life science and healthcare sector in Europe, One Nucleus. OBR’s Hephzi Tagoe had the privilege of chatting to Harriet about her life’s journey. This is what she had to say.
Firstly, you’ve had a very successful and diverse career. Is there a secret to your success?
That’s very kind of you to say that. I’ve been extremely fortunate in my career and had some amazing opportunities, not least in my current role. I guess having worked in 17 countries and with a wide range of cultures, ages and experts, often in challenging circumstances, I’ve learned to be adaptable, realised that clear communication is so important and to fly by the seat of my pants! My only secret (and it isn’t really a secret as it permeates all the time through the One Nucleus team) is to make sure that whatever I do, I keep the “customer” in mind – whether that’s been a British citizen in distress when I was at one of our Embassies overseas, a keynote speaker who I want to make feel relaxed and welcome at one of our Conferences or our members on a daily basis.
Do you have any mentors or role models you look up to and why?
In my current life there have been and are several people who immediately jump to mind as mentors – although I am not sure they would describe themselves as such. Rather more friends I guess. In particular Soraya Jones, the CEO of Cambridge Wireless. We work together on a range of initiatives but what I value the most with her is our catch-ups every three months or so when we can be entirely frank, relaxed and open about where we are at (on a wide range of subjects – some of them definitely not suitable for printing!) and know that we will give each other some good advice, and have fun in the process.
Regarding role models, there are lots of people to admire in Cambridge/London and further afield in the sector. I particularly admire Andy Richards, the serial entrepreneur, for the gusto with which he seems to live his life, ever passionate and enthusiastic about the sector but importantly a realist too, and for being the only person I’ve ever seen break the rules in the Foreign Office Map Room (a fine, fine room full of beautiful tapestries and priceless maps, the latter all beautifully laid out in drawers saying ‘Under no circumstances should these be opened’). The vision of Andy customarily working his way through all of them while I waited to open the meeting he was there for will stay with me for a very long time!!
It is often said that a glass ceiling effect exists for women when it comes to top leadership positions. Do you agree with this?
I don’t. But perhaps I should qualify that! I think the same opportunities exist for men as women but I think it often takes longer for women. And that is partly because of the fact that women often take time away from the workplace to nurture and grow their families. Men do too of course but if women (very) generally are out of the workplace for longer, it will naturally then take longer to prove their worth in the catch up. This is of course an emotive subject and I don’t claim to be right! I do think that the structure in this country is too inflexible in terms of for example: paternity leave. I know several men who would love to take more time than they are legally entitled to, to be the primary carer at home, which would enable the Mum to return to work but our system is not yet as flexible as that of eg: the Danes. If there were more of a level playing field with the sexes from a policy perspective I think we would see a greater balance of leadership positions between men and women.
Did you face any obstacles in your career as a woman and have you ever felt discriminated against?
I honestly haven’t faced any obstacles because I’m a woman. Or at least not that I’m aware of! I have to say I’ve just got on with the job in hand and never stopped to think perhaps I shouldn’t say or do something because it might not be seemly as a girl! That’s not to say I’m not diplomatic but I think sometimes (and I’ve seen it with friends who are female) it is too easy to think that A or B has happened because you’re not a man! I haven’t felt discriminated against either but both these good twists of fate may be down to me having quite a thick skin! Having worked with the Army, the SAS, the intelligence services and the life science community (J), I’ve had many edges that may have been there that were well and truly knocked out. That said, I do still find it a surprise and something of a shame, when I am (most times) the only woman in a room full of guys. Conversely I do think there have been occasions when I have been positively discriminated ‘towards’! It cuts both ways. There have been times, particularly in the Foreign Office when I have been listened to more because I was the sole female in the room – although hopefully not seen as a novelty!
What would your advice be to young women attempting to rise to the top of the career ladder in generally male-dominated industries?
I would say a) don’t get too hung up on the impression you make because if you stifle your natural self too much, you’ll just end up being exhausted and people will see a ‘plastic’ version of you and b) celebrate your difference. It is obvious that men and women are different and I do believe that (very generally) the optimum that can be achieved from most interactions is where there is a healthy balance of gender and age in a team. Rather than feel perhaps inhibited by talking in a group of fellas, make the most of the fact that you have the floor, but importantly do make sure you know your stuff!
Back to you: How have you found the transition from government to science?
That’s a really interesting question. To be honest, I see it more as a transition from Government to the sharp end of business! Which is exactly what I was looking for when I applied for the role as CEO. Whilst One Nucleus and I operate in a scientific industry, our focus is very much on helping our members maximise their global competitiveness and that means by offering practical, tangible member benefits including helping them make the right connections, find the right funding and garner the right intelligence.
One of the things I love about this role, which is markedly different from my time in Government, is the speed with which things can and do happen in terms of running the company. Whilst we never rush headlong into anything at One Nucleus (everything is beautifully thought through of course!) there is a real buzz to coming up with new ideas, running them by our members and then making them become reality. Whereas within Government, there were so many constraints, people to crosscheck ideas with and “sign-off” with to get from further up the chain. That meant that by the time the idea had been thoroughly chewed through, it was almost too late to implement!
What advice would you give to non-scientists looking to join the science industry?
I think the life science and healthcare sector is one that holds huge further potential – both in terms of benefit to humankind but also economically for the UK and globally. But it is also shrouded in a certain amount of mystery for those who haven’t worked at the bench or been through the PhD/Postdoc route. My advice would be to be very clear about why you want to work in this sector and that will help focus your mind on the difference you can make and the work you will have to do to bring yourself up to the standard the sector expects. Very importantly I would also strongly advise the need to be honest about your skills and experience. I have never pretended to have anything more than O level biology (showing my age now!) and when asked to write scientific articles for major publications, I always politely decline because I have no wish to sign something off as mine that is created by another member of my team and because I am confident in what I know I can do and deliver, and confident in what I can’t! Credibility with our members and with our wider stakeholders is very important to me and honesty is vital.
At the same time it’s vital to know you stuff, do your homework, know why you are involved in something and what your role is and when presenting (which I know lots of folk hate) think of yourself as an imparter of intelligence.
How was your experience of the merger between ERBI and London biotech, which resulted in the birth of ‘One Nucleus’?
It was a fantastic experience. Very hard work and lots of extra hours put in along the way by both parties, but a wholly positive step in the right direction. When I joined ERBI I was very keen to do my bit to de-duplicate efforts among membership organisations – this was something our members told me was vital for me to address. So what better way (and to show I meant business!) than to merge two strong member groups into one.
I was hugely fortunate in that Tony Jones, the then Director of the London Biotechnology Network (LBN) and I had (and have) a very similar view about the benefits of collaborative working and so in partnership we worked on the ‘deal’ for the benefit of all our collective members and merged in April 2010. It was a natural and appropriate progression to have a new company name, a new vision, mission and strategy. And Tony became One Nucleus’s Director of Business Development, and I can think of no-one I would rather work alongside in that role, or who knows the sector better than him.
What advice would you give to young organisations looking to form a merger?
I’d suggest that the key is to be very clear about what you both want from a merger – and ideally to have similar aspirations. Business (and successful business) is so often about the characters involved and how they work together and communicate – or not! If it is to be a genuine merger rather than a ‘take over’, then hearts and minds have to be won – especially if staff are going to ‘TUPE’ across to the new organisation and the last thing you want is disagreement, confusion or concern in the team. So be clear from the outset about why you are merging, who’s going to benefit and what success will look like.
You launched a new service this year “Ask One Nucleus”. What drove the initiative and what has been the response to the service?
We did. One of the joys of the merger was taking a good, hard look at the services both organisations offered and enhancing some and taking some out – really doing what our members wanted which was de-duping and providing the best possible offer, focused and professional.
At One Nucleus one of our key roles is providing our members with critical intelligence. Whether that be by them attending an event and bringing themselves up to date with the latest developments in a therapeutic area, or reading one of our Insights reports or being introduced to a contact who can help them or something else. Ask One Nucleus provides our members with a one stop shop helpline for easily accessible advice from approved experts across a variety of specialist areas.
In a nutshell, it makes the network available 24/7. By submitting a query online, our members can seek the sort of rapid expert guidance you would expect to get when asking an expert in person at a network meeting or conference. It also provides news feeds and updates from our experts to stay abreast with industry developments such as regulatory changes, funding calls and new services.
We’re delighted with it and feedback has been great – information when our members want it, personal to them, at the touch of a button.
Finally, what does the future hold for ‘One Nucleus’?
The future is bright, the future is purple!
Our main drivers are to provide the best service we can to our members, to continue to actively seek out and work with others who have a similar desire to work collaboratively for mutual (member) benefit around the globe and to continue to grow the membership so that the network is the strongest, largest and best in class in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment