What’s next for UK in vivo education and training? Lessons from the Integrative Pharmacology Fund

In vivo knowledge and skills have always been essential in academic research labs that investigate basic physiology, ageing, diseases and their pharmacological treatments. Their importance has increased as researchers have sought to understand the functional significance of genomic information, particularly through the use of transgenic models. However, education and training in this area is a recognised challenge, and reports from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), Biosciences Federation and others have stressed the acute shortage of UK researchers with these skills. The Society took action in 2004, launching the £4m Integrative Pharmacology Fund (IPF) together with Pfizer, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. It’s now just over ten years on andan independent evaluation of the fund is near completion. The Society commissioned the evaluation with an aim to understand whether the IPF was successful, what worked and what didn’t – and importantly, how to apply this learning to future initiatives. The full report will be launched on 1 December 2016, and will be available on the Society’s website at this time.

Why does in vivo science matter?

The Society is a signatory of The Concordat on Openness on Animal Research and supports the essential use of animals in research and the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement). The use of animals is currently an important link in the drug discovery and development chain. Numerous new drug targets have been revealed by the Human Genome Project and, together with high capacity screening of novel compounds in the pharmaceutical industry, have led to many new drug candidates with novel modes of action. Unfortunately, many of these have failed in the clinic and companies are attempting to reduce the risk of failure in their discovery programmes. This “de-risking” includes conducting preclinical animal studies to build confidence that a novel mechanistic approach is likely to be both efficacious and safe, identification of ‘translational biomarkers’ to facilitate ‘go/no-go’ decisions early in the clinical trial process, and studies to relate pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics for candidate drugs.

The reasons for the reported skills shortage were quantified by a British Pharmacological Society and Physiological Society survey in 2004 which showed that less than 2% of relevant students had any practical exposure to in vivo science. Furthermore, 25% of the staff who taught these skills were retiring in the next 5 years and were unlikely to be replaced. In vivo training in the traditional model had become too expensive and time consuming for most universities to provide it. The IPF sought to address this in a holistic way, aiming to support in vivo pharmacological, physiological and toxicological education, training and research across the complete “academic pipeline” from undergraduate to established researcher or Lecturer. Over the twelve years of its existence, it has funded many initiatives including undergraduate education, Masters and PhD training, twenty new-blood lectureships; four Centres of Integrative Mammalian Biology (Centres of excellence for in vivo
education, training and research) and pump priming research grants. Furthermore, the initial investment by the three pharmaceutical companies ended up leveraging a total of £22m through partnership funding from the research councils, HEFCE, SFC and the then Department of Trade and Industry.

The IPF was successful – but we need to build on it

Over the last year, in partnership with the University of Exeter, the Society has evaluated the feedback from undergraduate in vivo courses, sent questionnaires to ~ 100 postgraduate recipients of IPF funding and followed these up with over 24 hours of in-depth interviews. This was followed by a roundtable with representatives from the Centres of Integrative Mammalian Biology and a stakeholder workshop including representatives from academia, industry, research councils and animal welfare organisations. Throughout the evaluation process, the aim was to understand past interventions and to discuss the future of in vivo training and education. The headline conclusion was that the IPF successfully increased the ability for UK universities to deliver high quality in vivo education, training and research.

However, there are significant concerns about its sustainability now that the funding had ceased. The Centres of Integrative Mammalian Biology were a particular success, with the development of strong local networks, the fostering of new research collaborations and the sharing of good practice. The evaluation team has reflected on these findings, and drawn up ten recommendations for future action from the evidence base and the principles that led to success.

What’s next?

It is unlikely that the level of funding provided by the IPF can be repeated. The report’s recommendations will acknowledge this, and are clear on the need for the community to come together in order to support in vivo education, training and research in the UK with limited resources. A clear finding was the need for core learning objectives for undergraduate and postgraduate in vivo sciences modules. Such objectives should be developed in partnership with the community and guided by research into the outcomes of different in vivo education and training interventions. Financial support should be provided for these modules and e-learning resources developed to maximise their impact and reach. Research and training collaborations between academia, industry and the NHS should be encouraged and in vivo apprenticeships jointly established. Small “pump-priming” grants should be provided to help early career researchers who are using in vivo techniques. Laboratory animal technologists support many research projects and their skills training and career progression should be high priority so that they can have greater involvement. There are opportunities for best practice in in vivo research to be communicated through networks and expert groups across the disciplines. Finally, public engagement and openness about animal research need to be promoted by all involved and supported by academic institutions.

The role of the British Pharmacological Society

There is clearly much to do, and it cannot be done alone. The Society is proud to be a leader in the in vivo sciences, both in terms of practical support but also in its strategic thinking. The Society’s Council has ratified the independent evaluation, supporting the recommendations and committing resource to exploring implementation with the wider sector. The work will be led by the Animal Welfare and In Vivo Pharmacology Sub-Committee, in collaboration with other committees, members and relevant organisations. The year ahead will see the Society embark on a number of specific initiatives, including a process to develop the core learning objectives, continuing to fund in vivo modules and expanding its activity to uphold the Concordat commitments. It will also be an opportunity to look forwards and develop a long-term strategy in partnership with the wider community.

For further information about the next steps for in vivo sciences at the Society or to register interest in the report launch, please contact Dr Dave Lewis.

Comments

If you are a British Pharamcological Society member, please sign in to post comments.