Select Committee on Science and Technology Written Evidence


Supplementary memorandum from N Michael Green, Department of Mathematical Biology, National Institute for Medical Research


  Further comment following previous submission, (Appendix 4), and the evidence session of the committee 10 January 2005.

  The confusion following the fifth and final meeting of the task force concerning the status of the Mill Hill option, stems directly from the lack of consultation at an earlier stage. This deficiency was also the source of the lack of trust, which has led to the present impasse. It was only after the task force had completed its work that the MRC asked NIMR to put forward proposals for its future, so that the task force were influenced by the unsubstantiated opinion of the MRC that long term development at the Mill Hill site was not an option. The Step Change Option proposed by NIMR shows how the requirements of the MRC vision for the future of the NIMR could be met, based mainly on the present site coupled to parallel clinical developments elsewhere. These proposals were not available until late November. It is clear from the answers of Professors Flavell and Tomlinson to questions from your committee that they knew nothing about them.

  The MRC thus becomes the sole arbiter. It is to be hoped that they will give proper consideration to the Step Change Option. Unfortunately one is left with the feeling that it may end like the Caucus race in Alice in Wonderland, followed by the Mouse's tale—"I'll be judge, I'll be jury said cunning old Fury—I'll try the whole cause and condemn you to death".

January 2005

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 8 February 2005