Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 126)
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 2004
SIR JOHN
SKEHEL, DR
ROBIN LOVELL-BADGE
AND DR
STEVE GAMBLIN
Q120 Dr Iddon: I am sure this Committee
is going to look at the possible disruption of the research, and
I have referred to that already in terms of the stem-cell research
that your Institute does, and I am concerned about that personally.
Professor Blakemore admitted that any move will cause huge disruption.
However, I am also concerned that you may lose staff. Are there
any indications that would be a possibility by moving into any
location, never mind central London?
Sir John Skehel: I think the staff
is split into several sections, in consideration of this. I think
the senior scientists have clearly chosen a place like Mill Hill
as optimum for progressing their own research, and if they think,
in any way, that a consequence of the disruption or what is proposed
elsewhere is going to be worse than that they may well move elsewhere.
I think, in the junior levels of staff, there is such a turnover
there anyway, in terms of post-doctoral training and graduate
student training, that it may well not have an enormous impact
on them. I think it will have an impact on recruiting them because
the place will become known as being disturbed until it settles
down again, but in terms of the individuals it is not as great
an impact. In terms of the research support staff, who are invaluable,
who are really something that make an Institute special, by comparison
with other forms of research, I think there is a lot of unrest
there and worry about their future. There is a lot of unrest when
the MRC come out and speak to the staff and, instead of addressing
the size of the future Institute, talk about the volume of the
research in the future Institute. When volume was mentioned before,
in the Forward Investment Strategy, it meant cutting the Institute
by half, and so there is real concern among them and, frankly,
I am very concerned that the Institute will finish up at anything
like its size on another site.
Q121 Dr Iddon: Can I tease a little
more out of you about the impact that the move would have on the
research. Do you think the research is going to be refocused,
do you think you are going to lose areas of research possibly
at risk now?
Sir John Skehel: I think that
is possible, with the talk about this translation. I would say
that there is a willingness at Mill Hill to respond to the wishes
of the community that there should be more early-stage translation
linked with basic science. We are quite prepared to do that and
we have made proposals to extend our efforts in that regard in
the documents that you have received. I think a bigger concern
for me is the idea of preserving the Institute as a multidisciplinary,
basic science centre, because all of the interactions that we
have worldwide, including the translation interactions, are dependent
upon us retaining that strong basic science base. Anything that
disturbs that, for me, is detrimental. You talk in particular
of disturbance during removal. There will not be anything like
the disturbance that will happen in the Biological Services Department,
because that will be an enormous task, to move the animals that
we have to any new site, and it will be very costly also, I have
to say, our estimates say.
Q122 Dr Iddon: You have done a step-change
modelling, of course, and given some costs to your best ability
to that. Would you like to say something on that, relative to
the costs of a potential move to either of the two preferred sites?
Sir John Skehel: Yes. In absolute
terms, it amounts to about 25 per cent of what would be required,
in the estimates of what would be required in central London.
The building, work we propose, focuses on a new outreach centre,
which would be at the front of the building. We just want to take
the opportunity to increase our interactions with the public and
we would like to set ourselves up also as a national conference
centre. There has been a lot of demand for that in the past, we
have considered it in the last couple of quinquennials, this might
be an opportunity that we could get support for that. There is
a lot of support locally for our interactions with the public
and certainly that would help. We have a number of ways in which
we want to develop the science, which involve extending the animal
facilities and extending our imaging facilities, in particular,
and that is something that is possible on the Mill Hill site because
of its flexibility. We occupy about only 25 per cent of the area
of the site, and really we think to give up that level of flexibility
to expand science, to do different sorts of science in the future,
is a mistake on the part of the MRC. It is for that reason that
we are not defying anybody, we are simply disagreeing. There is
no point in us defying, we have no power in this, we simply disagree
with the logic.
Q123 Chairman: Suppose it happens
that the view is a good one in London, financially and so on,
what do you do then?
Sir John Skehel: I think that
is great. I think that it is the spirit of the Task Force to imagine
that what would happen in central London is an all-singing, all-dancing,
brand-new Institute, on a new site, with its independence, with
the facilities that it requires, and really we have no objection
to that, we are completely supportive of that. They, just as we
are proposing this outreach centre in response to the possibility
of getting support, they are looking to get support for a brand-new
centre, to make a statement about medical research right now,
and certainly we are not against that and never have been.
Q124 Dr Iddon: I have one more question
on costs. The Task Force have also looked at the costs of staying
at Mill Hill and improving the buildings and work there, but you
are disputing the consultants' estimates. Could you give us just
a brief reason why that dispute has occurred?
Sir John Skehel: Not extensively,
but we have a lot of experience of refurbishing and we refurbish
to a very high standard, and as a consequence we recruit, and
are still continuing to recruit, extremely good scientists. There
was a mention made of the JIF standards. The JIF standards came
out from the Joint Infrastructure Fund that gave out a lot of
money for property to be developed in universities and they set
certain standards, but the first thing in those standards was
that the scientists' wishes should be paramount. How our current
laboratories, many of which have been refurbished recently, do
not meet those standards is due largely to the fact that we do
not want to use false ceilings, and false ceilings cover up all
the pipes and stuff and have more attraction, but from the point
of view of the work that we do, which requires fumigation of the
laboratories, we do not want to do that, they would not fit the
use of the laboratories. That is the only way that we know that
our laboratories are not supposed to fit the JIF standards. We
have had a discussion about that, it is still maintained as JIF
standards because it is the standard recognised by the industry,
but the rest of the laboratories are completely as good, and certainly,
as far as the scientists are concerned, completely appropriate
for any research that they want to do. That was the major discussion.
I should say that those particular consultants went through a
range of options, from refurbishment all the way through to rebuilding.
It was not clear to me that they were not potential contractors,
but that is another matter. We have looked at those figures in
detail and discussed with them, and we conclude that our refurbishment
would be more cost-effective, but it is only really because we
have experience of doing it fairly frequently.
Dr Gamblin: The base component
of our step-change option, which is to finish the refurbishment
of the main building, 70 per cent of which is already complete,
essentially is the same as the Ove Arup option for refurbishment.
Sir John Skehel: I think a major
point in this regard, which came up earlier in the day, is the
idea that the building is going to need rebuilding at some stage.
I imagine this place probably also needs rebuilding at some stage.
Q125 Chairman: Never. It goes on
for ever.
Sir John Skehel: We get structural
engineers to look at the Institute, and when they look at the
actual quality of the building they are very enthusiastic, and
when they look at the sort of refurbishment that we do, recently,
for example, an MRC group of consultants said that the refurbishment
is adding value to the building all the time. It is not old, it
does not require immediate building, it has a lifetime well beyond
30 years, so that sort of information is mis-information.
Q126 Chairman: Can I say that the
Committee has been very privileged by having two sets of very,
very committed witnesses. As I said to the other group, you may
have other things you would like to have said, and we have some
questions and we will certainly write to you. This does not mean
this is the end of the chance to say what you feel about the issue.
I will finish with one, very simple question. From your point
of view, what happens next?
Sir John Skehel: We would like
to think that the proposals we have put forward would be considered
as a proper option, and we hope that the MRC reconsiders that.
If that happens, all that we can ask then is that the comparison
of the options, the Mill Hill option plus King's and UC, is done
fairly, and that is all we ask.
Chairman: Can I say thank you very, very
much for coming along, to both sets of witnesses, but thank you
to you for coming, John. I have never ever sat through a meeting
here, in my time as Chair, opening so dramatically, as it did.
It almost threw me, but we managed to cover it because it is very
important information. Thank you very much and thank you for the
evidence you have given.
|
