If you’ll allow me, I’d like to begin by setting the context with three key points before getting into the direct opportunities.

First, I’m a firm believer that if we’re serious about accelerating progress in both health and wealth for our populations, we must build large-scale life sciences clusters. These clusters bring together academia, healthcare, and a whole suite of industries—pharma, biotech, med tech, digital health, and more. It's this kind of integrated, scaled ecosystem that enables real breakthroughs.

Second, the challenges we face today—multi-morbidity, aging populations, the need to stop degenerative diseases or turn long-term conditions into cures—are immensely complex. No individual institution, and frankly, no single city, can tackle them alone. We need collaboration at scale.

And third, I've long believed that London and New York are natural partner clusters. We share so many common challenges—and just as many common opportunities. It’s a partnership that, if done right, can deliver impact well beyond our own geographies.

Now, in terms of what excites me most, I see four main opportunities:

Large-Scale Research Collaborations: There’s a tremendous chance to build ambitious, cross-city research programs by identifying our complementary strengths. One obvious area might be cancer research—both cities have globally respected cancer institutes and programs. But that’s just one example. The point is to recognize where we can align and amplify each other’s work.

Attracting More Investment: With the right collaborations in place, we stand a better chance of attracting funding from federal agencies, philanthropic donors, and private investors. The pitch is clear: if we work together, two plus two could equal more than five. This kind of cross-Atlantic scale is compelling to funders.

Shared Learning and Knowledge Exchange: There is so much we can learn from each other—whether it’s about overcoming regulatory hurdles, creating better innovation pathways, or engaging with communities. We should be open and transparent about our challenges and what’s worked—or hasn’t—in addressing them.

Commercialization at Scale: One area I’ve spoken about before is the need for a larger-scale accelerator—bigger than what either of our cities currently has. It’s not just about generating startups; we already do that quite well. The real opportunity is in scaling those startups into significant enterprises—potential unicorns. In the UK, we’re good at creating

startups, but we produce relatively few unicorns (companies valued at $1 billion or more). I’d be curious to explore whether there’s shared ambition here—whether together we can change that.

So yes, the opportunity to build stronger links between New York and London isn’t just exciting—it’s essential. For health, for equity, for economic growth, and for tackling the greatest challenges of our time.

I think one of the primary barriers is quite simply human instinct—the instinct to compete rather than collaborate, often at the expense of collective progress. That’s true within a city like London itself, let alone when we start talking about international partnerships like London and New York. I’ve often observed that London has a history of being less than the sum of its parts, precisely because institutions end up competing when they could achieve more together. I imagine the same dynamic exists in New York.

When we talk about collaborating across the Atlantic, there’s a natural hesitation—because it may require sharing your best ideas, opening up to co-develop something bigger, or jointly applying for funding. That requires trust, and a shift in mindset. And so I believe this is where leadership really matters. It’s the role of leadership to set out a compelling vision, to clearly define the prize, and to persuade people that there is more to be gained by joining forces than by going it alone.

A helpful step to inform discussions about collaboration would be to populate an inventory—mapping out the strengths and gaps in both cities. I absolutely think that’s necessary. But I recognize it’s not easy. There’s often a nervousness—understandably so—about identifying standout programs because it can imply that others are less strong. And there’s hesitancy around acknowledging gaps for fear of reputational harm.

But I believe we have to be honest and transparent about this. There are already solid external metrics—grant funding levels, citation indices, publication impact—that we can't really hide from. If we lean into those with a spirit of partnership, we’ll likely find that our gaps are your strengths, and vice versa. That’s where the magic of complementarity can truly emerge.

A second barrier is short-termism. Everyone’s busy, overwhelmed with immediate pressures and day-to-day responsibilities. It can be hard to step back, lift our heads, and say: “Where could we be in 10 years if we did something truly ambitious together?” But that’s exactly what we need to do. Otherwise, the urgent will always crowd out the important.

Related to this is the broader engagement challenge. People are rightly asking, “Why should I make time for this?” And again, the answer comes back to leadership. We need to make a compelling case: this will be worth your time. This could be exciting. This could yield results. And crucially, this won’t just be someone else’s project, we want you to help create it, not just join it.

Finally, and most importantly, we have to define the added value. What will we accomplish together that we simply couldn’t do alone? That’s the heart of the matter. If we can answer that clearly and compellingly, then the engagement will follow.

I might just add—this may overlap a bit with the next question—that commercial partners will play a catalytic role. That includes life sciences industries, venture funders, real estate stakeholders, and so on. If we can engage them and get them genuinely excited about the potential of London and New York collaborating in a meaningful way, it will unlock resources. And in today’s environment, nothing accelerates momentum quite like the prospect of new investment—whether from government, philanthropy, or the private sector. If they see the vision and say, “Yes, I’d back that,” it could change the game.

I think we've touched on a number of these already, but I’m glad this question specifically highlights health equity, because it's an issue I feel very strongly about. The inequalities we live with are simply unacceptable. And we must continue to view them as unacceptable, rather than slowly adapting and treating them as normal. They're not normal, they're indefensible in this day and age.

If we get this right, if we build the kinds of cross-Atlantic bridges we’re talking about, I believe we’ll be doing something profoundly important for the most deprived parts of our populations. There are two ways I see this happening most clearly.

First, through employment opportunities. The life sciences ecosystem—across New York and London—offers an extraordinary breadth of roles. Whether someone wants to become a professor of medicine, work in clinical research, or be part of estate management or logistics, there are countless pathways into this sector. I think we’ve not done enough to actively promote those pathways, especially to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. In my view, we should be directly targeting schools that serve lower-income communities to raise awareness of these career options early, in middle school, high school. That’s one very real, practical way to tackle inequality.

We’ve seen this work through programs like the Accelerated Access to Medicine initiative, which is absolutely brilliant. We’ve been accused of “social engineering” for it—but frankly, I believe we need social engineering. We need proactive, intentional approaches to open up access and opportunity.

The second way we address inequality is by stimulating local economies. Health and wealth go hand-in-hand. A significant proportion of ill health in both our cities is linked to deprivation. So by growing this sector—by fostering innovation, creating jobs, and embedding inclusive practices, we can improve public health and economic wellbeing at the same time. It’s a virtuous cycle.

That’s why I’d argue strongly that health equity shouldn’t be a side note. It should be central to our mission, to our vision, and to the entire purpose of building these scientific and commercial bridges.