APPENDIX 9
Memorandum submitted by Mr Leslie E F
Moffat, Immediate Past Chairman, MRC Working Party in Prostate
Cancer
As immediate past chairman of the MRC working
Party in Prostate cancer, I wish to draw to the attention of the
committee the previous long delays between the inception and the
final approval of MRC studies.
The present prostate cancer trial PRO7 was first
suggested about three years ago. At that stage, it was given top
ranking by the Clinical Trials Board (which has now been abolished).
It then took several years for the study to
be given final approval and funding. This delay is not atypical.
Although the structure of the MRC has altered
during this time, I am not persuaded that the funding and mechanisms
are sufficiently proactive to allow more rapid deployment of funds
for questions of clinical importance in cancer.
One study of chemotherapy in testicular cancer
was turned down for the lack of a clinical research associate
costing £20,000.
The Clinical Trials Division of the MRC receives
I believe, £1m of core funding, and around £170,000
of recurrent funding.
Given the scope of the problem of clinical trials
in cancer, this amount is low.
Further funding is required for funding clinical
centres, supporting research support staff, LRECS, form filling
and dedicated research support staff.
Although Clinical Networks are being established,
there is now not any slack in clinical practice, and such endeavours
require dedicated funding.
Clinicians are not encouraged to participate
in clinical trials by these conditions.
It is for these reasons that I have campaigned
for a National Cancer Institute, which would work exclusively
in cancer and would provide a nucleus for training and in oncology,
statistics and medical research. Technology would allow networking
and such organisations such as we are setting up in Scotland would
permit a virtual institute, linked electronically with a parent
body.
I have been encouraged that this idea has been
taken up by Professor Waxman and Dr Ian Gibson and would offer
it my support.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the Millenium
Dome would not be suitable as a more permanent reminder of national
progress, in the form of a National Cancer Institute.
March 2000
| 
