Appoint Grand Challenge Officer Response to Recommendation
TOTAL SCORE: 11
Score
A1 (Feasibility increased by continuance of pandemic): +1
A2 (Necessity increased by covid pandemic): +1
A3 (political viability): +1
B1 (Relevance to the specific goal of increasing HALE by 5 years by 2035): +1
B2 (Relevance to general goal of biomedical healthy life extension): 0
C1 (Market readiness applicability): 0
C2 (Project readiness): 0
C3 (Move to market readiness): 0
D1 (Actionability): +1
D2 (Degree of measurability): +1
D3 (Degree of leveraging cross-sector inputs): +1
D4 (Awareness of international context): 0
D5 (Resourcefulness): +1
D6 (Reorganisation): +1
E (Disruptiveness): +1
F (Dividends - does the recommendation aid in social activity and inclusivity?): +1
This largely addresses the need for accountability and helps to make coordination possible. However, the government should think twice about whether all industrial-scale, innovative, and biotechnological solutions for the Age Society Grand Challenge will continue to fit within the purview of the Minister for Health and Social Care in the longer term.
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
“It is not clear who in Government is responsible for overseeing the Ageing Society Grand Challenge mission, aside from broad ministerial oversight from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. We are concerned that this policy has no clear ownership. (Paragraph 374)
The position taken by the Government that the challenge and the mission are overlapping but distinct is confusing, and we are concerned that achieving the mission does not appear to be at the core of the Grand Challenge. (Paragraph 375)
We recommend that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care appoints a senior responsible officer for achieving the mission of the Ageing Society Grand Challenge, as this does not appear to be covered by the senior responsible officer for the challenge. (Paragraph 376)”
Score
A1 (Feasibility increased by continuance of pandemic): +1
A2 (Necessity increased by covid pandemic): +1
A3 (political viability): +1
B1 (Relevance to the specific goal of increasing HALE by 5 years by 2035): +1
B2 (Relevance to general goal of biomedical healthy life extension): 0
C1 (Market readiness applicability): 0
C2 (Project readiness): 0
C3 (Move to market readiness): 0
D1 (Actionability): +1
D2 (Degree of measurability): +1
D3 (Degree of leveraging cross-sector inputs): +1
D4 (Awareness of international context): 0
D5 (Resourcefulness): +1
D6 (Reorganisation): +1
E (Disruptiveness): +1
F (Dividends - does the recommendation aid in social activity and inclusivity?): +1
This largely addresses the need for accountability and helps to make coordination possible. However, the government should think twice about whether all industrial-scale, innovative, and biotechnological solutions for the Age Society Grand Challenge will continue to fit within the purview of the Minister for Health and Social Care in the longer term.
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
“It is not clear who in Government is responsible for overseeing the Ageing Society Grand Challenge mission, aside from broad ministerial oversight from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. We are concerned that this policy has no clear ownership. (Paragraph 374)
The position taken by the Government that the challenge and the mission are overlapping but distinct is confusing, and we are concerned that achieving the mission does not appear to be at the core of the Grand Challenge. (Paragraph 375)
We recommend that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care appoints a senior responsible officer for achieving the mission of the Ageing Society Grand Challenge, as this does not appear to be covered by the senior responsible officer for the challenge. (Paragraph 376)”