Building the future of health research

Proposal for a European Council for Health

Research

A consensus document of the

H2020 Scientific Panel for Health*

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this document are those of the Scientific Panel for Health only and
should not be considered as representative of the European Commission's official position.

*The Scientific Panel for Health (SPH) is a science-led expert group based on the provisions of the Horizon
2020 Specific Programme that has been tasked with helping to achieve better health and wellbeing for all.
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/scientific-panel-health-sph
Contact: [email protected]

15/05/2018
Executive summary

A call for action

Europe leads in many areas of research and has powerful models of cross-border, cross-sectoral,
international research cooperation. European research funding has evolved from a handful of programmes
to become an important component of the research and innovation landscape in Europe. The European
funding landscape is rich but the framework for health research has limitations, which, if addressed,
would better serve health needs.

The Scientific Panel for Health (SPH) received a mandate under Horizon2020 to ‘analyse bottlenecks
preventing the achievement of better health and wellbeing for all… and propose solutions’. The SPH is
expected to provide a comprehensive view on how to advance biomedical research in support of improving
health in Europe, and to formulate recommendations to policy makers. To develop this comprehensive
view, the panel of experts conducted a comprehensive participatory process with diverse stakeholders
from across Europe. Through workshops and conferences, specific aspects were explored such as the
regulatory framework, the next-generation workforce, societal participation and impact of health
research. a

This process identified specific needs and opportunities for health research as path to better health.

1. Health, health care and health research form a unique and interdependent ecosystem. Health care is
a national competence but cannot be separated from research. The rising costs in health care can only
be managed through research underpinning decisions for implementation.
2. The use of health data creates a wealth of opportunities that are amplified by innovations in the digital
space. Yet, this potential is currently underdeveloped and underused.
3. Health research is performed in a complex regulatory framework. Navigating the complexity of
regulations in health research requires coordination to meet the needs of society and to facilitate
health research to the benefit of the patients.
4. The potential of precision medicine raises expectations for further improvement of disease outcomes
and increased quality of care but requires evidence and research into effectiveness and impact on
overall health care. Health research at the EU-level can identify and address mechanisms that reduce
health inequality.
5. In the present rapid evolution in societal structure, many changes have an impact on health. Meeting
health research needs requires input from many disciplines including the social and environmental
sciences, humanities and engineering, and this extends to health policy.
6. Health has no borders. Europe faces important public health threats, e.g. infectious disease, crossing
borders of human and animal health. Health research needs a global and coordinated vision that is
open to the world and takes a holistic ‘One Health’ approach.
7. Challenges in health require a long-term commitment. Chronic and degenerative disease, mental
health, and the growth of co-morbities are examples of major health issues that need a comprehensive
and long-term view. The path from discovery to innovation and inplementation is long.
8. Health and health care are pillars of the social structure, and a public and societal responsibility. Public
funding must address challenges and needs of high public interest, including areas in which the

a
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/scientific-panel-health-sph

1
 industry is reluctant to invest if the product does not have an attractive market. Health research
therefore needs continued public investment.
9. Health and health care are leading economic sectors. Several studies have documented the impact of
research. EU developments in digitalization, open science and the support for creative, discovery
science create excellent opportunities for innovation. However, a gap in translation and
implementation remains and requires dedicated support.
10. The EU manages only one-tenth of the public research investment but is the major funder of impactful,
collaborative research. Excellent EU programs push health research, but are not sufficient. Synergy
with strategic initiatives in member states and a new model for impactful collaborations are needed
to address the challenges for health.

Proposal for a novel approach to boost health research in Europe

The SPH concluded that Europe must build on its existing achievements by urgently developing a
comprehensive policy for health research. Defining and aligning common projects across EC directorates,
the EU and member states, would realize the implementation of ‘health-in-all policies’ and step up health
research to increase its impact on health improvement. This needs a long-term commitment and structural
measures to ensure implementation, and could be supported by a European Council for Health Research.

A European Council for Health Research would be the next logical step in building health research for the
next era. The EU has gradually expanded its programs resulting in a rich but complex landscape of funding
for health research. Members states have taken initiatives towards more collaboration. However, overall
funding remains fragmented and not sufficient to respond to the current needs or exploitation of
opportunities. A European Council for Health Research would connect several European bodies with
national bodies across ministries of health, science and innovation, with representatives of citizens and
patients, and with public and private actors. Resource optimization, better synergies with programs and
funding of member states, and targeted additional funding, as part of a comprehensive health research
strategy, will facilitate faster implementation, increased efficiency and visibility, and, importantly, better
health care. The mission of this body is to increase the impact of health research to achieve better health
and well-being of citizens, thereby creating societal and economic value for Europe and the world.

A European Council for Health Research should provide guidance, leadership and support for health
research in Europe. Therefore, it will
• Create a long-term vision & strategy for health research in an inclusive stake-holders’ policy board,
science-led and ensuring citizens’ engagement at all levels
• Engage member states & EU in joint action to fund health research – across the R&D and health care
sector – and build novel partnerships with the private sector, overseen by a science-led translational
board
• Provide visibility for European health research and engage with international partner organizations
and funders

To achieve maximal societal impact and health gains, the focus will be on participative, people-centered,
excellent research, and the path beyond discovery and towards implementation including translational
science. Research policies will include societal and economic evaluation of impact. This will close the circle
of research, innovation and health care, enabling feedback about opportunities, new discoveries and
innovation. The specific needs and opportunities for health will guide priorities, developed with

2
participation of all stakeholders and emphasizing societal value. A European Council for Health Research
will provide the necessary leadership for a mission-driven research strategy.

A European Council for Health Research creates added value:

• For the political leadership in Europe: a next logical step in a growing program around health –
providing scientific leadership and visibility to the program – facilitating intersectoral collaboration –
mobilizing additional resources – responding to citizens’ primary concern – speaking with one voice
for Europe
• For the health research community: sustainability for very ambitious approaches and long-term
projects, preventing loss of investment in time and resources
• For funders: optimizing resources – potential for intensified collaboration & mobility – an instrument
for stronger global interactions
• For society: enhanced possibility for engagement and participation – benefit through better health and
reduction of inequalities
• For industry: a platform for participative decision making – potential for novel partnerships & faster
path to market

A political dialogue is needed

The proposal for a European Council for Health Research to increase the societal impact of health research
and thereby improve health aligns with several resolutions and recommendations at the highest level.
Good health and wellbeing is number three of the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals of the United
Nations. The World Economic Forum 2016 has emphasized the value in health care as has the High-Level
Strategy Group on Industrial Technologies of the European Commission (2017). In the United States, a
consensus study report of the National Academies (2017) set out a path for global health, emphasizing the
importance of international collaborative efforts, of improving R&D processes and developing digital
health. The report of the European Commission’s High Level Group on maximizing the impact of the EU
R&I Programmes (2017) stressed the importance of a mission-oriented, impact-focused approach to
address global challenges, to align EU and national R&I investment and to mobilise and involve citizens.

A European Council for Health Research responds to these recommendations.

The most important voice comes from society. Across the world, citizens are united in citing health as a
primary concern. Citizens’ health is a core priority for the EU and in the 2017 Eurobarometer, 70% of EU
citizens demanded for more EU action in the field of health and social security. Therefore measures to
improve health should be high on the agenda.

As stated at the 2017 World Health Summit, health is a political choice. The current dialogue on the future
of the EU should include actions to bring health research in Europe to the next level, with inclusive, visible
leadership and impactful programs. The road to implementation of a European Council for Health Research
requires intense consultation and open exchanges of stakeholders and policymakers, spanning the
domains of health and health care, science and innovation, and finances. Those discussions will reveal
difficulties but may also identify additional opportunities.

Engaging in this dialogue is urgent and necessary.

3
4
Table of Contents
Executive summary ................................................................................................................................ 1
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Society and stakeholders call for action for health research ............................................................. 7
2. Health and health research form a unique and interdependent ecosystem ................................... 10
2.1. Health research and health care are intertwined. ........................................................................... 10
2.2. Health research is performed in a complex regulatory framework ................................................. 12
2.3. There is a need for unique, individualized approaches.................................................................... 12
2.4. Health is a societal responsibility and needs public investment ...................................................... 14
2.5. Health has no borders ...................................................................................................................... 15
2.6. Prioritizing health research is timely ................................................................................................ 15
2.6.1. Health is a human right and a leading concern of citizens........................................................ 15
2.6.2. A window of opportunities for health research in Europe........................................................ 17
2.6.3. Pressing and emergent novel challenges for health and health research ................................ 19
3. Europe must build on its achievements and address the needs for health research ...................... 19
3.1. EU programs lead impactful cross-border international research ................................................... 19
3.2. A rich landscape of EU funding but with several limitations............................................................ 21
3.3. Insufficient visibility hampers global leadership .............................................................................. 23
4. Health research requires cross-sectoral structures and a new model for collaboration................. 24
4.1. Towards synergy and a comprehensive policy for health research in Europe................................. 24
4.2. A European Council for Health Research is a concept to boost health through research ............... 25
4.3. Governance of a European Council for Health Research ................................................................. 28
4.4. EuCHR Resources and Funding ......................................................................................................... 29
4.5. EuCHR – added value for the EU ...................................................................................................... 30
4.6. Implementation and translation into practice ................................................................................. 30
References ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Appendix 1. WORKSHOP 8-9 MARCH 2018 ‘IMPACT OF HEALTH RESEARCH’ - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................. 37
Appendix 2. A history of European research programs ....................................................................... 41
Appendix 3. Case studies of strong EU programs ................................................................................ 43
Innovative Medicines Initiative ............................................................................................................... 43
Antimicrobial resistance .......................................................................................................................... 44
Cancer Core Europe ................................................................................................................................. 44
Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure ......................................................... 45
Appendix 4. Scientific Panel for Health members ................................................................................ 47
Glossary ................................................................................................................................................ 49

5
6
1. Society and stakeholders call for action for health research

Europe leads in many areas of research and has powerful models of cross-border, cross-sectoral,
international research cooperation 1. European research funding has evolved from a handful of
programmes to become an important component of the research and innovation landscape in Europe 2.
The funding landscape is rich but has limitations which, if addressed, would better serve health needs.
Medical research councils have called for further investment to increase competitiveness of Europe 3.

The Scientific Panel for Health (SPH) received a mandate under “.. to ensure a comprehensive
Horizon2020 (H2020) to ‘analyse bottlenecks preventing the policy and quality of research
achievement of better health and wellbeing for all… and propose requires a science-led multi-
solutions’. The SPH is expected to provide a comprehensive view stakeholders’ platform for
on how to advance biomedical research in support of improving European transdisciplinary
health in Europe, and to formulate recommendations to policy health and biomedical
makers. In 2015-2016, the SPH presented a vision paper on a research”.
future framework that aims to advance health research through
addressing current hurdles and taking advantages of novel Lancet, 2016
opportunities 4. Through consultation and workshops on several
aspects of the vision paper, the SPH interacted with society and stakeholders 5. The importance of creating
societal value and enhancing the impact of health research were stressed A major unanimous conclusion
of this process was that Europe urgently needs to develop a comprehensive policy for health research,
defining and aligning common projects across EC directorates, the EU and member states, to realize the
implementation of ‘health-in-all policies’ and step up health research to increase its impact on health
improvement.

This needs a long-term commitment and structural measures to ensure implementation, which can only
be achieved with direct stakeholder involvement. This could be supported by a European Council for
Health Research. In the present document, the SPH uses the label European Council for Health Research
(EuCHR) to connect to earlier proposals 6,7, but the emphasis is on the concept and content.

The EuCHR concept was extensively discussed at the Conference on “Health research in a connected and
participative society” that took place in Brussels in June 2017 to examine key aspects raised by
stakeholders and by the EC 5. This conference, gathering about 180 participants from 22 EU and EFTA
countries, enabled the SPH to launch an open dialogue on the development of a EuCHR and its structure.
It was agreed that the aim of the future platform is to create synergies, collating separate goals for
research, health care, prevention, global and public health, into a single and inclusive research agenda. As
emphasized at the conference (see Figure 1), people should be at the centre of a future framework for
health research.

The recent workshop on impact of health research concluded that health gains, reducing inequalities and
cost containment of health care are specific aims for impact of health research. The implementation of
research results to achieve these impacts requires transformative action. Impact of health research can
only be achieved through co-creation and a people-centered approach (Appendix 1).

7
Figure 1. A future framework for health research puts people at the centre 5

The EuCHR is the next logical step in building health research for the next era, connecting several European
bodies with national bodies across ministries of health, science and innovation, with representatives of
citizens and patients, and with public and private actors. Resource optimization, better synergies with
programs and funding of member states, and targeted additional funding, as part of a comprehensive
health research strategy, will facilitate faster implementation, increased efficiency and visibility, and,
importantly, better health care.

The EuCHR will engage society to boost health research through novel models for strategic collaboration,
promote a mission-oriented, impact-focused approach to address global challenges, and thereby increase
the societal impact of health research. A EuCHR will provide worldwide visibility of European leadership in
health research and connect domains such as pollution, agriculture, food, and global and public health. In
its goals, the EuCHR agrees with and responds to the recommendations of the Lamy report 1,8, released
at the time of the conference: ‘Adopt a mission-oriented, impact-focused approach to address global
challenges’ – ‘Better align EU and national R&I investment’ – ‘Mobilise and involve citizens’ – ‘Capture and
better communicate impact’. Considering the European Union’s future mission-oriented policy 9, the
European Commission’s High-Level Strategy Group on Industrial Technologies includes ‘European
Healthcare Networks – Breakthrough In Disease Prevention And Treatment’ in its exemplary missions for
EU investment in research and innovation 10.

8
At the 2017 World Health Summit, the M8 Alliance called on the countries hosting the next G7 and G20
summits and holding the presidencies of key regional organizations to include global health challenges on
their agendas and to make the political choices required to ensure the implementation of the 2030 SDG
agenda. They noted that “Topics such as health security, antimicrobial resistance and the health impact of
climate change, “One Health”, “Health in all Policies” reach far beyond the health sector and need the
involvement of heads of government and other stakeholders. Interdisciplinary collaboration is the critical
factor - all stakeholders from academia, the private sector, civil society and politics have to work together.
Governments have to coordinate their activities, support international cooperation and strengthen the
World Health Organization (WHO). The Sustainable Development Goals have provided the road map for
action.” They emphasized that “The world needs strong global health institutions to set norms and
standards, respond to outbreaks and to protect and support the most vulnerable” 11.

Despite the advancements in medical knowledge and innocation, it is

doubtful that society is gaining its full value from the resources spent “There are many competing
on health. There is a great deal of waste due to a convoluted and
political priorities, so we
must all shout about the
complex systems where the incentives, interests, strategies, and
importance of health
behaviors of parties engaged in healthcare delivery are misaligned 12.
research and innovation
Rising health care costs are a major threat and require further
systems”.
investment on health promotion and disease prevention 13. Health
measures and patient care should be underpinned by research for
Commissioner Carlos
innovative solutions and to establish efficacy and efficiency of
Moedas
interventions. As expressed by Commissioner Carlos Moedas at the
SPH’s conference on “Health research in a connected and participative society” 5 “There are many
competing political priorities, so we must all shout about the importance of health research and innovation
systems”. This is particularly important, because the wellbeing of the people is the direct goal of health
research and brings together a wealth of innovations in the humanities, ethics, biology, nutrition,
chemistry, physics, ITC, Big Data, economy to urbanisation, sociology, climate and biodiversity. The
importance of health research was further underscored by the Portuguese Minister of Health, Manual
Heitor, who stated that “specific needs for health research need further investment and require a
collective effort in the years to come” 5.

The following analysis points out why we need to take action and boost health research, the urgency of
doing so, and how to build on the strengths of Europe with a new model for collaboration.

9
2. Health and health research form a unique and interdependent ecosystem

2.1. Health research and health care are intertwined.

Health is the largest and most important economic sector, with unique interdependence between
research, innovation and patient care. It includes a range of activities from individual medicine, clinical
care to global and public health. Investments in health have a huge impact: healthy people implies a
healthy workforce. Several studies have estimated the economic return on investment through different
approaches in specific areas such as cardiovascular diseases 14, cancer 15, brain diseases 16, and
musculoskeletal diseases 17.

Health care is not only the consequence of research but is also the setting for research, in a close relation
to, and iterating between, health care and health research (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The discovery and implementation process: iterations between health research and health care

Health research is about working with human beings and studying the ‘human model’. Clinical research
is performed in the health care environment. This brings with it unique properties, requirements and
opportunities.

The use of health data creates a wealth of opportunities that are amplified by innovations in the digital
space, enabling management and analysis of big data sets, and sharing of information. These opportunities
are supported and broadened by breakthroughs in cutting edge technologies, such as ‘omics’, synthetic
biology, and bioinformatics, which in combination with broad access to both longitudinal individual data
and aggregated epidemiological and public health data, provide an opportunity to make Europe an
eminent place for translational health research. Digitalization forms the basis of European health(care)
networks and was in 2018 proposed by the High-Level Strategy Groups as a Key Enabling Technology,
catalyzing new industries that will enhance the future health, security and wealth of all European citizens
10
.

10
These opportunities are also highlighted in the RAND study 18, that stipulates the social and economic
benefits that health data can provide to the health system. These include:
1. Empowering patients to more actively engage with healthcare decision making in healthcare, and in
public health
2. Supporting health professionals and policymakers in clinical and policy decision-making
3. Enabling researchers and academics to enhance research quality and to undertake new types of
analysis, research and innovation
4. Helping industry to more efficient and effective therapy development and validation processes,
providing the basis for more personalized decision taking
Strong information systems are needed for implementation and guidance of health policies, the focus of
the European Health Information Initiative of the World Health Organization, WHO,94. The WHO also put
digitalization on its 2018 World Health Assembly agenda. Full deployment of digital innovation in health is
still restricted to regions with strong e-health infrastructure and adapted policies e.g. Estonia. This
therefore remains an area with strong, and as yet unfulfilled potential 18. Breakthroughs in cutting edge
technologies such as genome editing, cell engineering and synthetic biology in combination with data
management, analysis and sharing will enable Europe to be the world leader in disease prevention and
treatment. This requires cross-disciplinary practice – the combination and convergence of state of the art
life science advances and digital health technologies. As noted 10, “Data management, analysis and sharing
are absolutely crucial for the future of European healthcare. There is the opportunity to develop new
electronic healthcare structures and share data such as cancer genomics, epidemiological studies, data
from large-scale drug discovery and testing programmes and also the results of public health initiatives.
This data sharing and analysis will inform the way we understand and develop treatments for disease.
Secure networks and high-quality digital infrastructure and connectivity will be essential to ensure
standardised and interoperable electronic patient and personal health records (strong control by the
citizen/patient). Such networks, for instance in the form of a European bio-informatic system for cancer
treatment, will allow remote consultations, participative and preventive healthcare solutions, and an
equality of access to the highest quality of healthcare. Such advanced and integrated healthcare networks
will enhance efficacy and contribute to lower public healthcare costs. This combination of emerging
technologies provides enormous opportunities for the emergence of new industries in Europe not just
based on life sciences but also coupled to other developments in informatics (big data, AI, software)” 10.

The current divide in competences in health research (EU level) and

health care (MS level) is artificial and originates from the initial economic Health care is a
national competence
focus of the EU. Since 2007, EC structural funds have been increased and
but cannot be
have focused towards the EU’s new Member States to address inequities
separated from
across MS, including in health care and health research 19,20. Although
research. Health
improvements have been achieved in the health care sector, considerable
research at the EU-
challenges remain due to austerity measures and their impact on public level can identify and
spending, poor efficiency in the use of the funds, and a lack of strategic address mechanisms
management 19,20. Overall coordination of EU global and public health that reduce health
research and policy can contribute to reducing these inequalities and form inequality
a basis to ensure equity beyond the EU.

Meeting health research needs requires input from many disciplines including the social and
environmental sciences, humanities and engineering, all of which are essential for the implementation of
health research. This need for interdisciplinary action extends to health policy: Health in All Policies (HiAP)

11
is a policy strategy promoting an integrated policy response across relevant policy areas with the ultimate
goal of supporting health equity 21. In practice, this implies a strong programmatic and financial
coordination of very different actors. Within the EC this implies different DGs (SANTE, RTD, CNECT, ECHO,
ENTR, DEVCO, etc) and will also include partial participation of the social fund and structural fund in health
research.

The importance of health research for informing health care and health policies is at the basis of the
World Health Assembly resolution WHA66.22 calling for strengthening of health research.

2.2. Health research is performed in a complex regulatory framework

Regulations are necessary, but are complex and pertain to many aspects of health research 22-24. Because
of the complexity they can also present bottlenecks throughout the pipeline of health R&D, limiting patient
access to innovative medicines, devices and therapies 25. As the sphere of health captures such a wide
range of conditions and challenges, regulatory requirements within different branches also diverge, for
example the organization of clinical trials for rare indications.

Pertinent challenges for rare disease research include the relatively small
number of patients affected, high costs, and need for international multi- Navigating the
complexity of
centre recruitment which involves facing divergent procedures and legal
regulations in health
frameworks across national borders 22. In addition, the return on
research requires
investment is often not considered as sufficient by companies to justify an
coordination to meet
extension of the label, and only the private company can request such
the needs of society
extension 22. In an effort to address some of these regulatory obstacles, the and to facilitate
European Medicines Agency (EMA) developed adaptive pathways for cases health research to the
of high unmet medical need: Adaptive pathways facilitates the benefit of the
authorisation of a medicine in a small patient population on the basis of less patients.
comprehensive data than is normally required, but to mitigate risk has an
additional requirement that additional evidence should be gathered over time to progressively adapt
licensing of the medicine 26. These rapid approvals oblige to have more evidence on efficacy and risks over
the time, which could be implemented by partnerships, including PPP, at European level.

Individual-level health data needs to be handled with care. Data sharing and open science boost research
and innovation, but generate ethical issues that need particular consideration within the field of health
27,28
.
Health research needs complex regulation, to benefit patients, to facilitate, not hinder, research. The
balance in this regulatory framework requires coordination and adapted approaches.

2.3. There is a need for unique, individualized approaches

Technological and scientific advance allow for increasingly personalized and precision medicine.
Personalized or precision medicine (PM), integrates in depth and comprehensive data on an individual’s
geno- and phenotype, as well as lifestyle and environmental factors relevant for a specific person to

12
identify the most appropriate health interventions. PM is one of the most innovative areas in health
research, at the heart of societal debate in the EU and represents a major opportunity for health research
and health care 29,30. Making use of digital ‘big data’ approaches allows to integrate massive individual-
level data in population level studies. This approach offers many new applications, but requires also
innovative ways for analysis of clinical data and clinical trials 31.

The EU Council conclusions in 2015 acknowledged the opportunities offered by PM for the treatment of
patients in the EU, and the EC has been a driver for the development of PM approaches, devoting sustained
and significant investment starting in 2010. In total, a €3.2 billion has been invested in PM research in
2007-16 across the medical innovation cycle ‘from bench to bedside’ by FP7, Horizon 2020 and the IMI 32.
The EU funded project PerMed has been launched to develop a joint European research and innovation
policy for PM, and an International Consortium for PM (ICPerMed) involved over 30 European and
international partners to define an action plan in 2017. This plan provides recommendations for the
implementation of personalised medicine in transnational research and health systems 32-34.

Despite very high public expectations, the full potential of PM has not yet
The potential of been realized and only a limited number of PM approaches have so far
precision medicine raises
translated into clinical application, except in the fields of cancer and rare
expectations for further
diseases. This is due to the fragmentation of research efforts 35 and a
improvement of disease
paucity of suitable validated biomarkers that enable stratification into
outcomes and increased
endotypes along causal pathways 36. Implementation in clinical practice
quality of care but
requires further is also a major challenge because the translation of these mechanisms in
evidence and research therapy has proved difficult and less efficient than expected 35,36.
into effectiveness and PM requires a multi-disciplinary approach, in the discovery of
impact on overall health mechanisms through systems biology, in the development of novel
care diagnostics and therapies, and in management of care 37. PM needs
research on effectiveness and cost-balancing, given that the health care
system in Europe is at risk for explosion of costs. PM therefore must be developed together with the health
care sector, with at the center better treatment and quality of life for patients, and societal value.

13
2.4. Health is a societal responsibility and needs public investment

In Europe, health care is one of the pillars of the social structure, and a public and societal responsibility:
Patients are not viewed as clients of corporations. The support to health research through public funding
is part of this societal commitment. Support for health research is also part of a vision on science and
knowledge as foundations of society 38-40.

The role of industry and SMEs in the chain from discovery to implementation is essential in bringing new
products to the market. However, the role of public funding and coordination is much broader and
supports the discovery research and first stages of entry into the pipeline as well as in the later,
implementation phase and follow-up. Public engagement for health research is driven by the societal
value. Some important research questions for patients and society are of little interest to industry. This
includes for example, non-profitable areas such as lifestyle or education, comparing out-of-patent or
widely used treatments, research that repositions a drug or technology in a different indication, and
research on rare indications for which the return on investment would be insufficient. As well, the
emergence of effective but expensive drugs in cancer calls for studies on optimal use of available therapies
to counter huge threats for the budgets of health care providers as well as to ensure equal access
throughout EU. The process of translating biomedical discoveries into drug development or new clinical
applications has become increasingly costly, complex, long and risky, and pharmaceutical companies have
adapted their R&D models and investment in research 41,42 In addition, private enterprise can change
agendas in R&D in areas that are essential health challenges such as neurodegenerative diseases, and R&D
activities are moving out of Europe. Pipelines for drug development change considerably over time not
necessarily reflecting burden of disease.

Many successful drugs and devices have followed development of prototypes by publicly funded research,
reducing the first-level R&D investment and risk for industry, yielding substantial benefits. Knowledge
generated by public investments in science is often freely accessible to multiple other parties 43. For
instance, the development of a remarkably effective treatment for chronic myelogenous leukaemia
resulted from decades of publicly-funded research before patenting 44. Publicly funded research may also
have applications in other areas, and with long delay many years or even decades later. A recent US report
showed that NIH funding substantially contributed, directly or indirectly, to private-sector patenting 43,44.

It is therefore essential that public funding addresses challenges and needs of high public interest, and
areas in which the industry is reluctant to invest if the product does not have an attractive market. Health
research therefore needs continued public investment. Several charities are contributing substantially to
the funding of health research and are part of this fabric of societal engagement.

The High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU Research and Innovation Programmes
recommended in its report in July 2017 that citizens should be more involved in determining EU research
and innovation priorities 1,8. Health research has a unique ability to involve citizens through patient
groups and society at large, to support this policy and the necessary public spending.

14
2.5. Health has no borders

Europe faces important public health threats that cross borders. Examples include the global spread of
antimicrobial resistance, and emerging infectious diseases epidemics such as the recent Ebola outbreak
that highlighted the need for a coordinated global response 45. Pandemic preparedness has been one of
the urgent medical topics at the G7/G20 Summits of the Heads of State in 2017.

Therefore, coordination of EU health research and policy need to extend beyond EU borders and adopt a
global perspective. In its 2010 Communication on Global Health 46, the Commission emphasizes that
“public health policies ... require strong global institutions and coordinated efforts. … The EU should
coordinate more effectively research on global health in order to address the highly fragmented landscape
and identify shared global priorities for health research.” Even though some specific aspects of global
health have been addressed in the H2020 calls, progress on the overall coordination has been limited to
specific diseases, with the EU still lacking a comprehensive science-based structure or forum coordinating
EU and member states’ global health efforts which are effective and visible to the world and countries in
need.

There is also a need to address questions at the intersections of human, animal, and environmental
health as described in the “One Health” and “Planetary Health” initiatives 47. New research frameworks
should provide a better understanding of the ecological and environmental factors that impact on human
disease to improve preparedness for zoonotic disease outbreaks, emerging infectious diseases in both
plants and animals, and antimicrobial resistance 48.

Health research therefore needs a global and coordinated vision that is open to the world and takes a
holistic ‘One Health’ approach – that is to improve health and well-being through the prevention of risks
and the mitigation of effects of crises that originate at the interface between humans, animals and their
various environments.

2.6. Prioritizing health research is timely

2.6.1. Health is a human right and a leading concern of citizens.

Across the world, citizens are united in citing health as a primary concern 49-51. Health is an essential part
of Europe’s social model. It contributes to inclusive growth, social cohesion, and to the nurturing of a
health economic environment conducive to investment 52,53. Europe views health as a fundamental human
right, including access to health care, liberty and equality in health. Protection of a high level of human
health is entrenched in the Treaties of the EU. Citizens’ health is a core priority for the EU 54 and in the
2017 Eurobarometer, 70% of EU citizens demanded for more EU action in the field of health and social
security 55.

Good health underpins almost everything that people want – to be free of illness, to escape poverty and
hunger, to work to secure independence, to gain fulfilment through education and learning, to be treated
fairly and without discrimination, and to live in a safe environment 56. Therefore, the United Nations made

15
health an integral part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Goal 3 calls to ensure health and
well-being for all, at every stage of life56. Besides addressing all major health priorities, it also calls for more
research and development, increased health financing, and strengthened capacity of all countries in health
risk reduction and management49,50.

Investment in research is small compared to the cost of health care. In Europe, direct health expenditure
reached 9% of GDP in 2015 (on average, up from 7% in 2000 57). The figure illustrates the rising health
expenditure as average for capita and the rpid rise over time. The standard deviation further emphasizes
the large discrepancies in spending across the EU.

Figure 3. Health expenditure per capita across EU28 – average and standard deviation.

The spending on health care as fraction of GDP vastly exceeds investment in research, which stagnated at
2% of GDP in 2015, across all disciplines and including all investors 58.
Spending on biomedical and health research in Europe is only a small fraction of the health-care costs (2-
4% of health care expenditure 3,59).

Figure 4. Relation between health care costs and research investments. Figure from59.

16
The US spends substantially more on public funding in health research areas than the EU, up to three-
times more per person per year 3.

Biomedical and health research are the drivers for better health and
Health is EU citizens’
patient care through innovation and the implementation of novel
primary concern, health
findings into practice. Therefore, health research should be positioned
research is the basis of
high on the political agenda. Whereas health care is a MS competence,
health and could unite
health research at EU level can help addressing mechanisms that will
Europe
reduce health inequalities, support public health and transnational
issues. As an example, the European Parliament debate “Can real world data advance equity of health
care” discussed how patient-driven Real-World-Evidence (RWE) data (data being collected in settings
outside of clinical trials) from 13 national Multiple Sclerosis (MS) registries could be pooled and analysed
on the European level. This type of data, as was collected in the EUReMS project, could become the co-
driver for regulatory decisions, for example supporting decisions on the pricing and reimbursement of
medicines 60.
As a citizens’ primary concern, health is a theme that can unite Europe.

2.6.2. A window of opportunities for health research in Europe

Opportunities for innovation emerge from strong discovery research, in life sciences, medicine,
technology and humanites, in research institutes, and universities. ERC is stimulating the best and the
brightest to develop novel ideas. The presence of a healthy SME system and unique models for peer-to-
peer (P2P) collaboration that have been developed in Europe, promote translation. The education system
in Europe is of high quality, although there are concerns for a properly trained workforce for health
research, as discussed in 2016 61. The transfer from university discovery research to patent, university spin-
outs and attracting venture capital is realized only in a small number of centers in Europe, and could also
be improved. From the EU there are new initiatives to stimulate innovation through the EIC.
Global players Amazon and Google offer platforms for digital data, The EU constellation of a
including in health, that have little competition in reach. However, highly educated
Europe has the potential to take the lead in e-health and medtech workforce, healthy
digital innovation through access to comprehensive and high-quality
ecosystem for digital
health data. Cross-border solutions, investment in infrastructure, and
innovation in health,
an emphasis on reducing inequalities have the potential to create
societal engagement and a
societal value through better health, as well as economic value through
unique health care system
better health care. There is also an urgent need to establish a health
conspire for leading
data bank which provides public open access, is not driven by
research and innovation in
commercial and political interests and which adheres to stringent
health.
scientific quality control standards. The need for open access data was
recently highlighted by the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Making data available from multiple sources
greatly facilitates the response to situations such as disease outbreaks through the availability of better,
and more up to date information. New types of digital data, for example from mobile networks offer
unprecendented potential (for monitoring population movements for example), but this type of data also

17
raises unprecedented ethical challenges that also need to be addressed 62-65. Europe supports open science
66
and is working on developing an open science cloud. Europe has a duty as one of the few regions in the
world with the technological and scientific potential to offer an accessible publically supported data for
the use of Big Data in health.
In 2017, the EC introduced digitalization of health and health care as a priority. Technological
advancement brings with it new opportunities, for example data sharing and open science. The world is
rapidly developing better ways of collecting, storing and analysing very large data sets collected
prospectively. New methods are being proposed for including historically collected and saved data in many
different formats as big data methodologies become better understood. These processes are arriving very
fast and they hold much promise for boosting research and innovation. They also present new challenges.
Further innovation is needed for proper curation, storage and analysis of big data across nations, and
mechanisms to ensure data protection and privacy are essential. It is important that policy and legislation
is aligned with new technologies as they arise to prevent bottlenecks slowing the utilization of new
technologies, as this would be a missed opportunity for Europe. Guidelines that enhance the re-usability
of data have been put together in the ‘FAIR’ (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) guiding
principles for scientific data management and stewardship 67.

Europe needs a health research oriented body to manage these changes and exploit them to provide
better health for the European population. Europe cannot fall behind in this area, which includes issues in
the scientific, engineering, mathematical, health, medical, social and ethical domains – the full range of
translational disciplines. In this area, novel policies and political decisions will be needed at a supra-
national level, as well as a nimble strategic overview of these changes to facilitate European leadership in
this health research and care field. Some concrete examples follow:

• Making medical and health data accessible across boundaries for European researchers (note that the
recent GDPR facilitates such research; the rules for making medical data accessible across the
continent needs to be considered, as it is likely to replace any need to physically move them).
• Promoting public health and epidemiological research on a European basis. This activity depends on
analysis of very large amounts of aggregated data. This research is needed to prevent, to confine and
to treat unexpected medical disasters and unforeseen pandemics.
• Facilitating interaction with similar initiatives globally. China, the USA, Japan, Australia have major
efforts in modern medical informatics. These are state aided and also funded by private initiatives,
notably from the major new informatics-based industrial conglomerates.
• Taking advantage of intellectual advances and innovation funded by and produced in Europe. Note
that the European OpenScience Cloud and the Medical Informatics Platform of the Human Brain
Project are examples of major EU funded projects that exist already.

Societal engagement in Europe is strong and patients are powerful partners in research policy, design and
implementation, creating additional opportunities for health research and implementation. Patients are
increasingly becoming key stakeholders in the research and development process. Under the funding of
the H2020 Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) 68-70, a patient-led initiative, the European Patients'
Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) 71, launched in 2012, aims to empower patients to engage
more effectively in the development and approval of new treatments and become full partners in
pharmaceutical R&D. One objective of EUPATI is to educate patients to enable them to make a meaningful
contribution to the research process. The EUPATI project has published a set of guidance documents and

18
educational toolboxes on medicines research and development to facilitate patient involvement in R&D.
EUPATI has already trained 96 patient experts on medicines development, clinical trials, medicines
regulations, and health technology assessment.

2.6.3. Pressing and emergent novel challenges for health and health research

Current challenges for health which have been outlined previously 4, remain on the agenda. Chronic and
non-communicable diseases lead the statistics for mortality, co-morbidities and reduced quality of life in
an aging population. A long-term commitment is needed, as progress can be slow and industry support
fickle, depending on market and profit considerations. Incentivizing research through prizes can have a
short-term effect. Targeting major disease areas in a mission-oriented approach may stimulate joint efforts
towards concrete goals, as outlined for cancer 72.

Global and public health challenges include infectious diseases and migration, both of which call for
intensified cross-border research. Emergent diseases can be unpredictable, and require flexibility and
preparedness. Moreover, ongoing global health inequity calls for coordinated European action in health
research and (internal and external) policy, upholding and promoting European values.

In the present rapid evolution in societal structure, many

changes have an impact on health, such as (loss of) employment In a rapidly changing society
and novel concepts for work in an increasing technological and we must respond to the
urbanized society, the influence of social media and changes in major challenges in health
attitude towards health and health care, and the education with novel models for health
system that may be too slow in responding to the new demands. research and implementation
A comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to identify into health care
directions and priorities in health research is necessary.

Despite a vast gain in knowledge on health and disease, there is still a large gap in research
implementation and evaluation of its outcomes. In the clinical, health care setting, research on outcomes,
effectiveness, and addressing wasteful treatments call for high-quality, investigator-driven clinical
research, novel clinical trial models, as set out for the cancer field 24 and a European digital health platform,
which integrates clinical and integral outcome data, as well as ‘real-world evidence’.

Adoption and implementation of health measures and health care guidelines require new models for
evaluation of outcomes and societal engagement.

3. Europe must build on its achievements and address the needs for health research

3.1. EU programs lead impactful cross-border international research

Collaborative research leads to high impact output, and the European Union (EU) has been a global leader
in facilitating collaborative research through its framework programs (FP) supporting excellence and
boosting innovation. In an analysis of the evolution in the worldwide output in cardiovascular medicine 73,
joint publications within the EU, as well as, with other countries increased substantially, as illustrated in
Figure 3.

19
Figure 3. Joint publications in cardiovascular medicine increased over time in Europe (from 73)

Countries with a high level of international collaboration scored higher impact and the collective EU27
output surpassed that of the USA.

In this study, Europe leads with respect to output and citations which may be related to the powerful
models of cross-border and international research cooperation 1. In addition to publications output,
patents produced through Horizon2020 are of high quality and commercial value. Nevertheless, in the
medical and health research, investment in Europe compares unfavorably to the US with consequently
lesser output 3.

The major share of public funding to support research, is within member states. However, when it comes
to investment and support for multinational collaborative research across borders the EU is the primary
source of public funding.

Figure 4. The EU is the primary source of funding for collaborative research across borders

20
European research funding has evolved from a handful of programmes, to become an important
component of the research and innovation landscape in Europe as further detailed in Appendix 2.

In the area of health, this has fostered major advances in knowledge and stimulated innovation (Appendix
3). The case of the actions in infectious disease and orphan diseases is a strong example. The EU programs
addressing antibiotic multidrug resistance (AMR) brought on board member states and all stakeholders
48,74
; the global outreach by the EU were key to the advances made in this major health threat. One
program collected data on the differences in AMR between countries. This data provided a call to arms for
many policymakers in member states and national plans were rolled out for the first time to address the
crisis. Other programs tackled behavioural change, for example a campaign in Belgium and France over
antibiotic misuse (2000-2002) which led to changes in clinician- and patient attitudes and behaviour. Other
projects tackled scientific, regulatory, and business challenges that hampered the development of new
antibiotics 75. Another EU grant supported the investigation of antibiotic use in food-producing animals in
Europe. Awareness that the Netherlands was one of the highest European users of antibiotics in farming
led to action: mandatory targets were set and met for reduced antibiotic use in animal husbandry. As food
and associated resistant bacteria cross national borders, this increase in meat safety has benefitted Dutch
consumers as well as consumers throughout Europe.
The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium, IRDiRC 76,77, EC and NIH joining forces successfully
facilitated R&I in rare diseases. The focused and mission-driven approach in this program has led to the
identificaton of >200 novel therapeutics of which many have alredy become available on the market 78.
Another action in rare diseases is the recent creation of the European Reference Networks (ERNs), virtual
networks involving healthcare providers across Europe 79.
The EU started powerful models of stakeholder collaboration. The IMI programs are the world's largest
public-private partnership (PPP) in the life sciences 68-70. They address topics directly relevant to advance
implementation of diagnostics and treatment. In IMI2 the sharing of data and resources may set an
example for PPPs with wide impact.

EU support has fueled long-term alliances. The cancer community united through EU programs such as
the EurocanPlatform, and built up towards a comprehensive, inclusive and high level consortium started
in 2014 to create a virtual ‘e-hospital’ enabling joint research programmes and development of innovative
new generation clinical trials in the Cancer Core Europe 80. Imaging has developed as a powerful tool for
prediction, diagnostics, treatment monitoring and developing targeted therapies. Boosted by a number of
EU projects, the European Society for Molecular Imaging emerged 72. The European Strategy Forum on
Research Infrastructures, ESFRI, has led to the creation of the BBMRI-ERIC biobank as an
intergovernmental structure 81.

3.2. A rich landscape of EU funding but with several limitations.

In the evolution of the EU framework program design (Appendix 2), newly added instruments have
enriched funding opportunities and some actions have provided visibility to health research such as the
FET flagship in brain research 82 and EIT Health 83. All together, a set of dedicated instruments and calls for
biomedical and health research provide opportunities for discovery research, for innovation and
partnerships, as illustrated in Figure 5. The drivers and aims for each of these instruments vary and the
downside of this rich landscape is the increasing complexity. Furthermore, despite the array of

21
instruments, the main public investment in research still is in the national competence through national
research programs and funding, as reported for cardiovascular diseases 84 or at aggregate level in the
commissioned report by Deloitte 59, that furthermore highlighted the investment by industry.

Figure 5. Landscape of instruments for biomedical and health research administered by EC, alone or in
partnership with industry and member states. As per Figure 1, the majority of public funding is through
member states.

Despite this apparent wide offering, it is not sufficient – not in its scope, not
in addressing health needs. Excellent EU
• Calls for collaborative research in SC1 Health are vastly oversubscribed, programs have
even more so than in the overall H2020 program. As a result a substantial pushed health
number of high-quality research projects are not funded. That research forward but
oversubscription exists also provides evidence of the large potential for are not sufficient - a
new model is needed
high quality health research in Europe.
to address the
• The lack of sustainability for collaborative projects leads to waste. EU
challenges for health
projects often generate networks that maintain fruitful scientific
interactions. However, the lack of continuation of funding undermines
sustainability of the collaborative research and threatens data collections such as cohorts, biobanks
and registries.
• Future novel, emerging challenges will need increased health research support, such as in public
health and migration, implementation of a European digital health platform, and fighting major
diseases in a mission-oriented approach.
• Access to health care in Europe is not equal throughout member states; participation in health
research is not equitable. A more inclusive participation in health research would facilitate subsequent
implementation of better health care.

22
• Major potential to advance health exists through building research programs on initiatives such as the
European Reference Networks and linking R&I to health care. Such advance is severely hampered by
the lack of a strong cross-sectoral and cross-border collaboration.

3.3. Insufficient visibility hampers global leadership

The potential for Europe in taking leadership is shown among others in the worldwide International Rare
Diseases Research Consortium (IRDIRC). Individual programs of high prestige, such as the visionary,
science-driven, large-scale research initiatives addressing grand scientific and technological challenges (EU
FET flagships), the Human Brain Project, or the EU commitment in fighting emerging epidemics have
visibility, but the overall investment in health research through the different DGs, RTD as well as SANTE,
CONNECT and GROW, and through the P2Ps, is much larger and with high impact. Nevertheless, the
visibility is associated with programs, not the EU as a whole. Member states, the largest investors, do not
have a common policy. Some national programs have strong visibility such as the Sanger Institute in the
UK, cancer research centers in Germany, the German centers for Health Research (DZG), and others. In
the cancer field a collaborative effort of multiple member states is growing but overall the field of health
research remains fragmented.

In comparison, the US National Institute of Health (NIH), the largest public funder of biomedical research
globally, presents a comprehensive, highly visible, program to enhance health and reduce illness and
disability. NIH promotes treatment and prevention, expands the biomedical knowledge base by funding
cutting-edge research and cultivating the biomedical workforce. Evidence of the varied, long-term impacts
of NIH activities is strongly publicized, ranging from specific studies to broader analyses of NIH as a whole
85,86
.

Canada has only recently brought together a number of more fragmented programs under the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) 87. Created in 2000, its mission is to create new scientific knowledge
and to enable its translation into improved health, more effective health services and products, and a
strengthened health care system. CIHR has different instruments, funding of both investigator-initiated
research, as well as research on targeted priority areas; building research capacity in under-developed
areas and training the next generation of health researchers. It aims for impact through new policies,
practices, procedures, products and services. Evidence of the impact of CIHR activities comes through the
Health Research in Action stories, and broader analyses. CIHR is part of the Health Portfolio which supports
the Minister of Health in maintaining and improving the health of Canadians 88.

The lack of visibility of the wide-ranging investment and success of programs

in health research in the EU contributes to the lack of societal recognition and European health
research needs
hampers engagement in global interactions. Synergy, coordination,
visibile leadership in
evaluation and dissemination of the impact and value of health research and
a joint action of EU
leadership under a European Council for Health Research can address these
and member states
weaknesses. The European organization cannot copy NIH or the CIHR, but
must find its unique strengths from the EU and member states
participation.

23
Indeed, several European countries have taken initiatives to address the challenges for health research
on a national level with strategic programs, that could propel joint actions.
• Countries have implemented research activities under the Ministry of Health, to address issues of
effectiveness of treatments, or identify priorities, as exemplified by the National Institute of Health
Research in the UK, and the Netherlands ZonMW agency. Portugal launched a joint initiative between
Ministries of Health and of Science and Education.
• Programs have been designed reach out beyond the national borders, e.g. between the Scandinavian
countries (NordForsk) or in Portugal in multilateral agreements.
• Policies are enunciating the need for a larger collaborative effort in Europe. For example, the Gago
conferences on European Science Policy, initiated in February 2018, provide an international forum to
strengthen the debate on emerging issues of research and innovation policy in Europe, and promote
the necessary involvement of major stakeholders in policy making and the diffusion of knowledge in
science education and culture. The Conferences seek also to strengthen international scientific and
technological cooperation networking in Europe towards a positive impact on a global scale 89.
• Strategic actions support collaborative research, across the borders of basic, clinical and innovation
research gets strategic support. Germany established six “German Centres for Health Research” (DZG),
focused on various disease areas such as cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, infectious diseases etc.
in order to improve the outcome of research and strengthen the translation into treatment and
application. In each centre, university institutes and institutionally funded research institutes
cooperate on jointly set out priorities in research and translation. The members and the centre itself
are quality monitored on a regular basis and the whole concept just went through a positive review
process. Each centre is specifically funded by the ministry. In France as well, six high level centers
(Instituts Hospitalo-Universitaires) were created each of them focused on one domain (cardiology,
genetics, neurology, cancer…). Other member state have developed strategic initiatives and funding
schemes for collaborative research to advance particular areas, e.g. for cardiovascular disease in the
Netherlands.

On a European level, large-scale, long-term comprehensive programs or strategies are still lacking. Existing
national consortia could become more inclusive by associating other member states and would help to
develop better coordinated national research strategies. The combination of national and European
structures and funding schemes would greatly enhance collaboration, quality, synergies, efficiency, impact
and visibility, and strengthen global competitiveness.

4. Health research requires cross-sectoral structures and a new model for collaboration

4.1. Towards synergy and a comprehensive policy for health research in Europe

Collaborative work in the framework programs originally consisted of individual research groups
embarking on a joint project within calls set out by the EC, with each call involving the Advisory Groups
and Program Committee. Many H2020 projects still follow this format but the funding landscape has grown
(Appendix 2).

24
ERA-NET and Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) were the next step: member states in P2P initiatives
commit to jointly funding programs laid out by the High Level Group on Joint Programming. Programs in
major disease areas (neurodegeneration, antimicrobial resistance, cardiovascular diseases) have been very
successful, but a shortcoming has been the weaker investment in health research towards clinical
implementation and innovation. As noted, the influence of research in the JPI on member state policies
has been limited and lack of a comprehensive strategy, and synergy with other instruments are major
shortcomings 90.

When considering how to enhance the impact of health research, the time has now arrived to think beyond
multilateral collaborations.

A comprehensive policy at a higher level should be developed by engaging all stakeholders as partners.
The EU-wide vision and strategic plan for funding in health research should cut across health care, science
and innovation, enhancing the alignment of EU and member state programs, identifying priority areas for
synergistic actions, and bringing an added level of societal involvement. Implementation, as supported by
targeted funding in novel partnerships that cross-borders and include multiple actors, would address
current limitations of fragmentation and continuity. Addressing and engaging society will contribute to
focusing on societal impact, with consequent economic benefit.

Moving to a next level of collaboration and synergy in Europe is an opportunity for simplification in the
current array of instruments, focusing on efficiency and societal impact for health.

4.2. A European Council for Health Research is a concept to boost health through
research

The SPH calls for establishing a European Council for Health Research as a body within the European
Commission. The European Council for Health Research should bridge different DGs in accordance with its
mission: to increase the impact of health research to achieve better health and well-being of citizens,
thereby creating societal and economic value for Europe and the world.

25
As was established during the SPH’s March 2018 Workshop on Impact, impact relates to ‘an effect on,
change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or
quality of life, beyond academia’. In addition to the need for excellence, professionalism, and resources,
delivering impact to patients also requires time. The European Council for Health Research focuses on
participative, people-centered, excellent research that is on the path beyond discovery and towards
implementation including translational science, i.e. turning knowledge into products. It will acknowledge
the continuum and re-iterative process from bench to bedside and back that is inherent to health research,
and include evaluation of societal and economic impact. This will close the circle of research, innovation
and health care, enabling feedback about opportunities, new discoveries and innovation.

Figure 6. Focus on participative, people-centered, excellent research that is on the path beyond discovery
and towards implementation

Research programs should focus on the mission to achieve societal impact and health gains with
excellence as guiding principle. Assessment of societal impact will be ingrained in the EuCHR activities. As
was established during the SPH’s 2018 Workshop on Impact (Appendix 1), planning for impact increases
the likelihood of achieving impact. Indicators for success need to be defined and followed through the
course of projects and beyond. Sustainability is essential for health impact.

To maximise impact the optimal framework should allow for customization and regional differences, as
exist in Europe. One potential design for an European Council for Health Research would be to orient it
around major societal challenges through the creation of Health Research Consortia around specific topics
(Figure 7). Many diseases require long-term commitments, yet programs should remain open to changing
conditions and demands.

26
Figure 7. One potential design for an EuHCR: orientation around societal challenges

A core for this type of organization already exists in some countries as described above and could be
expanded upon to build an organization that tackles priority areas (such as public health challenges,
healthy aging and mental health) holistically, using a comprehensive range of approaches (e.g. digital
innovation, health technology assessment) and cutting across research and health care. Consortia can
build upon national structures, creating and exploiting synergies between national and EU funding.
Additional funds from EuCHR can support the European coordination effort and stabilize structures of
excellence. Joint cross-border efforts would enhance the opportunities to create larger data repositories
for precision medicine and facilitate inclusive approaches, driving the mission to reduce inequalities across
Europe.
Within its mandate the European Council for Health Research will:
• Create a long-term vision & strategy for health research, science-led, ensuring citizens’
engagement at all levels.
• Engage member states & EU in joint actions to fund health research – across the R&D and
health care sector – and build novel partnerships with the private sector
• Provide visibility for European health research and engage with international partner
organizations and funders
Through its actions the European Council for Health Research will
• Provide the necessary extended time-window and breadth of collaboration needed for health
research by supporting successful multinational networks and scientific communities in
pursuing their strategies even after conclusion of EU funded projects
• Support the creation, maintenance and access to high quality, federated and accessible data
sources, so that digital opportunities can be leveraged, and facilitate access to European
research infrastructures.
• Support translational science to bring novel treatments to patients and bridge ‘gaps’ in the
network of health research towards implementation, including measures enabling rapid
approval when needed
• Use health research to address public health challenges and health inequalities in the EU and
beyond
• Focus on societal benefit with a long-term economic impact

27
With this mandate the European Council for Health Research will complement the strong discovery
programs within the ERC and the innovation-oriented research within the EIT Health and the intended
European Innovation Council. This is an ambitious proposal. To overcome Europe’s current health research
challenges requires a cohesive holistic view, developed through the comprehensive involvement of diverse
stakeholders, and strong balanced governance within the EuCHR.

4.3. Governance of a European Council for Health Research

The European Council for Health Research will provide guidance, leadership and support for health
research in Europe.

To organize the tasks, the governing bodies should include

• A science-led board of all stakeholders for policy and strategy development focused on
synergies, alignment and facilitating health research towards implementation in concert with all
stakeholders
• A translational, implementation board supervising health research programs and support for
novel partnerships in health research with funding that is complementary and additive to the
current budget
This dual mandate requires a balanced governance (Figure 8), between the policy sounding board, and the
translational experts’ board for the implementation. Care should be taken for strict separation of interests
and powers, when implementing programs (cfr. ERA governance). The Policy Board is the platform for
policy design and should be an inclusive stakeholders’ forum. The Translational Board should draw experts
from academia and implementation stakeholders and provide scientific guidance for programs within the
strategy and priorities of the Policy Board. Several high-level organizations can identify individuals to take
up positions in their expert capacity. Overall, the organization should be science-led, with an executive
group that comes from both the policy board and the translational board.

Figure 8. Governance of the EuCHR

28
The European Council for Health Research should be based within the European Commission, providing a
flexible and broad working environment, drawing on experience and leadership in EU-wide actions. The
EuCHR should bridge different DGs in accordance with its mission but needs to be anchored.
Owners of ongoing funding programs and representatives of existing European initiatives could join the
EuCHR Policy Board. The long-term aim is to simplify and defragment the European funding landscape
under the umbrella of the European Council for Health Research, creating a one-stop-shop for European
health research strategy, development and implementation and a clear entry point to European health
research expertise, infrastructures and funding.

4.4. EuCHR Resources and Funding

By creating synergies between funding programs in a comprehensive approach, the proposed EuCHR
creates opportunities to use the available budget more effectively and reduce waste. Hereby the EuCHR
can act as an honest broker between different stakeholders, explore national funding programs and
organize cross-border and cross-sectoral collaboration within similar focus areas for creating synergies and
optimizing resources.
Nevertheless, stepping up beyond the current H2020 budget by reaching out to additional funding sources
is necessary to ensure that health research funding expands to serve the strategic agenda. A re-allocation
within the existing budget is neither sufficient nor desirable. Funds dedicated to discovery research, such
as in the ERC, must be protected. Funding schemes must allow for inclusive program participation, beyond
EU membership.
Funding could be leveraged through a variety of mechanisms:
- From within the financial framework of the EU. Use of additional funding has previously been realized
for ambitious programs such as the IRDiRC, and for the AMR program. Dedicated use of European
Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) has been called for and applied in the health sector 91. The EU
should also provide the guidance and quality ensurance for the programs that are distributed among
participants.
- Partnership with national funding. Important research activities for the EuCHR fall under the authority
of health ministries. The involvement of national departments for health and science in negotiations
is therefore essential.
- Novel partnerships with the private sector. IMI and other PPP are valuable examples, but novel
avenue could be pursued, including payers and citizens b. Examples include pre-competitive PPP in
health technology and data-driven health-care solutions as well as new collaboration frameworks like
academia's participation in industrial development teams and technology networks, the creation of
joint-value programs and resource-sharing, and development of new business models with enhanced
societal responsibility.
- EuCHR will provide mechanisms to allow Europe to speak with one voice and create synergies in
funding with international funding institutions more efficiently.

b
For example, for big data, the “Big Data Value Public-Private Partnership”, for medical technologies the “ECSEL Joint
Undertaking”.

29
4.5. EuCHR – added value for the EU

A European Council for Health Research enhances competitiveness, provides visibility and creates added
value:
• For the political leadership in Europe: a next logical step in a growing program around health –
providing scientific leadership and visibility to the program – facilitating intersectoral collaboration –
mobilizing additional resources – responding to citizens’ primary concern – speaking with one voice
for Europe
• For the health research community: sustainability for very ambitious approaches and long-term
projects, preventing loss of investment in time and resources
• For funders: optimizing resources – potential for intensified collaboration & mobility – an instrument
for stronger global interactions
• For society: enhanced possibility for engagement and participation – benefit through better health and
reduction of inequalities
• For industry: a platform for participative decision making – potential for novel partnerships & faster
path to market

A comprehensive policy and strategy can take full advantage of inputs from each country to promote
interdisciplinary team science (http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/38721-56defebabba91.pdf/)
and provide a sound mechanism for developing standard operating procedures for pan-European
Research. It can enable combining the experience of different countries in helping others in building their
research activity.

A European Council for Health Research can create a stronger connection to other large bodies dealing
with research such as the NIH with increased opportunities to contribute to Global Health agenda.

Faster innovation, better, easier, avoiding waste of time and of money, heading the international
competition.

4.6. Implementation and translation into practice

The proposal for a European Council for Health Research to increase the societal impact of health research
and thereby improve health calls for political action.
Global leadership has already expressed the need for action in health and the proposal aligns with several
resolutions and recommendations at the highest level. Good health and wellbeing is number three of the
2015 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations 56. In the United States, a consensus study
report of the National Academies set out a path for global health and the role of the US, emphasizing the
importance of international collaborative efforts, of improving R&D processes and developing digital
health 92. The World Economic Forum 2016 has emphasized the value in health care 12 as has the High-
Level Strategy Group on Industrial Technologies (2017) 10. The report of the High Level Group on
maximizing the impact of the EU R&I Programmes (2017) 1 stressed the importance of a mission-oriented,
impact-focused approach to address global challenges, to align EU and national R&I investment and to
mobilise and involve citizens.
A European Council for Health Research responds to these recommendations and can provide the
necessary leadership for a mission-driven 93 research program.
The most important voice to consider comes from society. Health is the major concern of citizens.
Therefore measures to improve health should be high on the agenda.

30
As stated at the 2017 World Health Summit, health is a political choice. The current dialogue on the future
of the EU should include actions to bring health research in Europe to the next level, with inclusive, visible
leadership and impactful programs. The road to implementation of a European Council for Health Research
requires intense consultation and open exchanges of stakeholders and policymakers, spanning the
domains of health and health care, science and innovation, and finances. Those discussions will reveal
difficulties but may also identify additional opportunities.
Engaging in this dialogue is urgent and necessary.

31
References
1. High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes. LAB–FAB–
APP. Investing in the European future we want. Luxembourg, 2017. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/hlg_201
7_report.pdf
2. European Commission - Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. 30 Years EU Research
Framework Programmes 1984 - 2014.
https://ec.europa.eu/research/pdf/publications/horizon30_dc_online.pdf Last accessed: March 28, 2018
3. Bouillon R, Slordahl S, Nogueira MM, et al. Public investment in biomedical research in Europe.
Lancet (London, England) 2015; 386(10001): 1335.
4. Scientific Panel for Health. Better research for better health. A vision for health and biomedical
research from the Scientific Panel for Health, 2016. Available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/scientific-panel-health-sph
5. Scientific Panel for Health workshop programmes and reports are available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/scientific-panel-health-sph
6. Alliance for Biomedical Research in Europe. Horizon 2020: Addressing the Health Challenge.
Available from: https://www.biomedeurope.org/news-press.html?start=20.
7. Celis JE, Gago JM. Shaping science policy in Europe. Molecular Oncology 2014; 8(3): 447-57.
8. Lamy P. Speech by Pascal Lamy, Chair of the High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU
research and innovation programmes. https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/speech_pascal-
lamy_03072017.pdf Last accessed: March 28, 2018
9. Mazzucato M. Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union A problem-solving
approach to fuel innovation-led growth. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union,, 2018.
Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/mazzucato_report_2018.pdf
10. European Commission. Re-finding industry. Report from the High-Level Strategy Group on
Industrial Technologies, 2018. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/re_finding_industry_022018.pdf
11. M8 Alliance. M8 Alliance Declaration. World Health Summit 2017. Health is a political choice, 2017.
Available from:
https://d1wjxwc5zmlmv4.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/2017/WHS_Berlin/Data/M8
_Alliance_Declaration_2017_Berlin.pdf
12. World Economic Forum. Value in Healthcare. https://www.weforum.org/projects/value-in-
healthcare Last accessed: March 28, 2018
13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Healthcare costs
unsustainable in advanced economies without reform. Press release, 24/9/2015.
14. Wooding SH, S; Pollit,t A; Buxton, M; Grant, J. Project Retrosight: Understanding the returns from
cardiovascular and stroke research: The Policy Report: Rand Corporation, 2011. Available from:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1079.html
15. Glover M, Buxton M, Guthrie S, Hanney S, Pollitt A, Grant J. Estimating the returns to UK publicly
funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes. BMC Medicine
2014; 12: 99.
16. Sobocki P, Lekander I, Berwick S, Olesen J, Jonsson B. Resource allocation to brain research in
Europe (RABRE). The European Journal of Neuroscience 2006; 24(10): 2691-3.
17. Glover M, Montague E, Pollitt A, et al. Estimating the returns to United Kingdom publicly funded
musculoskeletal disease research in terms of net value of improved health outcomes. Health Research
Policy and Systems 2018; 16(1): 1.
18. Marjanovic SG, I; Yang, M; Knack, A;. Understanding value in health data ecosystems: A review of
current evidence and ways forward: RAND Corporation, 2017. Available from:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1972.html

32
19. Neagu OM, Michelsen K, Watson J, Dowdeswell B, Brand H. Addressing health inequalities by using
Structural Funds. A question of opportunities. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2017; 121(3): 300-
6.
20. Murauskiene L, Karanikolos M. The role of the European Structural and Investment Funds in
Financing Health System in Lithuania: Experience from 2007 to 2013 funding period and implications for
the future. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2017; 121(7): 727-30.
21. World Health Organization (WHO). 8th Global Conference on Health Promotion - Statement on
Health in All Policies. Helsinki; 2013.
22. Shash E, Negrouk A, Marreaud S, Golfinopoulos V, Lacombe D, Meunier F. International clinical
trials setting for rare cancers: organisational and regulatory constraints-the EORTC perspective.
Ecancermedicalscience 2013; 7: 321.
23. Broes SL, D; Verlinden, M; Huys, I. Sharing human samples and patient data: Opening Pandora’s
box. J Cancer Policy 2017; 13: 65-9.
24. Negrouk A, Lacombe D, Meunier F. Diverging EU health regulations: The urgent need for co
ordination and convergence. J Cancer Policy 2018; in press.
25. Rasi G, Bonini S. Innovative medicines: new regulatory procedures for the third millennium. Expert
opinion on biological therapy 2015; 15 Suppl 1: S5-8.
26. European Medicines Agency. Adaptive pathways: key learnings and next steps.
(EMA/484516/2016 - availabe online).
27. Mc Cord KA, Al-Shahi Salman R, Treweek S, et al. Routinely collected data for randomized trials:
promises, barriers, and implications. Trials 2018; 19(1): 29.
28. Widschwendter M, Jones A, Evans I, et al. Epigenome-based cancer risk prediction: rationale,
opportunities and challenges. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 2018.
29. Jameson JL, Longo DL. Precision medicine--personalized, problematic, and promising. The New
England Journal of Medicine 2015; 372(23): 2229-34.
30. Nimmesgern E, Benediktsson I, Norstedt I. Personalized Medicine in Europe. Clinical and
Translational Science 2017; 10(2): 61-3.
31. KNAW. Evaluation of new technology in health care. In need of guidance for relevant evidence.
Amsterdam, NL, 2014. Available from: https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/evaluation-of-new-
technology-in-health-care
32. Nimmesgern E, Norstedt I, Draghia-Akli R. Enabling personalized medicine in Europe by the
European Commission’s funding activities. Personalized Med 2017; 14(4): 355-65.
33. IC PerMed. The ICPerMed Action Plan, 2017. Available from:
https://www.icpermed.eu/media/content/ICPerMed_Actionplan_2017_web.pdf
34. ERAPerMed. Joint Transnational Call for Proposals (2018) for “research projects on personalised
medicine - smart combination of pre-clinical research with data and ICT solutions”. 2018.
35. Leyens L, Hackenitz E; Horgan D, Richer E, Brand A, Bußhoff U, Ballensiefen W. CSA PERMED:
Europe’s commitment to personalised medicine. EuroHealth - Quarterly European Observatory on Health
Systems and Policies 2014; 20(3): 41-4 (available from http://www.euro.who.int/en/about-
us/partners/observatory/publications/eurohealth/full-list-of-past-issues/electing-health-the-europe-we-
want).
36. Crosby DB, Brocklehurst P, Chamberlain C, Dive C, Holmes C, Isaacs J, Kennedy R, Matthews F,
Parmar M, Pearce J, Westhead D, Whitaker J, Holgate S. The MRC Framework for the Development, Design
and Analysis of Stratified Medicine Research.: MRC UK, 2015. Available from:
https://www.mrc.ac.uk/publications/browse/mrc-framework-for-stratified-medicine/
37. Kirchhof P, Sipido KR, Cowie MR, et al. The continuum of personalized cardiovascular medicine: a
position paper of the European Society of Cardiology. European Heart Journal 2014; 35(46): 3250-7.
38. Gago JZ, J; Caro, P; Constantinou, C; Davies, G; Parchmannn, I; Rannikmae, M; Sjoberg, S. Increasing
human resources for science and technology in Europe: High Level Group on Human Resources for Science
and Technology, 2004. Available from:
https://www.eirma.org/sites/www.eirma.org/files/doc/documents/EU/HLG-2004-gago-
HumanResource.pdf

33
39. European Commission - Community Research and Development Information Service. Gago says
Europe still needs more. https://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/14651_en.html Last accessed: March 28,
2018
40. Moedas C. MacCormick Lecture 2017 - The Future of EU Research and Innovation.
https://www.rse.org.uk/event/the-future-of-eu-research-and-innovation/ Last accessed: March 28, 2018
41. Schuhmacher A, Gassmann O, Hinder M. Changing R&D models in research-based pharmaceutical
companies. Journal of Translational Medicine 2016; 14(1): 105.
42. Pharma industry’s return on R&D investment falls sharply. Financial Times.
43. Li D, Azoulay P, Sampat BN. The applied value of public investments in biomedical research. Science
(New York, NY) 2017; 356(6333): 78-81.
44. Azoulay P, Zivin JSG, Sampat BN, Li D. Public R & D Investments and Private-sector Patenting :
Evidence from NIH Funding Rules, 2016. Available from:
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/ame_05_16_li.pdf
45. Haussig JM, Severi E, Baum JH, et al. The European Medical Corps: first Public Health Team mission
and future perspectives. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European
communicable disease bulletin 2017; 22(37).
46. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The EU Role
in Global Health, 2010. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/communication-
eu-role-in-global-health-com2010128-20100331_en.pdf
47. Lebov J, Grieger K, Womack D, et al. A framework for One Health research. One Health
(Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2017; 3: 44-50.
48. European Commission. A European One Health Action Plan against Antimicrobial Resistance
(AMR), 2017. Available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/health/amr/sites/amr/files/amr_action_plan_2017_en.pdf
49. Global Citizen. Health. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/issue/health/ Last accessed: March 28,
2018
50. World Values Survey. What we do. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp Last
accessed: March 28, 2018
51. Duffy BA, S;. What worries the world? https://www.ipsos.com/en/what-worries-world-july-2017
Last accessed: March 28, 2018
52. European Commission. State of Health in the EU: Companion Report 2017, 2017. Available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state/docs/2017_companion_en.pdf
53. European Commission. Investing in health. Social investment package. Commission staff working
document, 2013. Available from:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/swd/com_swd(2013)0043_/com_sw
d(2013)0043_en.pdf
54. European Commission. The EU explained: Public Health, 2013. Available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/health_policies/docs/improving_health_for_all_eu_citize
ns_en.pdf
55. European Parliament. health and social security - Eurobarometer.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/eurobarometer-052017/default_en.htm#health Last
accessed: March 28, 2018
56. United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Development Goal 3.
Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg3 Last accessed: March 28, 2018
57. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Health Statistics.
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm Last accessed: April 13, 2018
58. Eurostat. Statistics explained - R&D expenditure. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/R_%26_D_expenditure#R_.26_D_expenditure_by_sector_of_performance Last
accessed: April 13, 2018

34
59. Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. Investing in European health R&D - A pathway to sustained innovation
and stronger economies: Deloitte Health Economics Group, 2013. Available from:
http://www.janssen.com/emea/sites/www_janssen_com_emea/files/pdf/328670_janssen_rd_study_re
port_2_v6_lr.pdf
60. European Multiple Sclerosis Platform. Real World Evidence data, key to equitable health care
systems? ; Press release, 7/3/2017.
61. Scientific Panel for Health. The next generation health research workforce - executive summary,
2016. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/scientific-panel-
health-sph
62. Yozwiak NL, Schaffner SF, Sabeti PC. Data sharing: Make outbreak research open access. Nature
2015; 518(7540): 477-9.
63. Delaunay S, Kahn P, Tatay M, Liu J. Knowledge sharing during public health emergencies: from
global call to effective implementation. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2016; 94(4): 236-a.
64. Dye C, Bartolomeos K, Moorthy V, Kieny MP. Data sharing in public health emergencies: a call to
researchers. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2016; 94(3): 158.
65. Wesolowski A, Buckee CO, Bengtsson L, Wetter E, Lu X, Tatem AJ. Commentary: containing the
ebola outbreak - the potential and challenge of mobile network data. PLoS currents 2014; 6.
66. European Commission. European Open Science Cloud Declaration, 2017. Available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/eosc_declaration.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none
67. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data
management and stewardship. Scientific data 2016; 3: 160018.
68. Innovative Medicines Initiative. Homepage. http://www.imi.europa.eu Last accessed: March 29,
2018
69. Innovative Medicines Initiative. Bibliometric analysis of ongoing projects: Innovative Medicines
Initiative Joint Undertaking, 2017. Available from:
https://www.imi.europa.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/reference-
documents/IMI_PublicationAnalysis_2017.pdf
70. Stevens H, Van Overwalle G, Van Looy B, Huys I. Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Case Study
Analysis Reveals the True Added Value of Early-Phase Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). Biotechnology
Law Report 2015; 34(4): 153-65.
71. European Patients Academy. Patient education! The A to Z of medicines. https://www.eupati.eu
Last accessed: March 29, 2018
72. Celis JE, Pavalkis D. A mission-oriented approach to cancer in Europe: a joint mission/vision 2030.
Molecular oncology 2017; 11(12): 1661-72.
73. Gal D, Glanzel W, Sipido KR. Mapping cross-border collaboration and communication in
cardiovascular research from 1992 to 2012. European Heart Journal 2017; 38(16): 1249-58.
74. European Commission. Evaluation of the Action Plan against the rising threats from antimicrobial
resistance, 2016. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/amr/sites/amr/files/amr_evaluation_2011-
16_evaluation-action-plan.pdf
75. Innovative Medicines Initiative. ND4BB - New Drugs for Bad Bugs.
http://www.imi.europa.eu/projects-results/project-factsheets/nd4bb Last accessed: March 28, 2018
76. The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC). Homepage. http://www.irdirc.org
Last accessed: March 29, 2018
77. Slingsby BT, Kurokawa K. The Global Health Innovative Technology (GHIT) Fund: financing medical
innovations for neglected populations. The Lancet Global health 2013; 1(4): e184-5.
78. The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC). Progress Made in Rare Disease
Research. http://www.irdirc.org/research/progress-made-in-rdr/ Last accessed: March 29, 2018
79. European Reference Networks. https://ec.europa.eu/health/ern_en Last accessed: April 13, 2018
80. Cancer Core Europe. Homepage. https://www.cancercoreeurope.eu Last accessed: March 29,
2018
81. Holub P, Swertz M, Reihs R, van Enckevort D, Muller H, Litton JE. BBMRI-ERIC Directory: 515
Biobanks with Over 60 Million Biological Samples. Biopreservation and Biobanking 2016; 14(6): 559-62.

35
82. European Commission. Human Brain Project Flagship. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/human-brain-project Last accessed: April 13, 2018
83. EIT Health. Home page. https://www.eithealth.eu/home Last accessed: April 13, 2018
84. Pries AR, Naoum A, Habazettl H, et al. CardioScape mapping the cardiovascular funding landscape
in Europe. European Heart Journal 2018; 39: 2423–2430.
85. National Institutes of Health. The 21st century National Institutes of Health, 2017. Available from:
https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/about-nih/discovery-into-health/nih-turning-discovery-into-
health.pdf
86. United for Medical Research. NIH’s Role in Sustaining the U.S. Economy 2018 Update, 2018.
Available from: http://www.unitedformedicalresearch.com/advocacy_reports/nihs-role-in-sustaining-
the-u-s-economy-2018-update/
87. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Homepage. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/193.html Last
accessed: March 29, 2018
88. The Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation. Funding to support reasearch and innovation in
Ontario. https://www.ontario.ca/page/research-funding Last accessed: March 28, 2018
89. Gago Conferences. The Gago Conferences on European Science Policy. https://www.gagoconf.org
Last accessed: March 28, 2018
90. European Commission - Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Evaluation of Joint
Programming to Address Grand Societal Challenges - Final Report of the Expert Group, 2016. Available
from: https://www.era-learn.eu/publications/ec-publications/evaluation-of-joint-programming-to-
address-grand-societal-challenges-final-report-of-the-expert-group Last accessed: March 28, 2018
91. McCarthy M. Health and the European Structural Funds in the new member states. European
journal of public health 2013; 23(3): 522-3.
92. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Global Health and the Future Role of
the United States. Washington DC, 2017. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24737/global-
health-and-the-future-role-of-the-united-states
93. European Commission. Bold science to meet big challenges: independent report calls for mission-
oriented EU research and innovation. Press release, Feb 22, 2018.
94. World Health Organization. http://www.euro.who.int/en/data-and-evidence/european-health-
information-initiative-ehii

36
Appendix 1. WORKSHOP 8-9 MARCH 2018 ‘IMPACT OF HEALTH RESEARCH FOR SOCIETY’ - EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

Research funders and program designers are constantly challenged to maintain an effective and efficient
funding system in order to allocate resources, while justifying the investments in scientific research towards
their stakeholders. Estimating the returns arising from health research demonstrates accountability for public
and charitable research funding to taxpayers and donors.

In the field of health research, it is difficult to describe systematically the nature and extent of the returns to
the investment of a whole body of health research, some of which may inevitably be less fruitful. By definition,
research activities are risky and their returns can be unpredictable. Nevertheless, it is important to understand
how underlying research is translated into benefit for patients and people, the economy and society as a
whole, and look beyond financial value.

The workshop aimed to gain better insight in the nature of societal impact, as expected by different
stakeholders, how to measure impact and whether impact can be enhanced through better design of research
funding programs.

Impact has specific meaning and value for research funders, health care payers, patients and society.

In the UK, the research evaluation framework and related studies offer insight in different types of impact
from biomedical and health research and ways of assessing impact. In the direct impact, a monetary gain can
be calculated, as well as health gain, but there can be long time lag. Additional impact comes from spillovers
in other sectors. Besides effectiveness, it is also important to consider efficiency of the funds invested.

As a major funder, the European Commission is bound to evaluate impact of its research programs. While this
process is set out in the H2020 regulation, the Commission also is building new tools for better insight, taking
into account the time lag in biomedical and health research and using mixed methods. The mid-term
evaluation emphasized the need to enhance societal value of the research funding programs.

The rising costs of health care are a major challenge to the social system and are not necessarily translating in
improved life expectancy and quality of life. A re-design of health care, patient-centred and with clear
standards to measure outcomes may curb what could otherwise become an unsustainable system.
Incorporating new knowledge requires methods to assess effectiveness and above all the political will to
implement changes, involving all stakeholders in the process. The patient should be a co-producer, systems
should be driven by knowledge, focused on value, and meet challenges with transformation.

When considering public health, health inequalities across different social groups are not sufficiently taken
into account. Prevention and health promotion remain subsidiary to ‘cure and care’ but could have major
impact on public health. Multidisciplinary approaches including education and behavioral sciences can
enhance effectiveness of programs. Pro-active dissemination of this evidence to policy-makers will incentivize
further investment for stronger societal impact.

Health gain is a major element of socio-economic impact and needs better tools. Registries and real-world
data need cross-border agreed-upon standards for outcome measurements. Investigator-driven health
research and implementation studies can enhance insight into effectiveness and need more support. Lastly,
the workforce for implementation and assessment needs to be nurtured. Physician burnout is a threat and a
there is a shortage of data science experts to extract real value from the vast amount of data that becomes
available.

37
Assessing impact of biomedical research – an evolving field requiring broad inclusion of stakeholders and
adapted methods

Evaluation of the impact of research programs uses key performance indicators but needs to move beyond
the classic numerical output data, such as bibliometrics, that policymakers have come to rely on. When
assessing broader societal impact, different indicators that are project-specific are necessary. The long
timeline for translation and implementation of knowledge into products should be considered. As used in the
UK exercise, narratives can be very powerful to capture impact across the long timeline and an effective means
of communication to the broader public.

Canada has a strong track record in impact assessment and Alberta Innovates has developed a fine-grained
model to assess impact of programs on ‘health and wealth’. Important elements include the planning for
impact within the program design, considering who will benefit and the long term, sustainability, with
evaluations along every step of the program and beyond. This requires the use of multiple types of data, mixed
methods and cross-sectoral approaches.

Patients’ experiences underscore the value of broad stakeholders’ involvement. Insights from registries
depend on data quality and stimulated by an initiative of the European Medicines Agency patients were
instrumental in the stakeholders’ collaboration to improve data collection and quality.

When emphasizing the importance of impact, it is equally important to consider that success cannot be
guaranteed and that open, investigator-driven bottom-up discovery science can be (the start of a chain of)
impactful research. This needs to be treasured, and a level of trust, and sufficient risk-taking are essential to
advance knowledge and subsequent impact. ‘Negative’ data are important and need proper channels for
information sharing as they are not highly valued in the classic publication channels.

Assessment of impact requires expertise and experience, and further research to optimize methodology is
essential. Equally important is the inclusion of researchers to effect a change in culture and the researchers’
engagement to consider and to show the value of their research.

Designing health research for impact requires co-creation and communication

The Innovative Medicines Initiatives’ program of the European Commission was set up to accelerate the
innovation process in drug development, creating a public-private partnership to share risk and data between
companies and the public sector. IMI programs have been focused on outcomes that are transformative for
industry and with clear value for society. Evaluation of impact is an ongoing exercise and includes developing
clear communication to all stakeholders.

Public funding of health research administered through the Dutch Organization for Health Research and
Development (ZonMw) focuses on promoting implementation of knowledge into action. In its activities,
ZonMw includes patients and stakeholders and applies methods for impact assessment at different levels for
accountability, analysis and allocation of its programs. This approach ensures data that are apt for advocacy
towards policymakers.

In the UK, the government has been responsive to impact evaluations and designed new policies that include
the creation of an overarching body bringing together different research councils and bodies. Impact has
become part of the program design and impact must be embedded in research proposals and reporting. The
methods for assessment need however further refining to be ‘minimally invasive’ and as noted above, this
requires dedicated expert research, as part of developing science on science policy.

38
The health programs within the European Commission are geared towards moving beyond evaluation of
reaching program objectives and increasing impact. This requires translation of outcomes data in actionable
plans for health care. Focusing on implementation of knowledge, the Commission can take a lead as a broker
across borders, and work with member states. Sustainability is one of aims.

As a charitable foundation Wellcome, is engaging with the research community and with the public in program
design and in evaluation of impact for society. Wellcome uses different indicators to measure success and
considers policy changes as one of the higher levels of impact. A continuous and in depth public dialogue,
including addressing controversial issues, is part of the process.

At INSERM, general principles guiding research policies for funding seek to balance programs with short- and
long-term impact, and between society’s priorities and objective needs. Creating political will to address
barriers for implementation of research results needs the gathering of all stakeholders, including patients and
payers. Anticipating and addressing ethical issues that may arise during implementation reduces later barriers.

Co-creation and broad stakeholders’ engagement during project planning (funding stage), translation and
through the innovation chain are means to enhance impact. The final steps of pricing, reimbursement and
access to products must be part of the planning and payers should be involved at early stages. Comprehensive,
long-term follow-up and cross-border collaboration will enhance impact.

Conclusions and recommendations

• Societal impact of health research includes but is not limited to economic return. Economic return
can be calculated and is substantial. A long time-frame must be taken into account.
• Health gains, reducing inequalities and cost containment of health care are specific aims for impact
of health research. Health research needs better tools for achieving these specific impacts, including
cross-border standards and high quality data on outcomes.
• Implementation of research results to achieve these impacts requires transformative action with a
culture change in the professional and research community, and inclusion of dedicated data
scientists.
• Research projects should be designed in co-creation with all stakeholders, putting health promotion
and patients’ outcomes at the centre, planning for impact from the start and anticipating on
potential barriers to implementation.
• Indicators for success need to be defined and followed through the course of projects and beyond.
Sustainability is essential for health impact.
• Communication and public dialogue are essential to achieve societal impact and engage with
policymakers.
• Evaluating and facilitating impact requires expertise. Increased investment and research on impact
evaluation are necessary.

39
40
Appendix 2. A history of European research programs

European research funding has evolved from a handful of separate programmes, to become a major
component of the research and innovation landscape in Europe c. The progression of the research landscape
is described in this section.

1970s and early 1980s: No legal Research activities were a key component of the Treaties establishing the
framework for research, first European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 and the European Atomic
research programmes adopted Energy Community in 1957. However, EU research funding was limited
on the basis of Article 235 of to coal, steel and atomic energy, and there were no provisions related to
the EEC Treaty research policy in the Treaty establishing the European Economic
Community (EEC) in 1958.

It was not until 1972 that the European Commission (EC) proposed to
define and implement a Community research policy. d This initiative was
justified not only by the Community enlargement but also by the need
for the Community to face increasing 'competition through innovation',
especially from the United States and Japan. This initiative was also
based on evidence that large research programmes addressing social
needs were required. This common policy wbased on two dimensions:
the coordination of national research policies and the cooperation of the
Member States.

1984: First FP In 1984, the first framework programme (FP) was created to rationalise
research funding under a single framework.

The first FPs in the 1980s and 1990s (FP1 to FP5) were small and initially
supported fundamental research. The Single European Act, signed in
1986: Single European Act and 1986, included for the first time a specific chapter on research, which put
research policy in the treaty the emphasis on applied research aiming at supporting the
competitiveness of European industry and enshrined research policy in
the EEC Treaty. It defined coordination of national research policies, and
provided a legal framework for the adoption of the Community FP for
research.

The main aim of the FP was to define the objectives, i.e. the topics and
Development of FPs areas on which research cooperation will be funded at Community level.
In the first three FP, the coordination of national and Community policies

c
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/horizon-magazine-eu-research-framework-programmes-
1984-2014
d
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)579098

41
 remained at a preliminary stage e. A wider international dimension was progressively
built into EU research policy. Transnational cooperation was progressively extended
to more and more countries beyond the EU. In recent years, the Framework
Programmes have also featured new forms of support in the field. They favoured the
creation of large joint undertakings that bring public and private actors together,
while Member States (MS) have gradually increased the level of research
coordination.

In 2000 the European Research Area (ERA) was launched which allowed public-public
2000: ERA and public-private partnerships.

2002-2006 saw the launch of FP6 and in 2007 the Lisbon treaty came into action. It
2002-2006: FP6 recognised research as a shared competence and provided the legal basis to
implement ERA. The first ERA-NET scheme for public-public partnerships in member
state collaborative programs was launched under FP6e.
2007: Lisbon treaty & ERA
FP7 was conducted between 2007-2013 with several new initiatives. The European
2007-2013: FP7 Research Council introduced a funding scheme to support investigator-driven
frontier research across all fields, on the basis of scientific excellenceh. The
ERC, IMI, JPI
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) set up public-private partnerships in health
researchg. Joint Programming Initiatives (JPI) were set up in 2008 to pool and
integrate national research efforts in order to make better use of Europe’s public
Research and Development (R&D) resources and to tackle common European
challenges more effectively in a few key areas. They were designed to overcome the
fragmentation of national research programmes, via alignment and research
funding, and to create a common research agenda, e.g. in antimicrobial resistance
(AMR) and neurodegenerative research. JPI have a bottom-up approach and
research topics are not pre-selected. They require a high-level commitment from
Member States and are part of the ERA-NET Cofund instrument that regrouped all
ERA-NET actions under H2020. The management board involves each member
country. Funding is from MS and limited funding is provided by the EC FP. The
Member States agree, on a voluntary basis, on a common research program to
address challenges.

2014 - 2020: H2020 The Horizon2020 framework program (H2020) was launched in 2014 and will finish
in 2020. A 2016 review of ERA-Net Cofund and JPIs by an appointed expert panel
noted that significant issues are being addressed that are beyond the scope and
resources of individual countries. f,f However, it was also noted that the instrument
has limited impact on policies and that its potential is not realized.

e
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/579097/EPRS_IDA(2016)579097_EN.pdf
e
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/partnership_en.htm
f
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/joint-programming-documents_en.htm
g
https://www.imi.europa.eu/about-imi
h
https://erc.europa.eu/

42
Appendix 3. Case studies of strong EU programs
Here a few examples are presented of programs in the health area, and by nature this list is limited and non-
exhaustive. The aim is to illustrate a few different types of stakeholder involvement and of evolution of
programs.

Innovative Medicines Initiative

The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI, www.imi.europa.eu) is one of five Joint Technology Initiatives, and is
the world's biggest public-private partnership (PPP) in the life sciences. The aim of IMI is to improve health by
speeding up the development of, and patient access to innovative medicines, particularly in areas where there
is an unmet medical or social need. IMI was launched in 2008 with projects focusing on specific health issues
such as neurological conditions (Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, depression, chronic pain, and autism),
diabetes, lung disease, oncology, inflammation & infection, tuberculosis, and obesity. Other projects focused
on broader challenges in drug development like drug and vaccine safety, knowledge management, the
sustainability of chemical drug production, the use of stem cells for drug discovery, drug behaviour in the body,
the creation of a European platform to discover novel medicines, and antimicrobial resistance.

The IMI 2 program, launched in 2014 and running for 10 years, will build on the successes and lessons learnt
under IMI's first phase, and is intended to provide Europeans, including the increasing numbers of older
people, with more efficient and effective medicines and treatments. Cost savings will ease the burden on
public healthcare systems, and greater coordination across industry sectors will result in more reliable and
faster clinical trials, and better regulation.
Analyses of the results of IMI projects highlight the benefits of this way of working: tracking the citation index
of research papers coming out of IMI projects reveals that the citation impact of IMI papers is twice the world
average and significantly higher than the EU average. In addition, a study of the selected projects’ outputs
found that IMI projects are generating products and knowledge that could prove valuable from a business
point of view as well as direct health impact.

• In 2014, during the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, tens of thousands of people became infected with the
disease and thousands were killed. Under difficult circumstances, IMI’s EBODAC project set out to develop
a community engagement and communications strategy to help IMI’s EBOVAC1 project conduct a large
clinical trial to test a promising new Ebola vaccine regimen and is followed by new programs to speed up
clinical vaccine development.
• The IMI EUROPAIN project led to Europe having a stronger position in understanding nerve pain, and it
has also triggered more research activity – a number of new projects are building on the EUROPAIN results.
• By bringing together the largest existing databases and biobanks on diabetes complications, the IMI
project SUMMIT identified important soluble biomarkers which will help speed up the development of
new medications. In the long-term, this could help patients have access to treatments earlier and lead to
the development of better and more personalized medicine. Biomarkers are an important area for IMI to
develop personalizd medicine, building on registries and biobanks as in BIGDATA@Heart.
• The IMI project SAFE-T focuses on new biomarkers that allow detection of drug side-effects earlier and

43
 more accurately than in the past and is alos linked to other initiatives on drug safety.

Antimicrobial resistance
The EU has also played an important role in the fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The activity in
AMR is special and powerful as it has engaged different DGs within the EC, built on strong partnerships of EC
and member states, and generated a global awareness and collaboration.

• A campaign in Belgium and France over antibiotic misuse (2000-2002) would not have been possible
without an EU-funded project that collected necessary and highly compelling data on the scale of the
problem. Both campaigns led to crucial decreases in antibiotic use and resistance among non-hospitalized
patients. Furthermore, EU-funded, independent studies have demonstrated how the campaigns produced
positive changes in clinician- and patient attitudes and behaviour towards antibiotic use.
• Inspired by the success of the antibiotic misuse campaign, the European Commission lent its support to
the first European Antibiotic Awareness Day in 2008. This became an annual event, and in 2015 was scaled
up to become the World Antibiotic Awareness Week, now coordinated by the World Health Organization.
• An IMI project concerning antimicrobial resistance, New Drugs for Bad Bugs or ND4BB
(https://www.imi.europa.eu/content/nd4bb), aims to combat antibiotic resistance in Europe by tackling
the scientific, regulatory, and business challenges that are hampering the development of new antibiotics.
• EU funding has enabled a comparison of antibiotic resistance in many hospitals throughout Europe. A
project identified huge differences between countries in the proportion of infections that were resistant
to antibiotics. The data provided a call to arms for many policymakers in member states, and national
plans were rolled out for the first time to address the crisis. These initiatives have resulted in a notable
reduction in infections caused by the superbug MRSA in hospitals throughout Europe.
• EU grants have supported the investigation of antibiotic use in food-producing animals in Europe. Findings
illustrated that the Netherlands was one of the highest European users of antibiotics in farming. After a
debate in the Dutch parliament, the Dutch minister of agriculture set mandatory targets for reduced
antibiotic use in animal husbandry. Dutch farmers achieved these ambitious reductions ahead of schedule
and there are clear indications that antibiotic resistance is decreasing in animals in the Netherlands. As
food and associated resistant bacteria cross national borders, this increase in meat safety has benefitted
Dutch consumers as well as consumers throughout Europe.

Cancer Core Europe

Cancer Core Europe (CCE) builds upon the efforts of previous European consortia such as the Eurocan Platform
that was funded by the European Commission under FP7. CCE members, supported through member states,
have engaged in a mission to reshape the cancer research model. The aim is to conduct cutting-edge research
that is effectively translated to the clinic and will deliver more personalized medicine.

CCE can pave the way for a multi-site cancer institute in Europe for development of new treatments and earlier
diagnoses for patients and more effective cancer prevention for Europe’s citizens. Towards this end, an
innovative approach will be taken to*

• sharing genomic and biological marker data as well as clinical and imaging data, then developing
predictive modelling by mining this shared data,

44
 • developing biomarkers (e.g. immune markers) and clinical imaging technologies to predict response
to therapy,
• running cutting-edge clinical trials across all six centres with harmonized procedures,
• training the future generation of researchers and clinicians.
*https://www.cancercoreeurope.eu/who-we-are/

Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure

http://www.bbmri-eric.eu/BBMRI-ERIC/about-us/

In 2008, Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure, BBMRI, was one of the first projects
entering the European Research Infrastructure Preparatory Phase of the ESFRI roadmap funded by the
European Commission, lasting for 3 years until January 2011. At this time, BBMRI had grown into a 54-member
consortium with more than 225 associated organisations (largely biobanks) from over 30 countries

The BBMRI was awarded ERIC Legal Status on 3 December 2013 in an agreement between member states
under the specific EC Council Regulation. BBMRI-ERIC is a distributed research infrastructure in European
Member States. Currently 19 Member States and one International Organisation are involved, making it one
of the largest research infrastructures in Europe. The new status is facilitating the joint establishment and
operation, bringing together biobanks and biomolecular resources into a pan-European facility and providing
access to collections of partner biobanks and biomolecular resources, their expertise and services on a non-
economic basis.

45
46
Appendix 4. Scientific Panel for Health members

Chair

Karin Sipido (BE) Professor, Chair of Experimental Cardiology, Department of

Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven

Members

Fernando Antoñanzas (ES) Professor of Applied Economics, University of La Rioja

Jean-Yves Blay (FR) Professor of Medical Oncology, Head of Medicine Department,

Lyon Cancer Centre

Martin John Buxton (UK) Emeritus Professor, Health Economics Professor, Brunel
University

Laurent Degos (FR) Professor of Medicine (Hematology), University Paris VII

Jose Ferro (PT) Professor, Chief of Department of Neurology, Lisbon University

Valentin Fuster (ES) Physician-in-Chief, The Mount Sinai Medical Hospital Director,
Mount Sinai Heart; Director of the Zena and Michael A.
Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and the Marie-Josée and
Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health Richard
Gorlin, MD/Heart Research Foundation Professor Mount Sinai
Health System; General Director of the Centro Nacional de
Investigaciones Cardiovasculares Carlos III (CNIC)
Catherine Sautes- Fridman (FR) Professor of Immunology, Head of Cancer, Immunology and
Immunopathology Department, Paris Descartes University

Steffen Gay (CH) Professor, Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University

Hospital of Zurich

Hans Hofstraat (NL) Vice President Philips Research, Healthcare Strategic

Partnerships

Stephen Holgate (UK) Medical Research Council; Clinical Research Professor of

Immunopharmacology, Southampton University

Ildiko Horvath (HU) Professor, Strategic Director, National Koranyi Institute for
Pulmonology

Gabriel Krestin (NL) Professor and Chairman of the Department of Radiology,

Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam

Frank Luyten (BE) Professor, Head of the Division of Rheumatology, University

Hospitals Leuven; Director Skeletal Biology and Engineering
Research Center & Clinical Director, Stem Cell Institute, KU
Leuven.

47
Michael Manns (DE) Professor and Chairman of Department of Gastroenterology,
Hepatology and Endocrinology, Hannover Medical School

Françoise Meunier (BE) MD, PhD, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; Director
Special Projects of the European Organisation for Research and
Treatment of Cancer.

Wolfgang Oertel (DE) Professor and Chairman of Department of Neurology, Philipps

University Marburg

Susanna Palkonen (FI) Director, European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases
Patient Association

Dainius Pavalkis (LT) Professor of Surgery, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences;

Head of Innovation and Development, Kaunas Clinics; Provost
of the Kazakh National Medical University

Helga Rübsamen-Schaeff (DE) Professor Biochemistry & Virology Franfurt University; Chair of
the Scientific Advisory Board, AiCuris GmbH & Co KG; Member
of the Supervisory Board Merck KGaA, Member of the Board of
Partners of E.Merck KG and Chair of its Research Council

Tomas Salmonson (SE) Chair of Committee for Medical Products for Human Use,
European Medicines Agency

Ulf Smith (SE) Vice Chairman, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine,
The Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg University

Bente Merete Stallknecht (DK) Professor, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of

Copenhagen

Tuula Marjatta Tamminen (FI) Professor of Child Psychiatry, University of Tampere; Chief
Medical Officer, Child Psychiatry, Tampere University Hospital

Tomáš Zima (CZ) Rector of Charles University, Prague

Advisors, with Special Role of Liaisons to the Scientific Community

Julio Celis (DK) Associated Scientific Director, Danish Cancer Society Research
Center

Richard Frackowiak (CH) Professor at Ecole Politechnique Federale de Lausanne & CHUV
University Hospital - Université Lausanne and Co-director of the
Human Brain Project

Detlev Ganten (DE) President, World Health Summit, Chairman of Board of Trustees
Charité Foundation, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant
Physiology

This document is the work of the Scientific Panel for Health, with support from P95. Support from P95 was
provided by Marc Baay, Sally Jackson and Germaine Hanquet.

48
Glossary

AMR Antimicrobial resistance

CCE Cancer Core Europe
DG Directorate-General
DG Connect Directorate-General for Communications Networks
DG RTD Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
DG SANTE Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety
EC European Commission
EDCTP European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership
EEC European Economic Community
EFTA European Free Trade Association
EORTC European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer
ERA European Research Area
ERA-NET European Research Area Network
ERC European Research Council
ERN European Reference Networks
ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds
ESMI European Society for Molecular Imaging
EU European Union
EuHCR European Council for Health Research
EUPATI European Patients’ Academy
FET Future and Emerging Technologies
FP Framework Programme
GPC High Level Group on Joint Programming
HTA Health Technology Assessment
H2020 Horizon 2020
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
IMI Innovative Medicines Initiative
IRDiRC International Rare Diseases Research Consortium
JPI Joint Programming Initiatives
JPIAMR Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance
JPND EU Joint Programme on Neurodegenerative Disease Research
MS Member States
NIH National Institute of Health (USA)
ND4BB New Drugs for Bad Bugs
PM Precision Medicine
PPP Public Private Partnership
P2P Public-to-Public (partnership)
R&D Research and Development
R&I Research and Innovation
SPH Scientific Panel for Health

49