speaker-0: What does it take to move seamlessly between the worlds of finance, healthcare, philanthropy, and science and leave each one better than you found it? Today's guest has done exactly that. Sir Thomas Hughes Halle has enjoyed a remarkable career that has taken him from the bar to investment banking, from chairing the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, to the Institute for Global Health at Imperial College, is now helping to guide one of the world's leading plant and microbial science institutes. the John Inner Center, who are going to explore why he believes that science has such a vital role to play in tackling the challenges facing both people and nature. Tom, welcome to Rewiggle.

speaker-1: Thank you very much. It's lovely to be with you.

speaker-0: So Tom, you started off as a barrister and then you went on to become an investment banker. You've held multiple roles as chairs of various NHS trusts, and now you're chair of the governing council of the John Innis Center. That's quite an interesting career pathway.

speaker-1: Thinking and charity isn't as different as people might think. It's about inspiring people, it's about raising money, it's about using your intelligence to think through how structures can be simplified, and it's about telling stories. I had I'd probably the twelve best years of my career as chief executive of an absolute extraordinary charity in Marraiki.

speaker-0: And what did you go on to do after Marie Curie?

speaker-1: I was asked if I'd like to become chairman of the Institute of Global Health at Imperial I learned a lot, but I wasn't close enough to people. It was all about thinking. It wasn't about people. And so the opportunity came up to apply to be chair of the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. So I I left Imperial and got that job, which also enabled me during that time to create two charities, one linked to healthcare and one linked to philanthropy. I did my best to make the small difference. I walked across the Jordanian desert with fifty people to raise money for Marie Curie, bicycled across Vietnam, I bicycled from Tallinn to St. Petersburg raising money, meeting people who I wouldn't have met otherwise. I just met so many people, and I was very fortunate to be knighted by the Queen for my services to philanthropy. But I felt the people who really deserved that were the volunteers, who, you know, came in every day into our hospices or raised money for us or dressed as daffodils stood collecting in freezing rain. And it showed me how strong British society is when it's its its very best, and I've learned a lot from that.

speaker-0: So after Chelsea and Westminster Trust, you moved on to chairing the John Innis Center. How did that choice happen?

speaker-1: Well, by then I'd founded the Institute for Philanthropy at the London School of Economics with my great friend Paul Marshall. And I was then approached to become chairman of John Innes. I am not a scientist, but I was asked if I'd like to apply. so I did my homework. I was born and brought well, I was brought up on agricultural estate. I've worked on farms all through my teen life. I absolutely loved it. We have a small holding here in Suffolk, where I'm talking to you from, where I have five cattle. and I've planted, I don't know, best part of five hundred trees and I have a lovely vegetable garden.

speaker-0: And what's excited you most about your current role at the John Innis Center?

speaker-1: Well, that's that's the key question really. what it's taught me is that nature is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But without science we can't bank on it. Science underpins everything that we do. s some of it is modern science, but some of it's quite sort of traditional science. Take an example like they used to forecast summer weather through rhyme It's all about when do the leaves come out first. So if it's on the oak, we're in for a soak. If it's on the ash, we're in for a splash. So people have been observing for centuries what happens in nature. But what we can do now in nature, and using our precision breeding skills that we have at John Ennis and other skills, is we can create new crops. We can create crops that survive drought. We can create crops that survive disease. We can create new crops that are highly nutritious in in in fiber, using science that is progressing all the time. I knew John Innis was good when I arrived. What I didn't realise is that it's a world leader. To have twelve colleagues in the building where I chair an organization who are members of the Royal Society is an extraordinary privilege. And to be surrounded by four hundred and fifty young scientists from forty-five nations, I mean I'm just so lucky. So it's it is a wonderful environment. It's full of fascinating young people. And we are going to save the world. We really are. We are going to tackle famine.

speaker-0: That's a very bold statement to make. Tell me what underpins that optimism.

speaker-1: What underpins that optimism? I think a hundred and a hundred and twenty-five oddias of history. You know, we coined the word genetics just before the First World War at John Innist. And that's extraordinary. We've still got the original letter where the scientists said, and I think we'll call this genetics. So it's had a long history of extraordinary breakthroughs. We've developed a vitamin D-rich tomato. We're Developing another tomato which contains the ingredients that will help with bone challenges. We have created a cu the the cure for ash dieback, our partner institute, the Sainsbury Laboratory, have are well on the road to solving potato blight. we have the World Week collection of breeds from the 1920s and 1930s, which we're now going to reintroduce and which have modern-day applications. If I tell you that we understand that there is an oak disease that's spreading from Russia through Ukraine and it's on its way towards us, we must now start thinking about how can we prevent that affecting the oak trees of Europe and of Britain? How can we create wheat, which is the single most important plant on the planet, because we all eat it in bread and so many other things, that is more nutritious, has more fibre in it, has more vitamins in it, and crucially Which is affordable and high yielding, so that the consumer can afford products that come from it, and the farmers can improve their profits. And they'll they'll be able to do that because we're also developing crops that need less fertiliser and less pesticides. So a healthier planet and fewer costs for the farmer equals healthy plants, healthy people, healthy planet, and happy farmers.

speaker-0: I'm gently going to challenge you because you said, you know, we can we are improving the nutritional profile of so many plants. What about all the nature degradation and the pollution? I mean, what about that side of it?

speaker-1: Well you're quite right to be cynical, because if we don't tackle some of these things, I mean if I I'm looking out at a field opposite me in Suffolk, which is yellow, it's scorched. And the reality is fields around me, a lot of them are covered in turf, and the farmers just cut the turf off and sell it for huge sums of money, having covered it in chemicals. And in order to resist disease, very understandably, and to improve the fertility of the soil. Farmers have been using chemicals. And who are they created by? Scientists. So, in a way, we're to blame for the problems we've got. But at the time, after the Second World War, we desperately needed these products. What we need to do now is to reverse that. This is where regenerative and organic farming has begun to gain momentum. We need to be able to farm in a way that we have less need for chemicals. Now, what John Innis is developing is A new interaction between the microbes in the soil and the plants that grow on it, and this is under our amazing scientist Miriam Charpontier, and this will enable us, we think, in time, and this all takes time, to develop plants through precision breeding that will need less fertilizer. Many people believe that there are only fifty harvests left in Britain, and that will apply across the Northern Hemisphere. That's scary. I mean, that is a big world problem. I'm now into my sixth year at John Inns. I I do genuinely believe that unless we take steps now to change our practices, we are going to have a problem feeding ourselves. Possibly not at my age, I'm seventy-one. But but my children, I think maybe, and my grandchildren, definitely. And that's scary. One of the problems we have, Niha, is that there is very little philanthropic funding for this work. And that's not just in Britain, it's globally. We are at John Innis so dependent on the generosity of government and the generosity of wealthy individuals, and we are so grateful to them.

speaker-0: So if I were to be slightly heretical and ask you, would it be too much of a stretch to say John Addis is going to figure out the solutions to growing more drought resistant, climate proof crops and soils in the future? So we can just keep polluting the planet. I'm being very flippant here and overly simplifying it. But sometimes, you know, it can have unintended consequences in terms of the messages we're giving that. Don't worry, we're gonna be okay. We're gonna find the solutions. So you can continue pumping G H D emissions into the atmosphere. We'll still find solutions. Are you concerned about that at all?

speaker-1: Yes, completely. You know, you c to quote President Trump, drill, drill, drill. You know, in the oil world, you can drill a lot of wells and none of them give you any oil. And the same applies in science. You know, we will go and explore, we will look, we will search, we will seek, we will discover, we will create, and we will fail. You know, we're not always going to get things right. And the other thing about science, which I'm sure you know, is that very often you'll go down one road trying to find a solution for X. And Actually, you end up finding a solution for why. And we do two types of science at John Innis. There's the applied science, where we really know exactly what it is we're trying to solve. And then there's our discovery science. And if you talk to if you talk to our peers, they will tell you that John Innis' historic strength has been discovery science, which is looking at nature, exploring nature. And finding the organic mechanisms and the genetic mechanisms that then allow us to move on to applied science. And sometimes I worry that governments, and I'm not talking about the UK government here, I'm talking generally, are so keen to get quick results, particularly in a world where everyone's talking about growth, that they might overfund applied science and underfund discovery science. And the reality is without discovery science, we would be nowhere. So i it's that subtle mix between the two. So to come back to your question, we have to do both. We have to start using farming techniques that are less perilous and less destructive to our soils. But also we've got to look after our farmers.

speaker-0: Would you be able to give an example of discovery science moving to applied science?

speaker-1: Sure. so let's let's take ash diebag. actually maybe that's not a good example. That's more applied. I'll come back to your question in a second, but as you with ash dieback, there has been a dramatic killing of our native ash population. And what we've done is really focus on collecting seed from the ashes, which is quite a small percentage of the ashes that are resistant. And instead of taking years to then breed from those ash in the laboratory, we're now breeding from them In days and weeks. So we've created a solution, not to the disease, but to actually preventing a further epidemic. But I think the best example I can give you actually of discovery science is our curiosity in terms of understanding the grass pea.

speaker-0: What is the graspy?

speaker-1: The grass pea is really the only vegetable or plant that has survived drought in the Horn of Africa and other places. So we know here's a plant. That can survive drought. We also know that it's toxic. If you're a Sudanese or Ethiopian mother and you're cooking this grass pea for your family who would otherwise starve, there is a high risk that they will their lower limbs will experience some form of paralysis. It's a wonderful plant, but it's scary. It's toxic. So what could we do that would allow us, using breeding techniques, obviously all under the regulatory scrutiny of DEFRA that would reduce the toxicity completely, but would allow us to breed a plant in the future that could be used as a crop and not least for animal feed. One of the things that we're very dependent on in this country in terms of imports is soya.

speaker-0: Yes.

speaker-1: And wouldn't it be wonderful if we could grow a replacement for soya in animal feed? in a climate that is increasingly drought resilient. So that's a scientist spotting an opportunity, spending years looking at it, and then finding an application.

speaker-0: That's actually a really powerful example, Tom, because from what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, grass pea, if it is to become a major substitute for soy in animal feed supply chains, won't have the same debilitating deforestation impact as soy does.

speaker-1: It wouldn't. Correct. That's absolutely correct. Absolutely correct.

speaker-0: And what needs to happen for that to become more mainstream? Do you have to find a scientific way to remove the toxicity from the grass pee plant?

speaker-1: Yes. I mean of course. I mean not just for humans, but in this case for animals. and we're we're working hard on that. And there is a there is a variety which has been approved for cultivation in Italy, Spain and Portugal already, which we're looking at in particular at the moment, which is high in protein, it's resilient to drought, high temperature, and it's also resilient to flooding. So for a country like Bangladesh, it will be a wonderful crop. So these are two separate experiments. By the way, I want you to say one other thing to you. John Innis is very good, but so are lots of other institutes in this field. And our culture is very much of not thinking we need to do everything. So it's quite unusual for me to be talking about John Innis. What I'm normally talking about is how we contribute to collaboration. Because there are too few plant scientists in the world. What we need to do is collaborate furiously together. And all our major scientific work, or the vast majority of it. When the paper is published in Nature there are co authors from other institutes around the world, not just in Britain, involved. And we have an extremely strong relationship with China in particular.

speaker-0: So can you tell me a little bit about the whole pushback against GMO, genetically modifying plant genomes, and then where does this fit in with the work that the John and Niss Center and other leading scientific organizations are doing to create plant varieties of the future?

speaker-1: Well, I I think the first thing to say is we do very little GM work. the majority of our work is precision breeding, where all you're doing is crossing breeds with each other. and w what you're doing is what would take twenty years in nature, you can achieve in a much shorter period of time by crossbreeding in in the laboratory and testing effectiveness and then testing in the field. And all of that under extremely close regulatory scrutiny. So we are very, very careful with anything we do. I would also stress to you that within the last year, Britain has now completely legalised precision breeding and so that we will be able to sell precision breed crops in this country. And then a major breakthrough from the area of greatest resistance, which was Europe. and that that's now gone through the EU, the through the European Parliament in the very recent past. So so I think the world is changing, but I also am a big fan of regulation. I mean, if you think of the things that we used to expose people to on the farm, paraquat, for instance, it's a a poison that was used by farmers to kill weeds, but it also did huge damage to the farming population itself. and in fact, the sort of last place that was holding out on parakeat was Australia, and they've just banned it too. So and that was regulation that drove that. So we we need to be careful as we create things. We need to constantly regulate and make sure they're safe. Just as we do with new drugs. You know, there's no difference. A and and all the foods that we eat, you know, carefully scrutinized by the Food Standards Agency.

speaker-0: So all the health concerns that are there around genetically modified foods, et cetera, you're saying that there aren't any health concerns linked to precision bread lamps. Is that correct?

speaker-1: Correct. The regulation is very tight, I can assure you.

speaker-0: Going back to Grass P because it really does sound like an incredibly fascinating plant. I mean, with the ability to grow and actually thrive at both ends of the water spectrum of drought and flooding, have to ask, if and you said it's high in protein as well. Have you ever tasted it?

speaker-1: Funnily enough, I I have actually. And very recently, I haven't tasted it cooked, but I have tasted it raw. What I was tasting is the variety that's been approved in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, which, you know, so that but the the new variety that we're working on now, I haven't tasted.

speaker-0: And what does it taste like? Literally like sweet peas. And you said that it has saved Sudan and Ethiopia and other countries in the border of Africa from absolute famine.

speaker-1: Yes, I mean it's it gro where it's been most widely grown is Ethiopia, Eritrea, India, Bangladesh and Nepal.

speaker-0: And are you saying that now that it's being grown in European countries, that it can sort of really become this almost global panacea?

speaker-1: I don't think it's widely available commercially. Let's call this early days. I don't know. I d I'm I'm a bit I'm a bit skeptical about panaceas. Are you and I just going to eat grass peas in thirty years time? no. Nor do I want to. Could it reduce the amount of soy that we're importing from the United States and other places? Yes.

speaker-0: So what do you have to say about that push and pull then between nature and science? You know, because sometimes people view it as a bit of a trade off.

speaker-1: Yes. well, I think we're beyond that now. I mean, there may be still some people who do see it that way. but I think I was recently Grandswell, which is the main festival coming together of regenerative farmers, organic farmers and regulators and scientists. In fact this is the first year we've we've been there and we're so glad we went. And I think if there was cynicism in the past between scientists and organic and regenerative farmers, I think that's disappearing. Because I think we know now that some of the regenerative and organic experiments are really good. I mean, really good. What we need to do is to demonstrate that we have the data to substantiate that. And likewise on the scientific side, we've recognised that soils are being improved by regenerative farming. But historically it's been quite anecdotal. And the coming together of science and regenerative farming, I think, is a huge win-win for nature, where science can endorse the effectiveness of the data, or or indeed create it, that enables us to produce dirt or soil that is the key to our future, to encourage more and more farmers, and most importantly, the buyers in the supermarkets. To recognize that these are the products that they should be buying go forwards. And of course, if the main food buyers and the sellers to the retail world can afford these new crops and the farmers can afford to grow them, then we have a win win win.

speaker-0: You touched upon something important there, affordability, which in today's cost of living crisis is particularly relevant. So I want to dwell on that a little bit because often regenerative products, if you look at wild farmed, you know, organic products, they tend to have a higher price tag. And therefore, the socioeconomic message is you need to be of a certain income bracket to be able to afford better food. So do you see this changing in the future? with the scientific work that John Ennis is doing, because you mentioned, you know, we're reverting to the pre-Second World War era where we aren't going to be using as many pesticides and fertilizers. So do you think there is a lowering of the cost associated with reverting to nature's and farming's original design?

speaker-1: Yeah. Well I think that's a little way off. Although there are some signs already. I met Andy Cato, who's one of the sort of champions of the regenerative movement, and of course also very famous in modern music. a remarkable man, a remarkable entrepreneur. And he's now selling his regenerative bread in a number of supermarkets. And I I I don't know what the results are. I don't know You whether whether the supermarkets are able to sell a lot of it, nor indeed, I'm afraid, do I know what the price comparison is. But y th your question is crucial because if at the end of the day a single mother or a single father in an economically deprived city can't afford to buy products derived from this this type of coming together of regenerative regeneration and science, there is a problem that needs to be solved and it will have to be solved. I think this is something that people struggle with. One of the advisors to John Innes is Henry Dimbleby, who's written, I think, three food strategies for the nation now. And I talk to him a lot about this. And we have to solve this. We have to make the equation balance. and that will require considerable collaboration between different partners and convincing the food industry that they need to change. I don't think it's quite as simple as that either, because in my mind, in thirty years' time, if the main crop don't need so much fertilizer and don't need so much pesticide. We haven't really talked about insects at all, but we do a huge amount of work in it with insects too, and understanding the diseases that insects spread, indeed the benefits that they bring. So if we can crack some of this, then the prevalent crop, I would argue, is likely to be a crop that will require fewer costs for the farmer. And the key is that it maintains or increases yield. So it's it's this is for agronomy.

speaker-0: Absolutely. That's what I wanted to come in on. I don't actually think we need to wait that long. I'm going to send you the link to the podcast interview with Satya Tripati, who was involved in one of the biggest, currently one of the largest agricultural transitions in India to something called natural farming. And basically what that does is it uses something called bioinoculation to create Olympic levels of fitness in plants from the get-go. And so what's happening is even in this year of Super El Nino, the farmers that have used bioinoculation practices are actually going to see no dip in the yield.

speaker-1: That's amazing.

speaker-0: And that has a robust evidence base. And also the cost is a fraction of the cost of organic and regenerative farming. I thought the the sort of the pinnacle of good farming is a combination of regenerative and organic.

speaker-1: I I I know nothing about it. I'm sure my colleagues will, but introduce me to this gentleman. I would love to talk to him.

speaker-0: Absolutely, absolutely. What's happening is the farmer's cost base is lowering considerably because bioinoculation and it's a combination of ingredients using cow dung and brown lentil flour, etc. So all natural, very reasonable, fraction of the cost of synthetic fossil fuel-based fertilizers. And because the costs are so low, there isn't a premium price associated with their products. And so I'm actually really optimistic that it it won't take 30 years. and that I'm just hoping that transition can be replicated, you know, to the northern hemisphere as well.

speaker-1: Well, love to know more. And we we do a lot of work in in the Indian subcontinent too, so and work very closely with scientists there. So I'd love to know more.

speaker-0: I will connect you to Satya and his team.

speaker-1: You see, I love learning. That's why I came on the podcast. To learn from you, so I have done. Thank you.

speaker-0: One last question to wrap up with. Over the course of your career, all the different hats that you've worn, what's one episode in your life that's really helped to shift your perspective and to reset your equation with nature?

speaker-1: It's a really good question. I think it's climate actually. I I think it is just observing the change in the environ I've lived in this same house in Suffolk for forty years this year. And I'm frightened. I'm frightened. We're now into our fourth week without any form of water. There are hose bands all over the place. My cows don't like the flies very much 'cause it's so hot. there's no water in our ditches. the rivers are much lower. I live very close to the sea and our shoreline is being eroded rapidly. So I think it's just looking and listening and watching. And then the farmer opposite me recently has stopped growing crops in one field and has put it down to a herbal mix. And there has been a total change in our bird population in our garden. The climate is changing. And at the same time, when a step is taken to protect nature, nature can revive and survive. And we've got to find some way of feeding the family of the single mother in Maclesfield in an affordable way, and at the same time protect our natural environment. And that's where John Innis has become so appealing to me as its chair, as just one, one of many amazing scientific organizations that I believe. If we work with farmers and farmers work with us and the owners of land work with us, that we can create a world where we have healthy plants, healthy people and a healthy planet.

speaker-0: You're so right that until and unless something is a lived experience, a direct lived experience, we don't get it. I love the fact that rather than become pessimistic and feel powerless about it, you are drawing strength and energy from the work that you're doing at the John and his center. And that must be quite fulfilling to feel like you're in the right place at the right time.

speaker-1: I think so. And thank you for talking to me. I've really enjoyed.

speaker-0: Thank you for being on the podcast and for literally sowing seeds of optimism. I am extremely excited about all the work that Johnis is doing. I'm looking forward to the day when you can tell me, yes, we have removed the toxic content from the grass beer and now we can all have grass be soups and salads and feed it to our cattle and have no deforestation. I mean, that's that's the dream.

speaker-1: But it will be a few years.

speaker-0: Absolutely. but as long as we are all lending our energies towards the solution, isn't it? Thank you so much for being on Rewiggle. I have really enjoyed talking to you and learning so much about the fantastic work that John and us is doing.

speaker-1: Thank you. It's been a pleasure.

speaker-0: If something you've heard on the podcast has made you pause and rethink how you would partner with nature, follow ReWiggle on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Audible, and YouTube. And if you know someone who is actively rewiggling how they work with nature, building solutions, shifting systems, or turning ideas into action, we'd love to hear from you. Write to us at rewiggle at gmail.com. Because the best conversations don't really end when the episode does. They stay with us and sometimes they change what we do next.