APPENDIX 40
Memorandum from Jackie Wilbraham
FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL
RESEARCH (NIMR)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The UK has the opportunity to create
a new world-class biomedical research institute based on an established
internationally competitive research centre that will contribute
greatly to the understanding of disease and through improvements
in healthcare, bring benefit to patients. This in turn will result
in improvement to the UK economy. The biomedical research base
underpins future drug discovery and development and as such is
of vital important to the continuing success of the highly productive
UK pharmaceutical industry. Consequently, such an opportunity
should be carefully thought through.
2. The MRC should consider thoroughly the
strategic role of the NIMR and how it operates alongside the Clinical
Sciences Centre (CSC) and the Laboratory for Molecular Biology
(LMB). The challenge for the MRC is to describe a clear vision
with a strategy that encompasses basic research into disease mechanisms,
translational science, clinical research, training and patient
benefit. The MRC should use this opportunity to re-align the work
of the LMB, NIMR and CSC.
3. It is our view that the LMB should investigate
fundamental aspects of molecular and cell biology and be the major
centre for structural biology in the UK. The NIMR should focus
on basic physiology and cell biology applied to understanding
normal biological processes and disease mechanisms, particularly
in priority areas such as diabetes and obesity, cancer and respiratory
diseases. Responsibility for translational science should be part
of the remit of the CSC, which should also conduct clinical research
into major diseases including diagnosis, prognosis and disease
progression.
4. The work of the NIMR should bring significant
improvements in understanding of disease mechanisms and disease
management. A multi-disciplinary NIMR with sufficient critical
mass of biomedical science coupled with investment in infrastructure
would be well positioned to tackle the biomedical challenges that
we are faced with today.
MEDICAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL TASK
FORCE ON
NIMR—CONSULTATION WITH
STAKEHOLDERS
Responses to consultation questions
5. The remit of the NIMR should be to conduct
basic science into understanding fundamental biological processes
and disease mechanisms.
6. A single site that has strong links with
universities would be optimal to perform this remit. We do not
believe that such a site should necessarily be located in London.
There appears to be a disproportionate emphasis on the "golden
triangle" whilst other excellent sites are ignored. The location
of a national site should take into account value for money and
factors such as cost of living, transport links, price of housing,
outlay for new building and refurbishment as well as the feasibility
of recruitment of outstanding scientific staff. We know that the
MRC has determined that the NIMR should remain in London but feel
that is a serious and costly mistake based on false premises.
The centre could be placed in Newcastle, Manchester or Birmingham
at a much lower cost and this would prove more attractive to younger
scientists. These areas boast excellent universities and strong
scientific national and international links. Furthermore, these
regional sites would derive benefit from regional development
agency and European funding to create to jobs and enhance regional
economies. It is recognised that such a new site would require
relocation of staff but we reject the idea that a majority of
current science leaders at NIMR would resign rather than move
North. The same could also be true of a move to University College
(UCL) or King's College (KCL) in London. However, a relocation
to a more Northerly regional site would be associated with a reduced
cost of living for staff relocating from London, partly as a consequence
of cheaper housing. The transfer of high calibre scientific staff
would act as a magnet for new recruitment to the NIMR and associated
activities in the particular region. There is much to commend
serious consideration of such a move and a thorough cost- benefit
analysis.
7. If the NIMR remains in London then a
move to KCL or UCL would incur significant cost whilst to remain
at Mill Hill and carry out appropriate refurbishment would not
be without expense. It is difficult to put a precise figure on
the cost of a move and associated activities. However, we question
the costs of the proposed move and are concerned that not all
of the key factors have been duly considered. The current costs
seem to us to be a gross underestimate of what will be needed
and we have concerns that the development of NIMR could then jeopardise
the ability of MRC to provide adequate funding for response-mode
grants. If the NIMR remains in London the Mill Hill site looks
to us to be the most cost-effective but loses the opportunity
for close integration with a leading University. Of the two London
sites identified, KCL is preferred, as it has offered contributions
of £30 million or more to the capital costs of the project.
8. The work of the NIMR should be aligned
to a UK biomedical research strategy. There should be sufficient
flexibility in the system to allow for change commensurate with
scientific progress. The work should be complementary to that
of the LMB and CSC and not duplicate effort but work in partnership
to create and deliver patient benefit.
9. In order to ensure that scientists are
able to conduct multi-disciplinary research and optimally achieve
the remit set out above, research on one site alongside a university
is preferred. This will enable the UK to build on its existing
strength in biomedical research and the NIMR continue to be a
world-class organisation. This in turn will attract top-class
scientists to the UK, a key component in creating a self-sustaining
science base. Furthermore, partnerships and collaboration both
with academia and Industry will be critical to the achievement
of the MRC vision.
10. The NIMR should be seen as a centre
of excellence in the UK providing both world-class biomedical
research and training of future scientists and leaders. There
should be sufficient critical mass and infrastructure to support
a world-class facility.
11. The current size of the NIMR is probably
about right to engage in productive multi-disciplinary research.
A reduction in the current number of staff (730) would cause a
decline in critical mass or result in too narrow a portfolio of
research with major opportunities being missed. To deliver excellence
in research we suggest an ambitious target of approximately 100
further scientific staff would be required.
12. The Director of the NIMR should possess
strong leadership capabilities, have vision, international reputation,
a track record of biomedical research excellence and be an influential
communicator. The Director should receive the remit from the MRC
and have clear accountabilities whilst retaining discretion in
terms of scientific direction. The Director should be appointed
by the MRC Council and be supported by a scientific advisory board
to help to determine the priorities of the NIMR in the short,
medium and long term, and to assist with scientific review of
the scientific programmes.
13. We recognise the importance of publications
in key scientific journals as a success measurement. However,
to enhance the capabilities of the MRC and NIMR we strongly suggest
that the critical success factors should be broadened to include
metrics based on interaction with industry to develop and commercialise
clinically successful treatments based on a fundamental understanding
of disease process. Such key measurements would do much to promote
effective partnerships between industry and academia.
14. We hope that this brief response is
helpful to you in determining the remit and the future of the
NIMR. We would be pleased to discuss this important matter with
you in greater detail than this consultation allows.
17 November 2004
| 
