Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 2004
SIR ANTHONY
CLEAVER, PROFESSOR
COLIN BLAKEMORE
AND PROFESSOR
JOHN SAVILL
Q20 Chairman: King's and UCL?
Professor Blakemore: I presume,
in developing their bids, I would hope, that they have consulted
widely, but of course that is their responsibility, not ours.
Chairman: You are not sure.
Q21 Dr Iddon: We have some concerns.
For example, one of them would be that everybody knows that the
UK has a considerable lead in stem-cell research at the moment,
they will also know the decision California has just taken, so
there is an obvious tension there. What we are concerned about
is disrupting that very important research, because you are going
to disrupt it by a move. Has the disruption of state of the art,
chalk-face research been considered vis-a"-vis the move into
London?
Professor Blakemore: Of course
it has. Any major change is bound to produce disturbance, that
is beyond question. I cannot believe that should be an overriding
argument for simply maintaining the status quo. Can I point out
that to move to a purpose-built, new set of laboratories, in a
different location, might actually be much less disruptive than
having to renovate substantially and even rebuild on the existing
site. The move would be planned presumably over the course of
several years. NIMR staff would be involved in specifying the
laboratory conditions and space for the facilities that they needed,
and actually the transition could be minimally disruptive. I am
very glad though you raised the question of stem-cell research.
One possibility, but this will depend of course on the identity
of the new Director and the evolution of science at NIMR, that
the relocated Institute could become a really major, national
centre for stem-cell research. There are possibilities for collaborations
both at UC and at KC which would facilitate that. NIMR is just
in the process of establishing a new division for stem-cell research
and I think this will give a fantastic opportunity not only for
further collaboration and strengthening of the basic aspect of
that research but eventually for delivery into the clinical context,
being close to a hospital.
Q22 Chairman: For the record, can
you tell me what is wrong with Lincoln's Inn Fields as a centre
for you to amalgamate with?
Professor Blakemore: We have not
discussed that with Cancer Research UK so I cannot give a simple,
straightforward answer, but I would say there is not enough space
at Lincoln's Inn Fields for a building of 30,000 square metres.
Also, I am not sure that the allegiances between the Cancer Research
UK laboratories and NIMR as it is would make that particularly
productive.
Q23 Chairman: I am thinking about
stem-cell, you see, and cancer treatment with stem-cells has great
potential?
Professor Blakemore: What I would
say, Chairman, is that the distance from King's College or University
College to Lincoln's Inn Fields is considerably less than the
distance from Mill Hill. What we hope to see is that the Institute
would be making a very strong contribution, in terms of collaborations,
not only with whichever university or hospital it was co-located
but with all the other, nearby, major medical schools and Institutes
in central London.
Q24 Dr Iddon: I am pleased to say
that the vast majority of evidence we are receiving on this question
suggests that Mill Hill is very highly rated internationally,
but we have had some evidence to suggest that perhaps they have
lost their way, in some respects, and that they have become isolated
from the academic community. What is your view on that?
Professor Blakemore: Could I emphasise
that the remit of the Task Force had nothing to do with judging
the quality of past or present science. We have the QQR process
for doing that. It had to do with developing a strategic vision
for the future of the Institute on a 20- to 30-, 50-year timescale.
I would not want to express a view on whether NIMR has lost its
way. It is going through a QQR at the moment and we will learn
a great deal from that. My personal view is that the quality of
science at Mill Hill is extremely high and that there is world-class
expertise there which must be preserved.
Q25 Dr Iddon: It is not about refocusing
the interests of Mill Hill, it is about improving the performance
through the translational research into the clinic?
Professor Blakemore: It is about
offering opportunity for the skills and strengths and facilities
of NIMR to be directed more towards clinical delivery.
Chairman: Let us talk about translational
research.
Q26 Mr Key: Sir Anthony, for over
21 years I have represented the scientists who work at two very
important establishments at Porton Down, now Defence Science and
Technology Laboratories and the Health Protection Agency. I find
myself, therefore, really surprised that we are here discussing
this at all. In both those establishments they have had at least
three fundamental reforms of structure, and the science that they
do has never been brought into question, but the legitimate ownership
of those establishments has changed. Can you just confirm, therefore,
that it is the Medical Research Council which is responsible for
the overall ownership and vision and function of NIMR?
Sir Anthony Cleaver: Absolutely.
Q27 Mr Key: Therefore that it is
up to the Medical Research Council to decide the future of NIMR?
Sir Anthony Cleaver: It is our
responsibility.
Q28 Mr Key: Sir Anthony, can you
also confirm what Professor Blakemore has just said, that at no
stage has the quality of the science or the scientists at NIMR
been in question, as part of this review of location?
Sir Anthony Cleaver: Absolutely
not. That is the function of the quinquennial reviews and, as
Colin has just said, the latest one is currently taking place.
Q29 Mr Key: I have been astonished
at the vicious attacks on Professor Blakemore by some of the heads
of division at NIMR. I wonder if I could ask Professor Blakemore
therefore, in the light of a very important statement that the
Chairman read to this Committee before the start of this meeting,
and which I hope will become part of the evidence which is published,
in which it appeared that the Task Force was united; Professor
Blakemore, did anybody refuse to sign that statement which the
Chairman read to us from members of the Task Force? Because six
did: you did, Professor Davies did, Professor Denton, Professor
Flavell, Sir Paul Nurse and Professor Tomlinson signed up to it.
Who did not sign that statement of support, which said that the
work of the Task Force was properly conducted and the views of
staff at NIMR and the proposals for the Mill Hill site were fully
considered?
Professor Blakemore: Thank you,
Mr Key, for raising that. This document was circulated only after
I had seen Sir John Skehel's submission to your Committee a few
days ago. It was sent to the other two, the only other two members
of the Task Force, Dr Robin Lovell-Badge and Dr Steve Gamblin.
Q30 Dr Harris: What about Alan Bernstein?
Professor Blakemore: I am very
sorry, Alan Bernstein's name should be on this; he has signed
it. I am extremely sorry. Alan Bernstein has agreed to this. The
only other two members are Robin Lovell-Badge and Steve Gamblin.
It was sent to them but I have not heard from them.
Q31 Mr Key: You do not know why they
did not sign it?
Professor Blakemore: I presume
that it would be incompatible with the position that they are
now taking in the statements, which I have only just seen, by
the way.
Q32 Chairman: We will ask them in
the next session.
Professor Blakemore: Can I come
back, just to reinforce the point that we did have unanimity of
view on the vision developed by the Task Force. The press release
which all the members of the Task Force agreed to—all the
members, including Robin Lovell-Badge and Steve Gamblin—says
that "An international Task Force has recommended that if
an appropriate partnership arrangement can be negotiated the Institute
should move to a central London location, in association with
a leading university and hospital, in order to carry out more
patient-based research." Dr Lovell-Badge very kindly contributed
a quotation to that: "This has been a difficult period for
staff at the Institute and I am sure that they will appreciate
these positive recommendations which would secure the Institute's
future."
Q33 Chairman: Can I ask you a question,
is Mill Hill still an option at this moment?
Professor Blakemore: What the
Council has decided is that it is not an active option.
Q34 Chairman: It is an inactive option.
What is an inactive option?
Professor Blakemore: It is the
baseline case against which the two preferred options should be
judged. With such very clear guidance from the Task Force, the
Council decided that it should put all its efforts into exploring
the preferred possibilities. That is why it chose to concentrate
on only the two options of King's and UCL.
Q35 Chairman: It is an option, even
if it is not preferred?
Professor Blakemore: It is providing
the base case against which the options appraisal will be carried
out. And not just the status quo, Mill Hill has developed an enhanced
base case.
Q36 Chairman: If the other two fell
apart for some reason, would Mill Hill come back on the Task Force
agenda?
Sir Anthony Cleaver: It would
be the Council's decision. The Council will review the recommendations
of UCL and King's College. We will examine whether we believe
they meet all the requirements and are the best approach. In the
event that one of them appears promising we will take that forward
and ensure that we have both a satisfactory science case and a
business case which meet as many of the objectives as we can possibly
achieve.
Q37 Chairman: Would you say that
Mill Hill is not ruled in and it is not ruled out?
Sir Anthony Cleaver: In the event
that neither of those two, which are the only two which can, can
meet the vision as defined and also meet the objective of trying
to keep together the grouping at Mill Hill, who therefore could
work in a London environment but who, we presume, based on their
own concerns, would be vulnerable if we were to move further a
field, if we cannot meet all those requirements we will have to
look at all the other options.
Q38 Chairman: What are they then?
Sir Anthony Cleaver: There is
no other option, other than these two which we are examining now,
which meets all the requirements of the vision.
Q39 Chairman: I understand that,
but you said, Sir Anthony, that you would examine all the other
options?
Sir Anthony Cleaver: Exactly.
| 
