APPENDIX 111
Memorandum from Professor Frank Grosveld,
Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam
I would like to comment on one of the major
arguments, being used to justify the relocation of the MRC NIMR,
namely the fact that the basic research should be placed close
to a clinical setting to ensure its translation to the clinical
practice. It is simply false.
I am doing basic research in related fields.
I started my research group at NIMR in Mill Hill, stayed there
for more than 10 years and then moved to the Netherlands to the
Erasmus Medical Center (Rotterdam). This center is a fusion between
the biggest Academic Hospital in the country and the medical faculty
of the Erasmus University. My department is working with several
clinical departments. However our research is slowed down rather
than the opposite by being close to a clinical setting, even though
some of these collaborations work well. Perhaps most telling is
that my best research projects and groups are not associated with
clinical departments (the exception is the genomic analysis of
cancers, but that can hardly be classified as basic research as
it is in fact of a diagnostic nature). Many institutions will
often claim that they have an excellent basic research programme,
when in fact this is not the case. Perhaps the best example is
the MRC's own Clinical Research Center on the Hammersmith site.
It was set up to have basic research close to the clinic with
clinicians participating in or running the research. However the
example they present as their best case is one of a very good
research programme run by a clinician, but the work is unrelated
to the clinic and his clinical work is not even done at the same
site.
Over the years I have become convinced that
the argument to close basic research institutes like the one in
Mill Hill and place it much closer to a clinical setting to be
able to efficiently do medical research, is in fact only part
of a struggle about power, control and funds by a community that
is increasingly overrun by the incredible speed of modern basic
science. The pressure on basic research is also increasingly accompanied
(at least in my country) by political pressure from central Government
and parliament that all research has to be "useful"
or "applicable". Most progress is not made that way
as it is often unpredictable and depending to a large extent on
serendipity.
This does not mean that I think that science
should not be brought closer to medicine, but instead of the "collaboration
model" we have tried for 10 years (and are continuing where
it is fruitful), we have changed tactics to close the gap with
the medical community by bringing much more science education
to the medical students. The idea is of course that in future
they will automatically be much more sensitive to integrating
basic research in their clinical departments. We therefore started
a MSc Molecular Medicine programme for the best and most motivated
medical students. It includes a year of basic research and is
a great success. When they complete the MSc and their medical
degree, we make it easy for them to come back for a PhD doing
basic research as part of their medical specialization. For example
I presently have a PhD student working on the mechanism of X chromosome
inactivation, while his further medical training will be to become
a surgeon.
16 November 2004
|
