Chris Smith and Julie Williams discuss the growing role of science in politics…
Chris – What strikes me is that you had all this going on in your life and then suddenly in the middle of it you quit and went into politics and you became the second chief scientific adviser to the Welsh Government to do that job. That's what happened. Was it the wrong time to be working on science policy? Or was it?
Julie – Well, we had just gotten funding to build a large collection on early-onset dementia, so we knew we wouldn't be able to do much science for about three to four years until samples were available. I was there. I wondered why science wasn't doing so well in Wales, so I thought, well, I'll give it a try and see if I can make a difference. I was lucky enough to be appointed and the Prime Minister said to me: “I want you to think about why we aren't actually producing as many great scientific successes and why we're not bringing in as much funding for science as the public expects.” Go and see it. . ” I did so, but it turned out that there was a shortage of scientists. It's not that the scientists weren't good, they were really punching above their weight, but we just didn't have enough of them. So what I did was we were able to put together about 50 to 60 million European structural funds to bring in research scientists and groups of scientists to work on some of the key issues. I am delighted that many of them are still in Wales.
Chris – But how did you identify that a lack of scientists was the problem? That's easy to say, but the question of why Wales is a bit behind and where the real problem lies is How did you approach it?
Julie – Well, we counted the number of scientists working in different fields, mainly in universities. There were not many centers or research institutes in Wales and it was clear that standards were low, mainly in the more expensive areas such as medicine, computing and engineering. That was the problem. That's what's bringing in so much funding to the field from research councils, and that was the problem. The way to solve that is to build on the strengths that we had and bring in good scientists who can produce numbers.
Chris – Effectively, when you have a core and you create momentum around it, you create momentum that is embodied there, and money begets money.
Julie – Just like that, strength begets strength. This was built around the strengths we had. We've assembled some really great colleagues who are already looking to work with people in Wales. We also convene a whole group of individuals working in a particular field and it works well. But I have to say that I hope it continues, but we need a bit more funding from the Welsh Government for science in Wales.
Chris – So you did that for four years. Did you have enough by then, or did you think, “Okay, I've done what I wanted to do?” Because, as a good friend of mine once told me, your best years at work are in your first few years. Because then the problem will be on your side. But what she meant was, come in with a completely clean slate and an unbiased opinion, this is what I think I want to do. Is that what happened to you or did you think, “No, I need to go back to Alzheimer's”?
Julie – Well, I think it was more of the latter. Because at the time, the Medical Research Council and research charities got together and decided to put 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 results, but this was a great opportunity.
Chris – How does your current role as director of your facility position you? Does it place you in a lab role or does it primarily take on a strategic role and give you political experience? Can we rely on some of our experience in policy and policy to provide guidance?
Julie – I think it's more the latter. I think they'll kick me out of the lab for now. That's my role, to look at science from a holistic perspective and bring people together to be more productive and raise more money, but also to influence the people who make those decisions. That is to say. That's probably something we'll be doing a little bit more of over the next few years.
Chris – Alzheimer's disease is a frightening prospect in terms of the risk to the world's population. We are entering an aging society, and more and more people are reaching the age at which they develop Alzheimer's disease. Until now, we have focused our research on the genetics, disease mechanisms, and risk factors that underpin this. We have not yet talked about what the intervention will look like. Is that what you're paying attention to? Now, we're in a position where we can tell people what's wrong, and their next question will be, what should we do about it?
Julie – The Cardiff center focuses on this. That's why we're working on Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and Parkinson's disease. We are currently acquiring genetic information to understand disease mechanisms. One thing I didn't mention is the complement system, which is about inflammation in the brain. And it's linked by a number of genes that we've discovered. We believe that if we can get these complement drugs into the brain, we will probably have some sort of treatment within the next five to seven years. Because these complement drugs are already used for other diseases.
Chris – That's Alzheimer's disease. What about other diseases?
Julie – I think Vincent Dion in my group is doing amazing things with Huntington's disease using gene therapy. By inserting biological scissors called CRISPR technology into each cell in the brain, we can shrink this region of the Huntington gene. There are repeats in this gene, and when there are more than 30 repeats, Huntington's disease occurs. Not if you have less. What Vincent is doing is reducing that area to less than 30. And it's working, both in cells and in animal models. If it works, Huntington's disease will be cured with a one-time treatment. I think amazing things are happening and other forms of gene therapy can be used for these more common diseases as well, and we're working on that as well.
Chris – What are your hopes for the next five years?
Julie – We're going to have a much deeper understanding of the true complexity of this common disease, and we're going to have some treatments that are, if not clinic-like, then available.
Chris – Why not try your hand at that field and think about politics and policy and things like that? Looking back, is there anything you wish you had done differently, or something you would encourage your successor to do?
Julie – That's difficult. We need more science to incorporate science into politics. We also need to recognize that many ministers and politicians working in this field don't understand the science, and we need to make them feel comfortable asking stupid questions. Because it's important. In the short term, I think we need to provide support and advice until there is more scientific understanding in government. Science encompasses all the advances that will probably occur in the next 20 or 30 years. We need to understand that firmly.
Chris – You did a great job with Tomorrow's World.
Julie – Well, my dad probably did too.
Chris – I loved that show. And I think now we're flooded with science news, all news, especially science news. It's very accessible. But that was the main purpose, right? It was a mid-week show that offered a glimpse into the future.
Julie – It was, and I think we need more science on TV and radio. It's exciting, so you have to try to understand it on a level that people can relate to. It's the future and I think people will be interested in it.
