APPENDIX 31
Memorandum from Professor Anne Cooke,
Cambridge University
As a member of the MRC organised team that site
visited the Immunology Divisions at NIMR it should be stated that
we found the science to be of the highest quality (top Alpha in
all sections). It is my understanding that site visits to other
Divisions in NIMR have found them to be equally impressive. We
were extremely impressed by the ways in which the Immunology Divisions
interacted together and with other divisions, utilising ideas
and resources in ways that would not have been easily achievable
if they were in University environments that I am familiar with
such as Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial or UCL. The work in the NIMR
divisions relies heavily on the use of animals (mice) and is greatly
facilitated by the availability of state of the art animal house
facilities on site. The scientists within these divisions are
also interactive with groups outside NIMR. They are extremely
helpful in providing the scientific community in the UK and abroad
with novel mouse strains that kept to the highest standard of
health (specific pathogen free). Such a facility is not easy to
reproduce even de novo and its disappearance might lead to the
scientists seeking positions elsewhere in the world and that would
be a great loss to current and future members of the UK scientific
community if these scientists were to leave the UK. The work in
Infectious Diseases is carried out on a wide range of organisms
including those that require Category 4 containment. The site
at NIMR is secure both for this form of work and for animal experimentation.
It has been suggested that NIMR might benefit
form being moved to a central London site with closer proximity
to a hospital. This presumably was suggested in the belief that
it might lead to more translational research. It takes a very
long time for a scientific advance to make its way from the bench
to the bedside. TNF alpha therapy which has revolutionised the
treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has taken more than 13 years
to get to that stage. It was pioneered by researchers at the Kennedy
Institute for Rheumatology and trials for this were carried out
with clinicians around the world. Trials are normally carried
out where the patient groups are available and they are not necessarily
at the hospital next door. I work in the University of Cambridge
with a hospital relatively close by but my clinical associates
are in Glasgow and America. Scientists involved in biomedical
research carry out their research because they want to understand
how systems work, why they sometimes break down and how they can
be repaired. When they translate their findings to the clinic
this is done in collaboration with those clinical colleagues who
have the relevant patient group, wherever these are available.
There have been previous attempts by the MRC
to bring science and medicine together. The Clinical Sciences
Centre at Northwick Park was one such attempt. This was perceived
not to be working and some of the scientists were then moved to
The Hammersmith Hospital. A very good animal facility was left
behind at Northwick Park and several scientists who had been moved
struggled for many years to carry out comparable research at the
Hammersmith site. It has never been stated how much these moves
cost the MRC in the past and now another move appears to be planned.
Such a move cannot save money if you have to rebuild the existing
facilities that are available and function well at NIMR. As a
committee member I perceive a lack of MRC funds available to fund
young scientists at key stages in their careers. I am additionally
dismayed by the news that in the last round of applications for
programme and project grant funding only 50% of the top rated
grants (alpha A) could be funded. That means good biomedical science
is not being funded and our future research capacity in the form
of young scientists are not being encouraged to see biomedical
sciences as a career option worth pursuing.
It is difficult to understand the scientific
rationale for tinkering with something that works well. I am sure
that NIMR could be used more effectively eg run specialist training
courses, conferences, take in academics or clinicians for study
leave etc where it currently situated. The case for moving it
downtown with attendant security issues has not been fully explained
to the community at large. The security issues are not trivial.
In this age of concern about bioterrorism it seems strange to
move Category 4 work to Central London. Additionally it costs
a lot of money to secure a building in Central London against
the Animal Liberation Front?
In summary I am deeply concerned that moving
NIMR to Central London will be costly and will further jeopardise
the biomedical research base in the UK. The move has not been
completely justified to the wider scientific community and the
cost implications have not been made clear. The idea of breaking
up something that works really well and is more than a sum of
the parts seems strange when not fully justified and runs the
risk of losing top class scientists from the UK.
15 November 2004
| 
