APPENDIX 46
Memorandum from Dr R Henderson, MRC Laboratory
of Molecular Biology
I am writing to give you my views on strategic
planning in MRC institutes in the context of your enquiry into
NIMR. I write as Director of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology,
in Cambridge, one of three MRC institutes, which include the NIMR
and the MRC Clinical Sciences Centre. I hope this will help to
give the committee a wider perspective and be useful in their
enquiry.
MRC institutes provide an important component
of the MRC's intramural support for research, supporting as they
do a multi-disciplinary portfolio of research in basic and more
applicable biomedical and clinical science. Each institute has
its own strategy and research programme, fully approved and funded
by the MRC, but they share a number of key strategic features.
Important among these is the long-term support for research into
major scientific questions, which increasingly require interdisciplinary
collaborative approaches. In the case of the LMB, such contributions
include those such as its early successes in determining the structure
of DNA, and in developing the techniques of X-ray crystallography
(both of which involved researchers originally trained as physicists),
through work on monoclonal antibodies and the sequencing of DNA,
and more recently to work on embryonic development and the use
of model organisms, as exemplified by the work on C elegans.
All this work led to the award of Nobel Prizes which acknowledged
revolutionary advances. I am pleased to say that work of comparable
importance continues including that on the basis of immunological
switching, which underlies the diversity of the immune response,
and on the structure and function of the ribosome, which is the
target of a number of novel antibiotics.
I believe that all Institutes need to have a
long-term research strategy, developed as part of the MRC's overall
vision and strategy. Such research strategies need to be forward
looking, build on key strengths, identify new opportunities, and
be responsive to the changing social and political environment
in which research is conducted. They need to target opportunities
presented by long term funding from the MRC (subject to regular,
critical independent review), and the consequent obligation to
tackle the most difficult of research questions which do not lend
themselves to short term funding objectives but at the same time
often lead to the most revolutionary breakthroughs. Success of
an institute is heavily dependent on the choice and subsequent
nurturing of the individual scientists who lead their own research
programmes within the overarching strategic framework and whose
own interests are also in research of the highest quality. At
the same time, the choice of the group leaders of the future is
a key mechanism through which the Institute's strategy is developed
and realised. In the case of the LMB the early strategy was to
support the development of new methods to analyse secondary and
tertiary structures of proteins and nucleic acids and their inter-relationship
through the genetic code. With time these key strengths were harnessed
in the study of cellular mechanisms and development, not least
through the choice of model organisms. In the 1960s the strategic
decision was taken to work on C elegans, followed later
by Drosophila and yeast, and more recently to extend our work
on mammalian systems. In the 1990s the opportunity was taken to
initiate work towards exploration of higher levels of organisation
in the nervous system, but based very strongly on our strengths
in structural and cell biology. Looking to the future the strategy
involves a continued and expanding commitment to work on neurobiology,
not least because of the burden of mental and neurological illness,
and continued use of transgenic mice as model systems in which
to study disease. It will also see closer interactions with groups
involved in clinical research on the one hand, to better understand
the nature of disease and to enable translation of research findings
into application, and with physical scientists on the other, to
expand the range of techniques which can be used to dissect molecular
interactions and cellular processes.
It is obviously not possible to predict with
any certainty the direction in which particular research programmes
will develop, or even which research programmes will be introduced.
The first owes much to the unpredictability of research, which
relies on trying out many approaches before finding the most fruitful
avenue to follow; the second to the recruitment and retention
of key research leaders. However, the institute as a whole will
only be successful and strong if there is an overarching strategy,
which frames the general nature of research which will be undertaken,
and the general philosophy of the way it will be conducted. It
also enables an Institute to look ahead to the challenges to come,
and ensure that it is well placed to respond to such challenges.
In the case of LMB, this strategy has focussed
on understanding key cellular processes at the molecular level,
bringing together exploration of structure and function to provide
a complete understanding of cellular events. It has also included
the concept of supporting relatively small groups, around internationally
competitive scientists, and providing them with access to key
techniques and resources, in an environment which encourages interactions
and collective success, and avoids unproductive internal competition
for resources or unnecessary staking out of territory. The strategies
further seek to encourage the development of new techniques and
methods; thereby ensuring by the very nature of its research programme
that LMB is at the forefront of developments. Finally, the strategy
also includes the commitment to assisting major programmes of
work to become independent outside of the Institute when they
individually out-grow what is possible within the institute itself.
So, the LMB spawned the Sanger Institute, to take forward large
scale sequencing, it launched a number of start-up companies to
take forward breakthroughs in biotechnology, some of which have
now been floated on the stock market, or acquired by other larger
companies; and a number of senior group leaders left to start
or lead their own institutes and Units, including the Wellcome/CRUK
institute and the MRC Dunn Human Nutrition Unit in Cambridge,
as well as a host of foreign institutes including the Howard Hughes
Janelia Farm Research Campus which is both explicitly modelled
on LMB and actually directed by an LMB research student alumnus.
As part of this laboratory-wide strategy, the
Divisions at LMB all have long term strategic plans which involve
recruitment of young group leaders in key areas, succession plans
for likely Division Heads and identification of infrastructure
needs for the type of research envisioned. These then feed into
the institute plan, which in turn forms part of the Addenbrooke's
2020 Vision and the MRC's own forward planning.
It is also perhaps worth commenting on the advantages
of location, in the case of LMB on the Addenbrooke's Hospital
site. When LMB first came to the site in the early 1960s, it was
among the very first buildings here, on what was then the site
for the fledgling new hospital. It had room to expand and grow,
which it did very successfully, and the hospital grew around it,
until today the LMB is enveloped and surrounded by the Clinical
School and the Hospital. This led us, some years ago, to consider
the possibility of moving out of Cambridge, to what was then a
vacant site in Hinxton, before the Welcome Trust Sanger Centre
was created. The older, established members of the Laboratory
favoured such a green field site, with space, fine views and easy
access. The younger postdoctoral scientists and students, those
who are the future of the Laboratory, favoured a site closer to
the centre of Cambridge, because of the links with the University
and Colleges, as well as the social advantages. The MRC, then,
as now, favoured co-location and juxta-position but not full integration
with the hospital and university (the relationship desired was
once described by Max Perutz as that of brother and sister rather
than husband and wife), and so we remained on the Addenbrooke's
campus—half way between Hinxton and the centre of Cambridge.
Clinical links have not been formal, but grass roots collaborations
have been encouraged. These were of some significance in the development
of the LMB's research: Professor Herman Waldmann in the University
of Cambridge, in collaboration with Dr Greg Winter in LMB and
with clinicians within the Hospital, did some of the first clinical
studies on the humanised monoclonal antibody Campath 1, which
is now used for the treatment of certain leukaemias. This was
the first clinical application of these novel compounds, which
today are the basis of a multi-billion pound industry. MRC has
a number of key patents in this field, on which royalties are
received. On the Addenbrooke's campus now, LMB is an integral
part of the overall strategy for the development of the whole
campus, and is a key player in the site wide developments planned
for the next two decades and beyond.
In closing, I hope the Committee will recognise
the importance of institute research strategies, which can and
should be planned over 10-20 years, if the institute is to take
the long term perspective required to tackle major research questions
in biomedical research. LMB has been fortunate in its interactions
and opportunities, and has sought to maintain a consistent but
developing strategy, to provide stability and allow exploitation
of those opportunities. In the case of NIMR, the strategy will
be different but I hope it will help the Committee to know some
of the issues that LMB considers important.
22 November 2004
|
