APPENDIX 105
Memorandum from Professor David Trentham
1. I endorse fully and without reservation
the several responses of the Heads of Divisions' Committee, NIMR,
to the Task Force and to the MRC Council's preliminary conclusions
on the future of NIMR.
2. It would appear to be without international
precedent for a major and highly successful National Medical Research
Institute to have its autonomy reduced as would occur if it were
to be relocated within the confines of a University that is itself
being required to commit major resources. It is likely that such
a move will also be detrimental to the autonomy of the MRC. It
is unfortunate that the Council of the MRC is unbalanced with
respect to representation from its Research Institutes.
3. MRC policy and management of Clinical
Research is a major issue. It should be dealt with separately
from considerations of the future of NIMR. This does justice neither
to Clinical Research nor to NIMR. An MRC Task Force on Clinical
Research could well recommend greater participation by its Institutes
and Units in clinical research and training but that is a complementary
issue to the future of NIMR.
4. One of the real privileges of my time
at NIMR was to carry out my research in an Institute that has
made and is making such a profound contribution to major infectious
diseases and particularly those of the developing world. It was
especially important to me to see my colleagues in the biophysical
sciences have such positive and productive interactions with their
more biologically and medically trained colleagues on a day to
day basis. Any diminution of this very special character of NIMR,
of which the United Kingdom has every reason to be proud, must
not be allowed to happen both for humanitarian and political reasons.
5. I am aware that the MRC when considering
the future of NIMR is proposing to act within a formula that may
in a legalistic sense be compatible with the guidelines of the
Treasury "Green Book" (http://greenbook.treasury.gov.uk/).
However the spirit of those guidelines, which seek to ensure prudent
fiscal management, has not been followed. This Green Book expects
several procedures to be adopted amongst which is (Paragraph 2.8);
"The "do minimum" option should always be carried
forward in the shortlist, to act as a check against more interventionist
action." In this context I find quite inexplicable a quotation
from the MRC CEO in 17 November 2004 Daily News of The Scientist.
One paragraph reads: On the question of the current Mill Hill
site being considered as an option, Blakemore said it would "complicate"
the process of moving forward. "It was not logical. If Mill
Hill was the default choice, then the implication is that nothing
else could be considered at any stage in the future." I and
I hope the Science and Technology Committee will disagree with
this logic—the implication that "nothing else could
be considered" does not follow. Furthermore avoiding consideration
of the Mill Hill site for NIMR on an equal basis with other options
directly contradicts the recommended procedure of the Green Book.
6. The MRC is to be condemned for the extremely
serious damage to NIMR Staff morale. Amongst several issues are
the mixed messages from the MRC that have emanated from the outset
of this saga concerning timing of a possible move. To give an
example, at his most recent meeting with NIMR Staff the CEO listened
to and discussed with them their difficulties in pursuing animal
based experiments on the King's College London site, and yet he
is quoted in the same November 17 issue of the Scientist Daily
News as follows " . . . I would ask them (ie NIMR Staff)
to remember two things. One is that the review is about the NIMR
in 20 or 30 years' time. Some of them are thinking it's an immediate
crisis for them and their work . . . ". It is demoralising
and worse to have the CEO give one picture to MRC Staff and quite
a different one to the public at large.
7. No appreciation so far as I am aware
has been made of the continuing major changes that will occur
in audiovisual communication and in data and other information
exchange. These will surely enhance communication and collaboration
of an already interactive Institute from its present site at minimal
cost.
8. The losses on moving from the NIMR site
from both personnel and facilities viewpoints are incalculable.
It is incredibly difficult to create excellence but easy to be
destructive. The idea that an Institute and its environment such
as exist at NIMR can be recreated is possible but I rate the odds
at less than one in 100. That a successor to Sir John Skehel will
lead NIMR to even greater scientific achievements should certainly
be the goal and one that has a reasonable chance of success on
the present site but a much lower probability elsewhere.
David Trentham's background: I have 43 years
broad experience in basic medical research and 26 years senior
administrative responsibility. I have conducted my research and
teaching in many organisations as follows with time in years listed
in brackets: Cambridge University (3), Salk Institute (1), MIT
(1), Bristol University (11), University of Pennsylvania (7),
NIMR (19), King's College London (1). I was elected FRS in 1982,
was Chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics in
the Medical School at the University of Pennsylvania and Chair
of a Cardiovascular Graduate student PhD programme (incorporating
MD/PhD students) across the University of Pennsylvania, and have
received more than 25 years continuous NIH grant support that
together give me significant experience of basic medical research
in the USA as well as the UK.
24 November 2004
| 
