APPENDIX 12
Memorandum from Professor Stephen Challacombe,
King's College London
May I comment in general terms on the future
of the NIMR, whilst declaring a potential interest since I am
part of Kings College.
I have four major points:
(i) The process undertaken by the MRC (consideration
of the various possibilities, widespread consultation) seems to
me to have been exemplary.
(ii) The recommendations of the Task Force
(site in London with close links to a major research/clinical
base) seem extremely sensible. The reason is that such a linkage
would maximise collaboration and enable and foster robust links
with translational and clinical research. This surely is the real
aim and purpose if the real strengths of NIMR are to have any
impact on health and healthcare.
(iii) Keeping the NIMR as a single and identifiable
entity is important. It is an internationally competitive and
splitting NIMR into smaller entities risks losing the leverage
that a high quality research institute should have on training
and on the public understanding of science.
(iv) London with its large and diverse population
is the correct location to realise the aims above.
9 November 2004
|
