APPENDIX 7
Memorandum from Dr Pushpa Bhargava, Centre
for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad
When I was recently in London to attend a meeting
on "Ethics, Science and Moral Philosophy of Assisted Human
Reproduction" organised by my old friend, Professor Robert
G Edwards, FRS, at The Royal Society, I learnt that the Medical
Research Council (MRC) is considering shifting the National Institute
for Medical Research (NIMR) to the campus of Kings College in
Central London, and narrowing the Institute's focus to infection
and immunity alone. May I, as an admirer of British science and
the MRC and of the many highly productive initiatives that the
MRC has taken over the last 50 years or so, and as one who has
gained immensely from the NIMR, take the liberty of listing below
some of my concerns in regard to the above proposal.
(i) I am unable to see any tenable reason
for moving the Institute from its present campus which is beautiful,
functional and provides scope for the Institute to expand or engage
in new activities that may require additional construction.
(ii) NIMR is now as autonomous as it should
be. It is likely to lose a part of this autonomy if it is moved
to the campus of a university college. There were very specific
reasons why all over the world in the last century-and-a-half,
research institutions and agencies were set up to function autonomously
outside of the university system. I have listed these reasons
in one of our books, "The Saga of Indian Science since
Independence: In a Nutshell", published by the Universities
Press in 2003.
(iii) I am told that the proposed shifting
of the Institute may cost around a hundred million pounds—a
sum which is not trivial for even an affluent country like the
UK. Will the expected benefit (if any) from the proposed move,
be commensurate with this expense?
(iv) One of the important strengths of NIMR
in its present location is its excellent animal house. It is more
likely to be "attacked" in Central London (and its activities
made more restrictive) by animal-rights fundamentalists than in
its present location. This would be an anachronism as the MRC's
stand in regard to the animal rights movement is widely known
and appreciated.
(v) On account of some of the factors mentioned
above and the new mandate that would curtail the scope of the
activities of the NIMR, we fear that some of the best-known members
of the existing scientific staff in the Institute may leave, and
its ability to attract people may diminish.
(vi) The scientific record of the Institute
since its inception more than five decades ago, has been outstanding
both in basic and applied work. What has been impressive is the
sustained excellence of the scientific work of the Institute over
this long period. This is exemplified by Nobel Prizes to scientists
who have worked there, its ability to attract and retain people
of that calibre, and the number of NIMR scientists that have been
elected to the Fellowship of The Royal Society. I recall the discovery
of both paper and gas chromatography at the NIMR, as of interferon
and cryo-preservation of spermatozoa, all of which have had enormous
impact in diverse areas. Along with the LMB at Cambridge, NIMR
has been the flag-ship of MRC. Therefore, the move to shift the
Insitute may, in the eye of its scientific peers, tantamount to
a policy of denigration of sustained excellence in the important
field of bio-medical research. This would be a most saddening
anachronism as Britain has been widely perceived as the Mecca
of outstanding biomedical research, that has taken bold decisions
and blazed new trails in the area. Indeed, if such were not the
policy of MRC, the structure of DNA would not have been discovered—or
the LMB set up—when it was!
(vii) Few institutions of the size of NIMR
have made the contribution it has—both in quality and in
quantity—in initiating and supporting bio-medical research
in other countries that have been not so well endowed as Britain
has been. I have been one of the many beneficiaries of this generosity—and
so have been many of my distinguished friends around the world.
The integrity of such an Institute needs to be supported and not
diminished. This does not mean that one may condone lapses in
quality or quantity, or lack of focus or of commitment to society.
Such institutes surely themselves like to be monitored continuously
and stringently in regard to all these parameters, but any change
required to maintain the high standards of such institutes in
various respects, must come from within and not enforced from
outside. (Such an imposition from outside, I recognise, is necessary
in the case of institutes that have deteriorated beyond a point,
which NIMR certainly has not.) In fact, I believe NIMR has been
submitted to regular stringent peer reviews, and appropriate action
taken following such reviews. I dare say that it is this stringent
introspection and inspection that has allowed NIMR to keep its
place of pride in the community of laboratories of the highest
level of excellence in the field.
(viii) As I have stated above, research
institutes of a high level of excellence in the non-university
sector have played an important role around the world in the progress
of science and technology. Examples would be NIH, Institut Pasteur,
several CNRS and INSERM labs in France, the laboratories of the
Max-Planck Gesselschaft in Germany, of CSIRO in Australia, and
of CSIR, ICMR and ICAR in India, and the institutes under the
national scientific academies in countries such as Russia and
China. I am sure you are just as well aware as I am that this
has led to jealousies against such institutes on part of the university
system in many countries, and thus generated an unreasonable (sometimes
overt, sometimes covert) opposition to them. In the light of this
ground reality, the proposed action in regard to NIMR is likely
to send a wrong message around the world and could be used by
unscrupulous elements in countries such as mine, to diminish non-university
research. It is, in fact, partly this concern that has prompted
me to write this letter to you. Science is today the only truly
international activity that cuts across all man-made barriers.
2 November 2004
|
