Podcasts

Podcast – News from the Alzheimer’s Research UK Conference 2019

Hosted by Dr Katy Stubbs

Reading Time: 23 minutes

This week has seen Alzheimer’s Research UK host its 20th annual conference in Harrogate, bigger than ever, and packed with talks from researchers working at all levels and across many areas. This podcast was recorded on location in Harrogate from the conference. Our panel share their highlights, and all they’ve seen and heard from across the three days, for those who couldn’t make it, .

Dr Katy Stubbs from Alzheimer’s, Research UK is a great host,  she is joined by Dr Chris Henstridge, from the University of Edinburgh, Dr Christina Toomey from University College London and Fiona Calvert from the Wellcome Sanger Institute.


Click here to read a full transcript of this podcast

Voice Over:

Welcome to the Dementia Researcher podcast, brought to you by dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk, a network for early career researchers.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Hello, my name is Katie Stubbs and I’m a communications officer for Alzheimer’s Research UK, and I’m pleased to have been invited to host this special podcast for the Dementia Researcher website, on location from our annual research conference in Harrogate. So today I’m joined by three early career researchers, and the aim of what we’re going to do is to discuss what has been going on here over the past three days, talking about what we’ve seen and heard, particularly for those who haven’t been able to make it here from across the UK, and Dementia Researcher’s wider audience across the world. So just let you know a bit more about our conference. The Alzheimer’s Research UK conference as actually started back in the year 2000, with about 30 people attending. This year, we’ve had over 500 people coming. So, it really demonstrates the growth in the number of researchers here in the UK.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

On Monday we had our early careers day. There was PhD talks, there was also some kind of workshop sessions too, and then the main conference over the past two days covering a range of topics. So, different types of dementias, different research themes as well. Some of these featured this year included vascular dementia and DLB, mirror inflammation, early diagnosis and prevention. So joining me on the panel today, I have Dr. Chris Henstridge, Dr. Christina Toomey, and Fiona Calvert. Just to go around the table, can you just say who you are and what you do?

Dr Chris Henstridge:

Sure. My name is Dr. Chris Henstridge. I’m a senior postdoc at the university of Edinburgh. I’m in that kind of tricky transition phase now of senior postdoc into independent PA, so I’m going to be moving to Dundee in three weeks’ time. My main research focus really is on the changes that occur in the brain during health and disease, in particular during normal ageing processes, but also diseases like Alzheimer’s disease, which is why I’m here, but also motor neuron disease.

Fiona Calvert:

I’m Fiona and I’m a final year PhD student at the Wellcome Sanger Institute. My PI is Dan Gaffney, and we at Sanger love sequencing things, and I personally love sequencing microglia. So, I basically work on all things microglia. They’ve become the obsession and bane of my life during my PhD. And so yeah, I’ve done some sequencing in primary cells and in vitro models.

Christina Murray:

Hi, I’m Christina Toomey. So, I am at UCL and I’m funded by the Dementia Research Institute, working under Professor Henrik Zetterberg’s group, but I’m also based at Queen Square Brain Bank under Dr. Tammaryn Lashley. My main research aim is to basically look at the pathology of different types of dementia, and then match that to looking at proteomic biomarkers in the same diseases, and trying to bridge the gap between the two.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Fabs. I know from having been here that you’ve all had posters and talks, so Chris, you had just the one poster, or was there?

Dr Chris Henstridge:

Yeah, I just had one poster this year, and it was something about different, or something I’m not really used to doing or presenting, actually. So as I mentioned, my main focus really is on brain changes in health and disease. But I realised after working in Edinburgh for the last four years or so, that I’ve never actually met somebody with Alzheimer’s disease, which seems crazy. So, what I did was I tried to set up and establish a scheme in Edinburgh to increase patient and public involvement in dementia research, and we called this dementia buddy scheme.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

And effectively what we did is we tried to pair research groups with people in the community living with dementia, and basically set up a bidirectional knowledge exchange between the research groups and the people living with the disease. And so, this is the first time I’ve done anything like this. It was a small pilot kind of scheme that we put together, with just six research groups. The poster that I presented was how we set this up, how it was established, and some of the feedback that we got from the participants and the research groups at the end.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

That’s so cool. Yeah. So Fiona, you were one of the early career researchers that had the chance to give a talk. How did you find it?

Fiona Calvert:

Well, I mean that room is pretty intimidating. When I walked in on Tuesday morning I was like, “Whoa.” For anyone that doesn’t know or hasn’t ever been to Harrogate, it’s like a full theatre. But it was really great. This is a big project that we’ve been working on, a really big collaborative project working with neurosurgeons to collect primary microglia samples, but we were really lucky. We managed to collect over 100 patients, and run some kind of genetic mapping studies in those cells. And so, it’s really exciting to go out and present this to everyone. I feel like we’ve worked so hard to collect the data, and do the analysis that it’s nice to come out and show that to everyone. And we work at an Open Access Institute, so it’s nice to be able to kind of give people a hint about what’s coming and what data they’ll be able to access from us.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Cool. Christina, you’ve had a poster as well, haven’t you?

Christina Murray:

Yeah. My poster was looking at the differences and similarities between proteomic data sets for Alzheimer’s disease, and frontal temporal dementia. Interestingly, the Alzheimer’s disease, and the TDP sub-types of frontotemporal dementia had some differences. Especially the TDP sub-types actually had their own unique signature individually, so maybe they’re more individual diseases rather than different sub-types. That’s where we’re hypothesising at the moment. But yeah, it was really interesting to talk to people, and manage to network a bit, and get some future collaborations potentially going.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Perfect. That’s what we love to hear. We always say that conference is really important for forging collaboration. So, that’s what we want to see. Were you guys around on Monday? We did you make some of the sessions?

Fiona Calvert:

I did, yeah.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

What did you think? What was any standout highlights for you?

Fiona Calvert:

For me, it was really refreshing. The last session of the day, I think it was both the postdocs and the PhD students combined actually did a work-life balance session, and the guy that came in and talked to us about mental health, it was so refreshing. It was fantastic. He stood up at the front, no slides, no preparations, and was just really honest about how mental health has impacted him. And I thought that was really refreshing, a conference to actually have a session like that.

Christina Murray:

It was nice to hear from other researchers that they had similar feelings to you, and I don’t think it’s talked about enough, actually. I think it was really nice for people to know that they weren’t alone, in their [inaudible 00:06:15].

Dr Chris Henstridge:

I think it takes somebody quite confident and brave like him as well, to stand up there and do that, and speak to people openly and honestly about his experience, because I think it did relate to quite a lot of people.

Christina Murray:

Yeah, definitely.

Fiona Calvert:

I also really liked the flash presentations.

Christina Murray:

Oh, at the start?

Fiona Calvert:

Yeah. It made me pick posters to go and see during the main conference that I wouldn’t have seen, based just on that kind of abstract or title. I’m now obsessed with the idea that cats could be used as a model for dementia. That was so cool.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

I think in the postdoc session, as well, I suppose wanted to give a really good summary of the fellowship application process, as well. There’s the really important things, like the person, project and place, and how you really have to emphasise why you particularly meet those criteria, but also it’s interesting to hear that they’ve removed the post-PhD year limits now for their junior and senior fellowships, which kind of follows along with the MRC policy as well, now. So, it gives everybody a more equal basis of which to apply, I think, which is really cool.

Christina Murray:

Yeah, definitely. I also think the media workshop was really good practice for us postdocs, because if you’re trying to answer questions in the media, you’re just not sure how to pitch it really, and what terminology to use, so it was really good to practice some of those questions in case you ever get asked in the future.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Great. Yeah, I think that’s really important, that researchers feel confident in how to break down their topics and also yeah, if you are doing media stuff, you’re often asked things that are outside of your specific area of interest, but actually you’re still an expert compared with the people asking these questions. The general public wants to know more about the things that we all know, so yeah, I’m really glad you found that useful. And then what about the main conferences? We’ve had a couple the standard talk formats, but then we also had a panel discussion yesterday about the benefits and challenges of early diagnosis, and I find it particularly interesting hearing the different viewpoints in how we’re going to have to take on board some of these changes as we move forward. But what did you guys think?

Dr Chris Henstridge:

Yeah, I’ve got sort of mixed feelings on the panel discussion, so what I mean I think they’re a good idea to really get these big names up on the stage they talk about their ideas, their expertise and quite a nice summary of the current situation in the field as well, which is really good. The one issue I tend to have with these things is that once it’s opened up to questions, it tends to be the same five or six kind of big names that ask the kind of typical, similar questions that you often hear.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

I think what would have been great is if there was maybe an opportunity for specific questions from early career researchers to ask maybe some of the more unusual questions, and one of the questions that I had as well is, who really benefits from a more accurate diagnosis? And the reason I picked up on that was one thing that Emma said, who was on the panel and she mentioned that it was suggested her father may not actually benefit at all from having this formal diagnosis. So at that point, who really benefits from that? So the clinician, I guess maybe feels good because he’s got the diagnosis correct, but that patient receives no real benefit from it. So, I was quite interested to hear what they may have said about something like that.

Christina Murray:

I think it would affect how research is done, though. So, I think it is still helpful in the sense of better clinical trials, so not muddling groups together and being able to really stratify how to do the trials. But actually, it was really interesting because it led to an entire debate between our group as well, on whether we would want to know, and if we could have a test now, whether we’d want to know. Yeah, we got really mixed answers because actually there’s not much that can be done now, and I think that was the thing that came out from that discussion that not much can be done now. So, is it worth knowing? But I think the key was that hopefully in the future, we can work to have things done and it will make a difference. So then you would maybe want to know a bit more than you do now.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

I guess it’s that thing of diagnostic research, and treatment based research. They have to progress hand in hand because we know about picking people up. So, I think it was really interesting when Leslie Jones asked the question, she made more of a comment about reflections on her work in the Huntington’s field, that now that in the last few years we had these really positive media stories about some of the trials for Huntington’s, and the therapies look like they’re working. They’re in trials, and that is changing how families affected by Huntington’s are seeking a diagnosis, and their own perceptions of that. And so certainly for me, as a comms officer, I think there’s a lot of work for teams like ours to do in framing these potential questions, these potential areas of progress, and how we actually take people along that journey so that actually what happens, researchers don’t get really advanced and think, “Well this is a great thing,” without realising how it impacts on people affected by these diseases.

Fiona Calvert:

Yeah. I thought there was some really interesting things that came up in that panel discussion around engagement with the public, and other people with dementia. I thought one of the really interesting concepts… I think someone asked a question, I can’t remember who it was, and they were saying about how we, as a group of people and a group of researchers need to be careful about the definitions we use for things, because it can lead to confusion amongst the public about what different things mean, and it’s something in genetics we talk a lot about when you talk about increased risk of getting a disease. And what that really means to people, and the confusion around what that means, and I think that was a really interesting thing.

Fiona Calvert:

You know, the difference between Alzheimer’s disease and Alzheimer’s dementia is something that I hadn’t really considered before, and something I’ll definitely take away from that panel discussion.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Yeah, in the work I do, engaging with the general public, a lot of people will say to me, “My father has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and dementia,” and that there is a lot of confusion in what those terms mean in a diagnostic setting, and what the difference is between the disease process and the disease symptoms that manifest is what we call dementia. So yeah, I think we’re struggling with language that’s outdated, too.

Christina Murray:

I think it’s even different between the researchers, because we would classify that as pathological ageing. If they haven’t got the symptoms and the dementia, then that’s more pathological ageing rather than Alzheimer’s disease. So, I think there’s a lot of different terminology that different people are using, and that’s something that needs to be clarified so that we’re all on the same page.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

I think also, this is why it’s important, I think for research teams to actually interact with people living with dementia, because these kind of issues with language that you begin to pick up on and you begin to realise, “Okay, we need to be more specific in how we talk about these different aspects of disease.” And often when you’re just in a laboratory, it’s not really an issue. It’s not questioned, but it’s by meeting these people, you discover where you have to improve your language and understanding.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Cool. And so also ahead of that panel discussion yesterday, and Phillip Sheltons gave, I think quite a hopeful plenary session about where he sees things are going, and actually kind of covering where we as a field have come to. What did you guys think about the plenary? Was there anything message-wise that stood out for you from that?

Dr Chris Henstridge:

I think that one of the biggest things I got from that was, unfortunately a negative aspect. Based on the clinical diagnosis that people receive today, it’s the same diagnosis that would’ve gotten in 1984. So in terms of the clinical diagnosis, it hasn’t really progressed in the last 20 years plus, which is quite striking. But obviously around that, there’s certainly a hole which has been generated, and I thought he summarised it really fantastically well and his plenary talk was really good.

Fiona Calvert:

I also really enjoyed how, we talked a little bit about how making these diagnosis tools and the biomarker things accessible and scalable, because I do think that’s a problem sometimes within research, is that we come up with all these great tools and kits, but they can only work if you have a fancy MRI machine, and then you come across all these diversity issues where that hits a very select group of the population. And so, making a conscious effort to make sure that the tools we’re developing are accessible to everyone, and to anyone across the country and across the world is something that I think is really important.

Christina Murray:

I think on that kind of note, I think the part that I took from that talk was that the confidence in the diagnosis increased over the years, even though the diagnosis itself wasn’t too different and that not much has changed in what diagnosis they receive. But the confidence that the doctors have in giving the diagnosis has increased, which I think is important as well.

Fiona Calvert:

Actually on that kind of diagnosis theme, I found the first talk of the whole conference from John O’Brien really interesting in how it’s talking about the differences in diagnosis around the UK for dementia, Lewy bodies, and the work that him and others have been doing to support conditions, and making those judgements and actually when somebody comes with subjective memory complaints, probing around hallucinations or other symptoms they might not have thought could be something to do with the memory complaints as well. So, I thought it was very good. I think actually one thing a lot of people said to me off that talk, was he showed the graph of from time to diagnosis to the point where somebody passes away, and how much more rapid that was for dementia with Lewy bodies. That was quite something I hadn’t realised.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

Yeah. I thought his talk was really good. DLB is not really a disease that I’m particularly fully aware of, to be honest. I don’t know enough detail about it as I probably should, and I thought he summarised it really well, and that really struck me just how many different symptoms there were as well for DLB, and clinically how to try and diagnose that with all of these different things happening at the same time. It was really quite striking.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

So thinking over the whole of the conference, are there any particular themes that you’ve spotted working their way through the different sessions?

Christina Murray:

I think neuroinflammation was one of the big ones. So, Professor Hugh Perry gave a great talk about where we are currently with neuroinflammation, and I thought the hypothesis that he gave that we should be working towards looking at the heterogeneous type of microglia, rather than the ones that are increased in phagocytosis or decreasing in phagocytosis was really good, and I think that is the way that we need to go because there’s so many caveats to either going one way or the other. And I think that previously the field is very much focused on them being in one state or the other, and I think actually we want them to be homeostatic.

Fiona Calvert:

Yeah, I agree. I’m all about the neuroinflammation hype me, but generally when you talk to people in the [inaudible 00:16:53] field, or that can you get over the people that work in the genetics. They are always pushing this neuroinflammation, because the genetic evidence really does point us in that direction. And for me, that’s what the genetic evidence is great for. I remember writing an article about this, that to me the genetics is like when you find the outside pieces of a puzzle. It doesn’t tell you everything but it kind of gives you that hint as to where to start looking next. I think the genetic evidence does start to point us in that direction, of looking at neuroinflammation a bit deeper.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

Yeah. I think for a long time, the field has been very neuro centric in terms of its research focus, and I guess it’s a good chance to plug a review from last year. Nature Reviews neuroscience reviewed that [inaudible 00:17:35], and we talked about this non neuronal aspect of, especially the early signs or the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. And I think that encapsulates not just microglia, but there’s astrocytes, there’s neurovascular unit which is breaking down. There’s all sorts of things going on before you really see any brain cell loss or brain cell degeneration, and it’s clear from the meeting this week, there’s a lot of focus now on this non-neuro aspect of the disease.

Fiona Calvert:

That’s the thing I’m really interested to see next year coming back, whether we start to see some of those other cell types like astrocytes actually a bit more.

Christina Murray:

Becoming more and more of a focus. I know we’re starting to look at it more, and all that. And microglia has been a focus for a couple years now, but yeah, that’s still increasing. I think that is the answer, to look at all cell types and see how it all works together, as well. Not just look at one in isolation.

Fiona Calvert:

Yeah, I agree.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

I think like you mentioned the genetics, the genetics, clearly it gives us an indication that microglia are important, is an obvious place to start as you move away from the years in review. But I think certainly, the astrocytes are going to be a big thing. We’ve got a few projects in Edinburgh as well, that are focused specifically on astrocytic roles in ED. So, I think there’s going to be a lot to come in that area.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Cool. And do you have a one moment highlight, or is that too much of a hard question? Was there a favourite? What was your favourite talk? Let’s go for that.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

I guess mine’s a little bit biased, because I really liked the prize talk from Jimmy this afternoon, so he won the debut early career researcher award. The reason I think it’s a bit biased a selection is that I collaborate with Jimmy, so I’ve been doing some analysis in his mice that he described, but he’s done some really incredible things all the way back from first identifying TB14 mutations as a causal mutation in FTD, all the way through to generating new fly lines, and now the first knock-in TDP large model, and some of the data you’re generating from that new model is really cool. It spawned a really fantastic link between TDP changes and [inaudible 00:19:29], which are obviously two big major hallmarks in neurodegeneration.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

When there was a site, the way he talked about his work at UMass on flies and I was like, “Wait, is it going to be,” and you mentioned Mark Freeman, who was someone my work touched on when I was doing my PhD, so I was like, “Yes, someone I know. Outside of the main focus that we often get. What about you, Fiona?

Fiona Calvert:

For me, it really was the panel discussion. So, I come from a very kind of molecular genetics background. We don’t often think that much about the clinical side of things, like biomarkers and things like that. And so actually for me, that was really interesting because it was an aspect of this research that I don’t get to see very often. And I think that for me, the biggest thing about this disease is the way we’re going to beat it is by collaborating, and by bringing together so many different aspects of science. And so for me, listening to things that are outside what I normally listen to was the best bet.

Christina Murray:

For me, I was actually really impressed with Jackie Nimmo, who was an early career researcher doing a presentation again, and without going into too much detail, she was looking at the drainage pathway, and how different proteins that accumulate in the different neurodegenerative diseases are differently cleared from the vessels. And I found that really interesting, and I thought she was really good in the way she portrayed the information and presented it.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

And I thought, to be honest, the standard of the ECR talks this year were really fantastic.

Fiona Calvert:

Yeah, definitely

Dr Chris Henstridge:

She did very well.

Fiona Calvert:

Yes, she did.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

To be honest, I’d have liked to see maybe a couple more, but I thought the standard was really good.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Well actually, we’re always really interested in the feedback that we can get from the conference because it is an evolving thing. We have different groups of researchers doing it each year with our overall guidance and it does mean, I think a few years ago we tried some flash presentations in the conference itself. Then we had them last year as well, and it’s a nice way to try and test out a few new things. So yeah, it’s always good to get feedback.

Fiona Calvert:

I also think it’s really nice to get from the early career search, like the real cutting edge stuff about what people are doing, that real, and that excitement for what they’ve been researching. That’s what I think that you get from there to careers researchers, definitely.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

I think what I like, from a kind of communications perspective is that early career researchers seem to be really good at focusing on one area, because they probably haven’t got that huge back catalogue. And actually, I think that sometimes muddies the water when you do get some more senior people presenting that it’s a cover of everything they’ve done in 20 years. And actually what my trick, my thing, I tell everyone when they’re doing who talks to the public, I’m like, “Pick one thing and tell them that.” And I think it’s the same communication tools that researchers need to have when they’re giving science talks, is you can’t tell your whole story, but tell one bit really well, and that’s exactly what early career researchers do.

Fiona Calvert:

I think that does come across, actually. And it’s a good way to put it.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Cool. And any other highlights and thing that you would… What would you go tell your friends about the conference?

Fiona Calvert:

For me, it really has been like, how open everyone has been to chatting about research, collaborating. I come here, and I’m the only one here from my lab this year. And it’s been really nice, chatting to people and so many people have come up to me and being like, “Oh, I’m really interested in this. Could you just have a look at this for us?” And that, I think is something you don’t always get at really, really big kind of huge conferences, but these conferences are great because you get a real sense of who’s working on what, and who can help where.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

Yes. What I like about ARUK is that it’s a big enough conference that you can get excited about. There’s going to be a lot of good stuff to see and hear about, but it’s small enough that almost every person you bump into is probably a PhD or a postdoc from somebody’s lab that you know, or has worked in another lab. And so it feels like quite close knit community, and because of that, I think it is very open and a very friendly place to come and present your work.

Christina Murray:

Yeah, I agree with that because I’ve been coming since the beginning of my PhD, and every year it just gets better for me, because I know more and more people within the dementia community, and I’m having more and more discussions about different parts of research. I think yeah, it’s just really great for fostering relationships.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

I think this is my seventh so I came four times as a PhD student and now three times on the other side as staff, and I just love it. I’m a massive fan of it, so glad you guys are too. So, I think we can pretty much start to wrap up now and get back to the final session at talks, but I think it’s been really good to hear about the different themes. Certainly, new information coming through and the challenges that early diagnosis can present to us. I think one of my highlights has been the docs that we’ve had here at the conference centres [crosstalk 00:24:10], Ace and Cal who are such good guys.

Fiona Calvert:

Stars.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

That are just versed in everything.

Fiona Calvert:

And them running after the balls when we all throw tennis balls for them has been incredible.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Yeah, I think that’s something where we will take on board, and always have conference dog from now onwards. So, you guys are all on Twitter, I’m pretty sure you’re all on Twitter. Do you just want to share your handle so that if people want to find out more about you, they can do that?

Dr Chris Henstridge:

Sure. So, I’m just @CMHenstridge, which is my last name, and if there’s a chance to pitch something else as well.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Yeah, go for it.

Dr Chris Henstridge:

So as I say, I’m just moving to set up my own lab and I have a PhD position on offer, so it’d be search for my name and go on to findaphd.com. There’s a really exciting PhD project there.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

And what are they going to be doing?

Dr Chris Henstridge:

That’s going to be characterizing the humans synaptic protium in ALS.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Very cool.

Fiona Calvert:

My Twitter is @FiCalvert, Fi with an F, and I tweet about mainly microglia and also storytelling, which is my other passion. So, come and listen to some stories on my Twitter page.

Christina Murray:

My Twitter handle is @Christina_Neuro. Tried to keep it on the neuro theme, but yeah, we like to tweet about it, all the papers and the things that our lab get up to, so public engagement activities as well.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

Cool.

Christina Murray:

Feel free to follow.

Dr Katie Stubbs:

And my personal Twitter is @KatyLStubbs. Most of what I tweet about is Alzheimer’s Research UK focused, and public engagement, and me getting excited by things. For anyone who wasn’t able to make the conference and wants to see some of the stuff that’s been said, just look up the hashtag #ARUKconf, and there’s hundreds of tweets on there about all the different sessions. Lots of discussions, as well. You’ll be able to find out more about our panellists on the profiles that will come with this podcast, so you can see their handles there, as well. Just like to thank them all for taking the time to join me today, and please remember, this is my favourite bit, I like saying this, to rate review, and subscribe the podcast. It helps other people find it, and it helps our audience to grow. And so, tell your friends and your colleagues, it’s on SoundCloud and iTunes, and just a huge thank you to you guys coming along today.

Fiona Calvert:

Thank you.

Christina Murray:

Thanks.

Voice Over:

This was a podcast brought to you by Dementia Researcher. Everything you need in one place. Register today at dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk.

END


Like what you hear? Please review, like, and share our podcast – and don’t forget to subscribe to ensure you never miss an episode.

If you would like to share your own experiences or discuss your research in a blog or on a podcast, drop us a line to adam.smith@nihr.ac.uk or find us on twitter @dem_researcher

You can find our podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud and Spotify (and most podcast apps).

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »