Chris Smith and Julie Williams discuss the growing role of science in politics…
Chris – What strikes me is that while all this was going on in your life, in the middle of it you suddenly left and went into politics and became the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser for Wales, the second person to do that job. Wasn’t this the wrong time to be engaging in science policy? Or was it?
Julie – Well, I had just received some funding to do a large early dementia collection, so I knew I couldn’t do much of the science for about three or four years until we got the sample. I wondered why we don’t do so well in Wales with science, so I thought yes, I’ll give it a go, see if I can make a difference. I was lucky enough to be appointed and the First Minister said to me: ‘I want you to look at why we’re not actually producing as much good science and funding for science as you would expect from our population. Go and see this. That’s what I did and I found that we don’t have enough scientists. Not that the scientists weren’t good, they actually punched above their weight, but we didn’t have enough of them. So what I did was I got some European structural money and we were able to put about 50 to 60 million into bringing in research associates and groups of scientists to come and look at some of the core issues. Many of them are still there in Wales, I am glad to say.
Chris – How did you know the problem was that you just didn’t have enough scientists though? It’s easy to say that, but how did you attack the problem of why Wales is a little behind and where exactly is the problem?
Julie – Well, we counted the number of scientists who work in the various fields, mainly in universities. We don’t have many centers or institutes in Wales and it was obvious that we were low, mainly in the more expensive fields of medicine, computing, engineering. That was the problem. That’s what brings much of the funding into areas from these research councils, and that’s been the problem. The way to solve it is to bring in some good scientists who could build on the strengths we had but generate the numbers.
Chris – Effectively be a core and then a place around which, once you get momentum, there’s an embodied momentum there and money begets money.
Julie – That’s right, and strength begets strength. It was built around the strengths we had. We attracted some really fantastic colleagues who wanted to come and work with people already in Wales. We also brought in whole groups of people working in certain areas and it worked. But I have to say that I hope it continues, but we need a bit more money put into Welsh science from the Welsh Government, actually,
Chris – You’ve been doing this for four years. Did you have enough by then, or did you think, “Okay, I’ve done what I wanted.” Because, as a good friend once told me, you’re best at work in the first few years, because then the problem becomes your friends. But what she meant is you come with a completely blank slate, no biased opinions, that’s what I think I want to do. Did that happen to you, or did you think, “No, I have to go back to Alzheimer’s.”
Julie – Well, I think it was more the latter because at that time the medical research council and the research charities got together and decided to put a lot more money into dementia research. I applied to host one of these centers and was lucky enough to get it. That’s why I came back. So you have to invest in research to get the results and this was a great opportunity.
Chris – And your current role as director of your institution, where does that place you? Does that put you on the lab bench, or does that put you primarily in your strategic role, where you can go back to maybe some of the policy and political experience that you had to lead them afterwards?
Julie – I think more of the latter. I think they’re going to ban me from the lab right now. That’s my role, is to look at science in a comprehensive way, to bring people together to work more productively, to bring in more funding, but also to try to influence those who can make those decisions. I’ll probably be doing this a bit more in the next few years.
Chris – Alzheimer’s disease is a terrifying prospect, however, in terms of the risk to the world population. We are an aging population, more and more people are reaching the age where they can get Alzheimer’s, so far we have focused a lot on the genetics that underlie it, the mechanisms of the disease and therefore the risk factors. We haven’t talked about what interventions might look like. Is this something you’ve had your eye on? Now we’re in a position where we can tell people what they’re going to mess with them, but their next question will be what do I do about it?
Julie – This is what the Cardiff center is focused on. So we’re working on Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, and Parkinson’s. Now we take the genetic information to understand the mechanisms of the disease. One that I haven’t mentioned is the complement system, which is related to inflammation in the brain. And this is implicated by a number of genes that we found. We’re confident that maybe in the next five to seven years, if we can get these complementary drugs into the brain, we’ll have some therapies there because they’re already being used for other diseases.
Chris – So it’s Alzheimer’s. What about other diseases?
Julie – I think there are amazing things that Vincent Dion in my group is doing with Huntington’s using genetic therapies. You have biological scissors, this CRISPR technology, that can be put into any cell in the brain and cut out that area of the Huntington’s gene. If you have repeats in that gene, if you have more than 30 repeats, you get Huntington’s disease. If you have less, you don’t. What Vincent does is reduce that area so it’s less than 30. And it works, it works in cells, it works in animal models. If this works, then it will cure Huntington’s disease in a single treatment. So amazing things are happening and I think genetic therapies in a different form can also be used for these more common diseases and that’s something we’re working on as well.
Chris – So your hopes for the next five years?
Julie – I think we’re going to get a much better understanding of the true complexity of this common disease and have some therapies that are, if not in the clinic, close to the clinic.
Chris – How about reflecting on politics, policy, that sort of thing as you engage in this space. Any particular things that you think, in retrospect, I wish I had done or will lobby for my successor to do?
Julie – This is a tough one. Bringing science into politics we need more of it. We also need to appreciate that many of the ministers and politicians who work in this area do not understand the science and we need to make them feel comfortable asking the silly question because it is important. I think we need to support as well as advise in the short term until we can get more scientific understanding in government. Science covers every bit of progress that is likely to come in the next 20 or 30 years. We really have to deal with it.
Chris – Tomorrow’s World did you a good job, didn’t it?
Julie – Well, my dad probably too.
Chris – I loved this program and I think we are inundated with science news today, all news, but especially science news. Very accessible. But that was the most important thing, wasn’t it? It was a mid-week thing that gave you a glimpse into the future, this program.
Julie – It was, and I think we need more science on TV and radio and we should try to get it across on a level that people can relate to because it’s exciting. This is the future and I think people will be interested in it.
