APPENDIX 109
Memorandum from Professor James Fawcett,
Cambridge University
I write as an active scientist with some knowledge
of NIMR from the inside and a view from the outside. My current
position is Chairman of the Cambridge University Centre for Brain
Repair, which is partially funded by an MRC cooperative group
grant. I was a PhD student at NIMR some years ago, and have visited
the Institute and collaborated with one of the scientific divisions
over many years.
1. NIMR is the largest item of MRC expenditure,
and it is clearly correct that its effectiveness and value for
money relative to other calls on the MRC, and relative to its
title and intended role should be examined. At a time when a substantial
proportion of Alpha A- rated programme project and centre applications,
of a similar standard to work in NIMR, are turned down, NIMR needs
to demonstrate an exceptional level of performance.
2. Scientific achievement at NIMR. The
level of scientific achievement at NIMR is generally of a high
order, as confirmed by the recent review process. The best known
groups work in developmental biology and in immunology. There
is a good level of collaborative working between most of the groups.
The research is almost all at the cellular/molecular level with
little interaction with clinical medicine.
3. Advantages of keeping NIMR at Mill
Hill. The Mill Hill site provides ample space and good facilities.
The new animal facilities are large and excellent. Because of
the isolated nature of the site, it is possible to maintain tight
security. The current faculty mostly works well together, and
clearly does not wish the disruption that a move would bring.
4. Advantages of closing NIMR. The
directly funded budget of NIMR from the MRC is £31 million
a year. The total cost is considerably greater. This would fund
an extra 100 programme grants in Universities, or 500 project
grants. The site has considerable value, and the money released
could relocate groups from NIMR and fund new initiatives. The
relocation of groups to universities would benefit higher education
and university research.
5. Advantages of relocating NIMR to a central
site.
5.1 Training. The current NIMR is
not a good site for training PhD students, and has no contact
with undergraduates. Students are isolated from the type of training
courses that are run in universities, and from the large student
bodies that provide a good learning, training and social environment.
Relocation to a site near a major university would improve the
training experience of young scientists.
5.2 Education. At a time when UK
universities are struggling to maintain their research base and
to maintain educational standards, it is not sensible to remove
some of the best scientists from the educational environment and
sequestrate them in large isolated institutes. If NIMR were moved
to a major university, it would greatly benefit both university
education and research.
5.3 Clincal and translational research.
NIMR at present is distant from a major hospital, and therefore
has few links to clinicians and clinical research. Central London
provides these links in profusion, with several of main specialist
clinical research centres nearby.
5.4 NIMR scientific careers. NIMR
is large, but does not always provide the stimulation needed for
scientists to maintain their productivity until retirement. Links
to a university would provide more varied and long term intellectual
stimulus to the scientific staff, and also provide alternative
career paths to those whose work has gone off the boil.
5.5 Public engagement in Science.
A National Institute for Medical Research should be open and available
to the public, and play a part in fostering public understanding
of and sympathy with science. The current site of NIMR, and its
fortress-like stance, prevent this.
6. Conclusion. NIMR has an enviable
reputation in basic biological research. Moving it to a central
site associated with a university would greatly increase its potential
and influence. In central London it could fulfill the role suggested
by its title. I would have thought that the staff of the Institute,
when presented with the opportunity to set up a new and enhanced
institute, would have jumped at the chance, and I slightly at
a loss to understand why they view a move to central London so
negatively.
25 November 2004
| 
