APPENDIX 123
Memorandum from Sir John Skehel, Director,
National Institute for Medical Research
I'd like to comment on three issues raised by
the MRC presentations at the Inquiry on 1 December.
1. On several occasions Professor Blakemore
mentioned the Clinical Research Centre at Northwick Park and the
Stoker Report on it in January 1986. He quoted from the report
(Q13) in responding to Dr Turner: "Because of the way medicine
is developing . . . etc. This should be achieved by the move of
the NIMR". Perhaps there has been a drafting problem but
this quotation is exact in detail until the last sentence "This
should be achieved by the move of the NIMR" which is not
present in the copy of the Stoker report that I have available.
The section of the Stoker report at issue is Section 2 which had
17 subsections; NIMR is not mentioned in one of them.
I have it on good authority that no serious
suggestion of a move of NIMR to Northwick Park was made to my
predecessor and certainly neither on my appointment in 1987 nor
in the 17 years since then has the Stoker report or any suggestion
of transfer of NIMR from Mill Hill been mentioned to me by MRC,
until I was given the FIS subcommittee report on 31 March 2003.
I suspect that Professor Blakemore is wrong
in all his conclusions on the Stoker report and that as a new
CEO he may be fighting yesterday's battles for yesterday's men.
2. Professor Savill in answer to Q15 from
Dr Turner referred to the numbers of clinical fellows at the Clinical
Sciences Centre (54), at his own institution in the last five
years (33 clinical training fellows and 13 higher levels), and
at one of the Colleges that submitted, 189 clinical training fellows
and 22 clinical scientists. He and subsequently Professor Blakemore
consider that the number of nine clinicians scientists in training
at Mill Hill is disappointingly small. There are two points in
relation to NIMR performance in this area:
(a) There may well be differences in nomenclature
for clinicians in training and different counting procedures.
As far as I can gather from the following communications from
a senior colleague at the Clinical Sciences Centre this may have
led to an inappropriate comparison.
"I suspect the number quoted is so high
because many Hammersmith clinicians are affiliated with the CSC
and their fellows are being counted in this exercise. In terms
of marrying basic and clinical science however the fellows that
count are those that cross the boundary, ie those that go to work
in basic science labs. As I say this number is probably on a par
with NIMR and certainly not dramatically higher."
(b) In the NIMR quinquennial review in which
MRC endorsed NIMR strategy for the period 2001-06, MRC complimented
the Institutes performance and increased its capital equipment
and recurrent expenses budgets. No major changes in direction
were recommended.
To some extent Professor Savill and the CEO
are importing an issue, which will of course be addressed by NIMR
in the appropriate future reviews. This is also the case for Professor
Blakemore's additional comment on the proportion of NIMR budget
that derives from sources other than MRC. Our performance and
strategy in this regard were also endorsed by MRC for the 2001-06
period.
3. The MRC Chairman Sir Anthony Cleaver
and the CEO Professor Blakemore both raised the issue of the state
of the NIMR building at Mill Hill and, the committee were given
similar information in the session before the inquiry by Lord
Sainsbury. All three indicated that there was concern that the
building, according to the advice that they received, was not
capable in the long term of meeting the needs of the Institute.
In fact during the last 12 months the site has
been surveyed for MRC by Powis Hughes, Ove Arup and NIFES. There
were no adverse comments from the consultants regarding the Institute
building structure but there were comments on its increasing life
expectancy through investment, huge potential for development
and recommendations for routine budgets to maintain decoration,
plant and fixtures/fittings. The building construction is of 600
mm thick solid brick wall elevations with an internal steel column
and beam support frame structure suspending the steel reinforced
concrete floors. There are no notable defects in this structure
or history of any necessary structural repairs since its building
in the 1930s. There is no reason to suspect that this structure
will fail or require anything more than routine repairs for the
long term future.
On the issue of refurbishment standards, MRC
investment during the last 10 years has allowed a refurbishment
programme for all the laboratories that is more than 70% complete,
and that has led to the increased life expectancy referred to
above.
December 2004
| 
