APPENDIX 14
Memorandum from Professor Kay E Davies,
former member of the MRC Task Force on the NIMR
As you may know, I am a member of MRC Council
and was also a member of the Task Force looking at the future
of NIMR. I am writing this in my capacity as a member of the Task
Force and an Honorary Director of an MRC Unit. I have been associated
with the MRC and working at the interface between basic science
and clinical medicine for the last 20 years. I am currently Chairman
of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Department Health funded
clinical trial which you helped so much to set up.
The MRC is required by OST to re-assess the
strategic relevance of an institute whenever there is either a
quinquennial review or whenever a Director retires. The MRC therefore
needed to consider the future of NIMR in the context of its strategic
priorities for the next 20-30 years. The genetic revolution and
sequencing of the human genome has provided an unparalled opportunity
to exploit basic science in the clinic. The MRC would naturally
wish to facilitate this transition as much as possible to strengthen
links with the NHS in the UK and also to ensure the exploitation
of the fruits of the genome sequencing era via the biotechnology
and pharmaceutical industries. This step requires a shift from
a purely biologically based research to a more multidisciplinary
environment.
The Task Force was set up in a spirit of openness
and with no prior agenda. The first meeting endorsed the need
for a National Institute but also recognised the need for the
science to evolve towards more translational research. It was
acknowledged that NIMR was already engaged in some translational
research but the renewed institute would need to have more emphasis
in this area.
Some discussion was had about whether the remit
of NIMR should cover clinical research as well as translational
research. This was decided to be inappropriate as the former would
need another type of infrastructure. Indeed, the report from the
Academy of Medical Sciences has recommended a dispersed model
for clinical research activity. The Task Force vision does not
conflict with this recommendation.
It can be debated whether translational research
is done better adjacent to a medical school or not. However, there
are additional considerations in locating a renewed institute.
Translational research needs more interdisciplinary working in
order to achieve its aims of delivery to the clinic and establishing
links with industry to produce new drugs. In particular, there
is a need for modern synthetic chemistry, physical chemistry,
engineering and imaging. The Task Force therefore invited bids
for other London institutions to accommodate NIMR.
The membership of the Task Force was made up
of leaders in the field many of whom have been involved in multidisciplinary
institutes and translational research. The discussions were open
and the proceedings published on the web. There was no bias at
any stage.
The Task Force recognised the high cost of re-location
but also recognised the cost of keeping NIMR at Mill Hill. It
was therefore decided to invite bids for a re-location. MRC Council
could then make an informed decision about the future.
9 November 2004
| 
