APPENDIX 8
Memorandum from Dr Robb Krumlauf, Scientific
Director, Stowers Institute for Medical Research
I am delighted to hear that the House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee are conducting an inquiry into
the future of the MRC National Institute for Medical research.
I have been deeply concerned about the validity of both the decision
and the process by which the MRC Forward Investment Strategy and
the subsequent Special Task Force reached the conclusion that
it would be in the best scientific interest of the MRC to close
NIMR and merge it with University College London (UCL) or King's
College London (KCL). I should preface my specific comments by
noting that I was a team leader and Head of Division at NIMR over
a 15-year span from 1985-2000.
I am a strong supporter of NIMR because it is
a very special environment that combines scientific excellence
in basic research with collegiality and shared resources. In my
opinion NIMR was and is successful for four main reasons:
1. they attract top rank investigators at
all levels;
2. they are focused on an area (basic biomedical
research);
3. they employ shared core resources to
maximize efficient use of enabling technologies; and
4. minimal bureaucracy permits a greater
effort on generating research discoveries. This has lead to synergy
and underpinned the outstanding scientific discoveries, which
have emerged from this leading international institute.
This kind of synergistic and interactive scientific
culture is not easy to achieve and can't simply be transplanted
to a new location. The current view of the MRC is that basic research
needs to be combined with translational and clinical research
and that this could not happen if NIMR remained in its present
location, as there are no universities or hospitals on the site.
In this regard it is important to note that in university and
clinical settings there may be additional opportunities for collaborations,
but there are also greatly increased demands upon researchers
time and resources associated with the goals of universities and
hospitals in educating students and treating patients. This can
seriously dilute the effectiveness of an independent and synergistic
institute focused on research outcomes.
There is no doubt that it is of paramount import
to exploit basic research discoveries though translational and
clinical research directed towards improving health and well being.
However, it is essential that we not to loose sight of the fact
that generating basic research discoveries is the engine which
drives this process. In the absence of basic or fundamental findings
there is no raw material to develop and translate for the public
good. Furthermore, successful translational and clinical research
depends upon different skills, goals, approaches and resources
than basic research. These are very different kinds of science.
As a consequence immediate proximity in the same institution of
those with expertise in basic, translational or clinical research
does not always foster synergy and is often seen as a dilution
of focused effort. It would be foolish to attempt to take the
relatively small-sized group of scientists at NIMR and divert
the focus from basic research. There is little probability that
they would have the critical mass to make an effective effort
in more than one of these areas.
Collaboration and interaction are the key to
exploiting research discoveries not simply proximity. I read with
utter disbelief that the subcommittee felt NIMR on its present
site might be too isolated from clinical or academic expertise
to remain attractive and competitive. NIMR is widely respect as
a great place to train and routinely attracts some of the very
best postdoctoral fellows and students worldwide. With respect
to collaboration while at NIMR I had active and productive collaborations
throughout the UK and around the world. Science in today's world
sees few boundaries and the immediate proximity to clinical or
academic expertise does not in any way ensure close collaborations.
The clinical expertise at UCL or KCL while good is still limited
and scientists at NIMR already have productive links with clinicians
in many locations.
It was particularly confusing to me that the
Special Task Force re-evaluating the future of NIMR reached a
decision to move to KCL or UCL without considering the option
of remaining in its present location. The Task Force confirmed
that NIMR was an outstanding Institution and that any the option
to move had to ensure the science and opportunities were equal
to its present location. However, the cost effectiveness of moving
to central London and maintaining the critical mass of scientists
and animal facilities required to support their research was not
properly considered. To those of us outside the country it appeared
there was a hidden agenda to close NIMR and move it at all costs.
The scientific criteria and cost justification for such a decision
were totally unclear.
In the US and Europe NIMR is seen as a special
place and is widely held to be one of the very best places in
the world to train. Since the announcement by the MRC on its intensions
for NIMR I have been besieged by colleagues from the US and Europe
asking how it would be possible for the MRC to turn a blind eye
to one of its jewels and asking if they can help to avert this
illogical course of action. I must say that the standpoint taken
by the MRC is frankly viewed by the international scientific community
as foolish and ignores the process of scientific peer review,
which has underscored the quality of science at NIMR. To my international
colleagues and myself this comes across as blatant political maneuvering
and is a sign that the MRC has lost its way in planning for the
scientific needs of the country.
In recent years, the ineffective way that the
MRC has handled support for project grants and universities has
lead to great hardships for academic researchers in universities.
Naturally this has made them envious of the core support for institutions
such as NIMR. To close NIMR and downsize it in a new location
to save money that can be directed in other areas to meet needs
is short-sighted. The move to central London may cost much more
money with little promise of increased productivity. The MRC needs
independent and focused research institutes as centers of excellent.
Finally, if scientists at NIMR are unable to
recruit good people because of this decision it will be extremely
difficult to maintain their research productivity. The uncertainty
about whom and how many people would move to London and the time
delay of the move will drive many of the best people at NIMR to
seek other positions. Poaching by other institutions and universities
will lead to a steady drain of top scientists and recruitment
of new team leaders will be ineffective due to the uncertainty.
The end result will be that a vibrant and strong NIMR will no
longer exist to move. In summary for a variety of reasons it is
imperative that the MRC reconsider its decision and initiate a
fair and scientifically based evaluation of its strategy. The
MRC can't afford to allow this decision to stand without a fair
and credible debate, otherwise irreparable damage will be done
to one of its major institutions.
3 November 2004
| 
