APPENDIX 36
Memorandum from Professor N J Rothwell,
former member of the MRC Task Force on the NIMR
As background, I served as a Council member
of MRC from October 2000 until July 2004. During that time I chaired
two of the boards (Physiological Medicine and Infections 2000-02,
Neuroscience and Mental Health 2002-04), I served on many other
boards including Strategy, Awards advisory, Training and careers
development, Clinical trials and Animals in research. I chaired
many reviews of MRC units and some institutes. I was a member
of the Forward Investment Strategy (FIS) group which initially
considered the future of MRC's institutions (which included NIMR).
I was not a member of the subsequent Task Force but discussed
its progress and recommendations at council.
I will comment on two aspects of the review—the
process and the recommendations.
PROCESS
This is one of the most extensive, rigorous
and consultative reviews of science in the UK that I have observed.
It involved many UK and international scientists, national consultations
and direct and regular involvement of NIMR staff. The Chief Executives
of MRC, and most probably Professor Blakemore, made numerous visits
to NIMR, and many Council members including myself had extensive
discussions with NIMR Staff collectively and individually (I visited
NIMR twice). Leading international advisors were engaged, and
I understand that the NIMR representatives initially agreed to
accept the recommendations of the Task Force. Members of Council,
FIS and (I understand) the Task Force entered discussions without
preconceived ideas, and were all heard equally. There have been
suggestions that there was a predefined "agenda" from
within MRC head office—I had absolutely no experience of
this at any time, and believe that such suggestions are completely
unfounded.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS
There is no easy solution to the future of NIMR—as
the many hours, days and weeks of discussion have revealed. I
fully understand the concerns of staff at NIMR—relocation
will inevitably be disruptive, but is undertaken quite frequently
in the commercial sector. I believe that the principle of the
recommendations is well founded—for the future of NIMR,
and most importantly for the future of biomedical research in
the UK. Indeed it is critically important to consider NIMR in
the national context. It is increasingly difficult to maintain
"stand alone", major research facilities which require
significant underpinning infrastructure. The very name National
Institute for Medical Research indicates that the majority of
the research should be medical or medically related. I recognise
interactions with clinical colleagues particularly in London is
arduous, but my own experience of clinical research is that it
is very difficult without a direct and geographically close relationship
with a medical school and teaching hospital. I believe that the
future success of NIMR depends on its close proximity to a major
University, Medical School and hospital.
I visited NIMR twice during my membership of
FIS. It was then that I saw the distance they were from central
London and the poor state of some of their laboratories and general
infrastructure. The future costs of maintaining NIMR were very
much secondary to discussions at MRC, but are not trivial. I cannot
imagine how MRC can meet the real investment needed to maintain
the position of NIMR as a leader in biomedical research.
Finally, I would comment that NIMR is an extremely
important and valuable part of MRC's research portfolio, but the
time and effort expended on what I believe has been an essential,
though difficult review, is now starting to threaten MRC's other
work. The difficult discussions and recommendations made recently
may have been better undertaken 10 years ago. If they are not
made now, they will need to be revisited regularly in the near
future.
16 November 2004
|
