My academic journey in the Master of Public Administration (MPA) in Digital Technologies and Policy at University College London has been truly enriching. The programme has equipped me with robust analytical skills to understand cutting-edge technologies and develop evidence-based policies that address their societal implications.

The curriculum was thoughtfully structured to provide hands-on experience in policy development across multiple domains. The simulated multilateral negotiations were particularly valuable, where we represented different nations to address urgent technological and social challenges. These exercises strengthened our ability to analyse complex issues efficiently, identify key priorities, and develop practical policy solutions under time constraints while honing our diplomatic and negotiation skills.

The programme’s emphasis on real-world application culminated in our group project, where we collaborated with industry partners to address contemporary challenges. Through this experience, I developed essential skills in teamwork, professional communication, and data analysis. Our research on IoT privacy frameworks with the Information Commissioner’s Office across China, the UK, and Japan led to a presentation at the PETRAS conference in London, where engaging with international academics helped refine our policy recommendations.

A significant achievement during my MPA studies was publishing an op-ed in the AI&Society journal, developed under Dr. Jean-Christophe Mauduit’s guidance. The piece examined the implications of police use of facial recognition technology in the UK, focusing on transparency and bias concerns. Additionally, my analysis of Weibo’s role in China’s digital landscape, written for another module focusing on technology complex, supported my successful application to the University of Cambridge’s MPhil programme.

The supportive environment at UCL really enhanced the academic experience. The guidance from faculty members and collaboration with fellow international students created a constructive learning atmosphere that facilitated both professional and personal growth. It’s somewhere I would always love to return to share life updates and exchange ideas, both academic and personal.

For those keen to shape the future of technology policy and make a meaningful impact on society, I wholeheartedly recommend exploring UCL’s Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy (STEaPP). Whether you’re fascinated by emerging technologies technically/ethically, deeply committed to sustainability, or passionate about bridging the gap between innovation and public good, STEaPP offers brilliant pathways to help you achieve your aspirations.

Author: Jinqian Li, STEaPP Alumni. MPA Digital Technologies and Policy 2022-2023.

During the summer I did two short internships, both lasting about a month. The first was at the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies (ISEP) which is a policy research NGO that also works to expand renewable energy projects across Japan. The second was at an ODA organisation called the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

My main responsibilities at ISEP were to record and format meeting minutes from calls/interviews with the local community and newspapers. I also drafted ISEP’s plan for intermediary support with the Japan Centre for Climate Change Actions. At JICA, the main goal of the internship was to learn about JICA’s local centres’ activities, speak with local actors and ultimately propose new materials/topics that JICA’s local centre should work on. This gave me the flexibility to choose and contact organisations that I wanted to interview to use as material for the proposal.

I chose to apply for these internships because I knew that my summer break was going to be long and I thought it would be a great time to learn topics I am interested in and to use material I have learnt during first year in real life context. Studying on the course and at UCL helped when applying to the internships. For the ISEP internship, the senior researcher was interested in the work I engaged in at UCL’s energy society. During the interview, understanding concepts and terminology such as “Feed in Tariffs” and “the difference between kW and kWh” from STEP0039 Society, Systems and Change and ENGF0014 Engineering Thinking 1, respectively, helped me answer the questions and secure the internship.

For JICA, the director of JICA Hokuriku was interested in the BSc Science and Engineering for Social Change course itself, since multi/inter-disciplinary courses are also increasing in Japan and he wanted to know the difference. During the interview, we brought up topics such as “Bounded rationality” which was introduced in STEP0041 Policy co-design 1 and discussed the difficulties of decision-making in the Japanese government with the director. My understanding of those topics allowed me to engage in the discussion and make meaningful comments during the interview which I hope gave a good impression to them.

At ISEP, I was able to facilitate a citizen assembly which was one of the policy co-design tools discussed in STEP0041 Policy co-design 1. The citizen assembly was about revitalising an old city, and what facilities would residents want that would make their lives more fun/convenient. We gave post-it notes to the participants, and they wrote what they wanted on the yellow ones. Later on, we mixed up the group and discussed what topics had come up in the previous group and I wrote down some keywords that I found important. It was almost like hope and fear cards, except the fear cards were not used because the first session was intended to be as light-hearted and positive as possible. Since this was my first time actually engaging with a community, I was nervous and unsure if I would be able to do it well, but it was an excellent opportunity to actually engage in an activity that was taught in class.

Author: Shunsei Kobayashi, Second Year BSc Science and Engineering for Social Change student.

As the 31st International Conference on Transdisciplinary Engineering 2024 kicks off at UCL East, over 100 engineers from around the world—including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, United States, China, Japan, Sweden, Singapore, and others—converge in London to explore how transdisciplinary engineering can drive social change and improve the world. This conference provides a platform for discussing the crucial role of engineering and science in addressing societal challenges through innovative, interdisciplinary approaches.

We already know that transdisciplinary research teams comprising engineers and others, tend to produce research that is more likely to have policy and commercial impact. Yet, with over 334 categorized research fields, there are more than 35 billion possible combinations for interdisciplinary work for teams of up to 5 researchers. Depending on the combination of researcher capabilities, some interdisciplinary teams may be better suited for disruptive science, developing patents, or informing policy. But which combinations of fields lead to which type of impact?

Supported by Elsevier and working with the Growth Lab at Harvard Kennedy School, we are applying complexity methods and machine learning on bibliometric data to understand which combination of researcher capabilities leads to high-impact research. For this blog, we’ll discuss our work within the context of the impact of interdisciplinary climate research on public policy.

To calculate interdisciplinarity, we determine the capabilities of authors based on their publication history in different fields. Each author is represented by a vector indicating the number of times they have published in each field. These author vectors are then used to calculate the disciplinary diversity (DDA) of each paper, reflecting the combined expertise and capabilities of the co-authoring team.

As a first step, we ran a series of statistical analyses and regressions to evaluate the relationship between a paper’s interdisciplinarity score and the number of policy citations it received. Preliminary results show that interdisciplinarity explains almost 15% of the variance in policy citations, making it the strongest predictor of policy impact we have identified so far. In fact, transdisciplinarity is found to be three times better at predicting policy citations than conventional metrics of research excellence, exceeding the combined effects of academic citations, journal impact factor, and author h-index.

We then aggregated our analysis at the topic level by calculating the average interdisciplinarity score of papers within each topic. The first observation is that climate change-related topics with high interdisciplinarity are less common than those with low diversity. The distribution of these topics is shown in Figure 1.

Fig 1: Distribution of paper interdisciplinarity in climate research

The second observation is that topics with higher ratios of policy citations have nearly double the average interdisciplinarity score compared to topics with relatively low policy citations. Figure 2 illustrates the difference in interdisciplinary distribution between the low and high policy relevance groups.

Figure 2: Interdisciplinary Distribution by Policy Relevance

Finally, using the paper vectors, we are developing a machine learning model to understand which combinations of author capabilities and team dynamics lead to high policy impact. The preliminary model has already found that for climate change-related research overall, teams involving researchers with expertise in economics, meteorology & atmospheric sciences, general & internal medicine, ecology, and horticulture tend to be associated with higher policy impact.

Moving forward, we are refining the model to predict the optimal team dynamics for high impact within specific policy topics. We are expanding the training data to include additional metrics and features, such as academic seniority, international collaboration, and research text. Furthermore, we will incorporate the distances between research fields to study the effects of deep interdisciplinarity, bringing together researchers from relatively less connected fields, on social impact.

As TE2024 brings together engineers and researchers from around the globe, this work exemplifies the potential of interdisciplinary collaboration in addressing global challenges and driving social change through innovative, data-driven approaches. Equipped with machine learning tools like this, researchers can develop targeted strategies to form data-informed transdisciplinary teams, optimized for maximum societal benefit and impact.

Earlier this month the Government announced a £3billion+ package to update fragmented and outdated IT systems across the NHS and transform the use of data to ease administrative burdens. That same week, the Policy Impact Unit (PIU) hosted a roundtable on digital health in the UK, bringing together colleagues from across UCL (see co-authors) as well as visiting researchers from the FioCruz Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Brazil.

FioCruz is a federal public research foundation working with academic autonomy under the Ministry of Health of Brazil which was responsible for coordinating the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. The Brazilian delegation were keen to hear about UK experiences on health digitisation, challenges and opportunities, as well as developing a deeper understanding of the context and evaluation of several commitments agreed under the Brazil-UK High-Level Strategic Dialogues from 2020, some of which focussed on health cooperation and were funded by the Official Development Assistance (ODA) [1].

The main challenges discussed in the meeting, in relation to the digitalisation of the NHS, were systems’ interoperability, training and workforce capacity. Although there has been a push towards the adoption of federated data platforms (FDP), which will sit across NHS trusts and integrated care systems allowing them to connect data they already hold in a secure and safe environment, these are still disjointed and connecting them relies on platform providers talking to each other, which often does not happen.

Common challenges: interoperability, training and workforce capacity

The adoption of new digital health approaches is also reliant on having trained healthcare professionals to understand the power of data and new technologies. Particularly in primary care and GPs it is essential to have digitally literate colleagues that can engage communities, be clear and transparent about how health data is used and input it correctly to build FDPs that can be further used for research and to invest on the health of the nation[2]. Programmes like the NHS “Developing healthcare workers’ confidence in artificial intelligence” and inclusive digital healthcare are important, because there is a risk that ambitions to digitise the NHS, which are well intended, could exacerbate existing health inequalities and exclude some groups.

Incidentally, there is still a lack of progress to de-identify General Practice data and address low levels of confidence in new technologies among diverse communities – such as highlighted in the Health and Social Care Committee’s recent evaluation. Trust can be undermined as is the societal buy-in needed to deliver on ambitions for a more digital NHS.

Opportunities and way forward: innovation in regulatory mechanisms

On the flipside, there is an opportunity to bring people in early on to discussions on how AI tools are being used in medical devices, and how to properly manage the balance of risk and benefits such technologies may bring. The recent launch of the UK Regulatory Science and Innovation Networks was discussed, as well as the launch of a MHRA roadmap to create a framework for medical devices in the UK. Patients, researchers and industry representatives being included in this process, and being clear about how data can be used for the purposes of research, poses a great opportunity to bring real impact to clinical practice in terms of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of diseases.

Including other global partners in this conversation is essential given the importance of sharing learnings in different contexts, but also given the increasingly important role of international recognition in the medical domain as a factor to evidence impact. Specifically for global issues such as AI and post-market surveillance, where it is very difficult for regulators to know how new tools will perform before they are deployed, there is now a chance to have new standards emerge to shape digital health strategies across countries. We hope that visits like this inspire colleagues to work collaboratively and look forward to hearing from FioCruz how their visit is supporting Brazilian policy decisions on the development of digital health strategies.

Authors Note

Written by Dr. Luís Lacerda, Policy Impact Unit and co-authored by Professor Amitava Banerjee, UCL Institute of Health Informatics, Professor Derek Hill, UCL Dept of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering and Professor Patty Kostkova, UCL Institute for Risk & Disaster Reduction.

References

[1] For a list of projects funded under the scheme, please visit https://devtracker.fcdo.gov.uk/

[2] A particular good example was the COVID-19 registry where data such as vaccination rates, long-covid reports were put together in the same place and from different countries.

There are 3 million people living with cancer in the UK, predicted to rise to 4 million by 2030[1]. Different societal groups are affected differently, in particular ethnic minorities who experience poorer outcomes[2]. Health inequalities are complex and their root causes diverse, including the fact that some cancers are more prevalent in specific communities[3]. Advanced research on targeted and personalised treatments can therefore bring hope to improve outcomes in the future and to “close the gap” in the access to cancer care. But how can these be made more affordable and included in holistic government strategies to manage cancer care?

At UCL, the Future Targeted Healthcare Manufacturing Hub (FTHM Hub), which brings together academics, manufacturers, and policymakers, has been addressing manufacturing, business, and regulatory challenges to ensure that new targeted biological medicines can be developed quickly and manufactured at a cost affordable to society. This includes innovative research on the manufacture of promising cancer therapies ranging from Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies through to targeted drug therapies such as antibody-drug conjugates and cancer vaccines. The Hub engages with and supports several clinical groups at UCL that develop advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), some of which have been commercialised or are being translated into the clinic.

The FTHM Hub’s work also includes more fundamental research into optimising manufacturing by innovating processes and finding new ways of reducing production costs of these therapies. Examples of this activity include manufacturing autologous CAR-T therapy at the patient’s bedside or in an automated “GMP-in-a box” system[4], which can bring about benefits in terms of cost reductions, accelerating bench-to-bedside innovation, and mitigate risks that are generated by market shortages[5].

The Hub has worked closely with healthcare specialists and regulatory authorities to analyse how CAR-Ts and other high-cost therapies affect NHS England’s ability to resource other health services. It has conducted detailed supply chain economics analysis to identify key cost of goods drivers for CAR-T therapies, supply chain optimisation, and to assess the risk-reward trade-offs between centralised and distributed manufacture.

The recent agreement reached between the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), NHS England and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) on a voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth is a welcomed programme to explore how industry and government can better work to support the delivery of new advanced treatments for cancer, but this is not enough.

Furthermore, and for this important work to continue, investment and support on advanced manufacturing is required to understand possible implementation challenges of novel options such GMP-in-a-box in clinical settings. The new UK’s life sciences manufacturing funding to build resilience for future health emergencies is a good opportunity to do this to expand on the FTHM Hub’s work and ensure every patient living with cancer will have accessibility of treatment irrespective of geographical location.

In addition, time and cost of travel to specialised centres can pose an economic burden to patients and carers due to disparities in cancer care. New centres will also need dedicated staff to help deliver advanced therapies and the FTHM Hub is also training a new generation of professionals to enable rollout of those to patients.

In the week that marks World Cancer Day, the FTHM Hub continues to develop important work to treat patients with cancer and it is our hope at the Policy Impact Unit that we can work towards imagining new futures together, close the care gap, and bring better outcomes for all of those living with cancer.

References

[1] https://www.macmillan.org.uk/dfsmedia/1a6f23537f7f4519bb0cf14c45b2a629/11424-10061/Macmillan%20statistics%20fact%20sheet%20February%202023

[2] Martins, T., Abel, G., Ukoumunne, O.C. et al. Ethnic inequalities in routes to diagnosis of cancer: a population-based UK cohort study. Br J Cancer 127, 863–871 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-01847-x

[3] Delon, C., Brown, K.F., Payne, N.W.S. et al. Differences in cancer incidence by broad ethnic group in England, 2013–2017. Br J Cancer 126, 1765–1773 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-01718-5

[4] Pereira Chilima, T. & S. Farid. 2019. ‘A roadmap to successful commercialization of autologous CAR T-cell products with centralized and bedside manufacture.’ Cell Gene Therapies VI 73. Comisel, R. 2022. Decisional Tools for Supply Chain Economics of Cell and Gene Therapy Products. Diss. UCL (University College London).

[5] Bicudo, E. & I. Brass. 2023, ‘Advanced therapies, hospital exemptions & marketing authorizations: the UK’s emerging regulatory framework for point-of-care manufacture’ Cell and Gene Therapy Insights 9(1), 101-120.