APPENDIX 4
Memorandum from N Michael Green, Department
of Mathematical Biology, National Institute for Medical Research
The main avowed objective of the proposals by
the MRC for the future of the NIMR is to promote clinical research
and to provide clinicians with opportunities for an education
in research methods.
Given that this is a worthwhile objectives is
it best achieved by revolution or evolution? So far the MRC has
focused on the revolutionary solution. They propose to move the
Institute to a new site in central London, emphasising the advantages
of the new interactions which this would promote, with little
apparent thought about the ensuing disruption of support facilities
and of research teams.
I would like to put forward briefly the advantages
of an evolutionary approach, which could achieve the objective
in a less destructive manner. There are at least two ways in which
this might be done.
1. Clinical facilities could be created
at Mill Hill, where there is plenty of space, but this would be
expensive and difficult to justify in terms of the need for a
new hospital in the area.
2. A more practical alternative would be
to build research facilities on one of the sites (UCL or KCL)
already identified, to promote clinical research in collaboration
with appropriate groups at NIMR. New appointments at NIMR could
enhance the process, so that the new outstation of the Institute
could grow and change according to demand. Such growth by evolution
has proved successful at both LMB and NIMR and could be both less
destructive and more economical than the current proposals for
wholesale transfer.
It is a fallacy to assume that proximity in
itself promotes collaboration as can be seen from examples within
the MRC. Very little of the first class research done at the Laboratory
for Molecular Biology in Cambridge has involved clinical collaborators,
in spite of the location next to a large hospital. Fruitful collaboration
usually emerges from a common interest in specific problems, with
benefit from complementary technical approaches. It often evolves
slowly. The focus and the collaborators may change as the scientific
understanding develops and new collaborators may well be distant,
including international. Collaboration is driven by the science
not by proximity. In a large Institute it can be fostered by new
appointments. Examination of the publications from the NIMR shows
how much this can change the focus of research in five or 10 years.
I hope that that the proposals can be reconsidered
in rational terms rather than burying them in the jargon of "management"—Blinded
by the Vision!
27 October 2004
| 
