APPENDIX 47
Memorandum from Professor Neil Brockendorff,
MRC Clinical Sciences Centre
I am a research team leader at the MRC Clinical
Sciences Centre based on the Hammersmith Hospital site. I am writing
to you with my own personal views in relation to the handling
of the review into the future of NIMR. I have expressed these
views in response to the original call for comments following
publication of the recommendations of the MRC forward planning
committee in 2003 (attached). I have also expressed my views in
a telephone interview carried out by consultants appointed by
the MRC on behalf of the NIMR task force. I hope the committee
will be able to access notes taken during this interview. To summarise,
whilst I understand the need to periodically review and freshen
up established research institutions, I feel that the MRC have
seriously mishandled this situation. The initial announcement
that NIMR would be downsized and moved to Cambridge was made without
proper consultation with staff or the wider scientific community.
At best this appears to represent a serious failure in communication
between the MRC and the scientific community that it serves. At
worst one might suspect this was a calculated and deliberate attempt
to undermine and fragment NIMR. As a member of a much younger
MRC institute I have looked to NIMR, along with LMB, the Cancer
Research UK laboratories in London, and the Welcome-CRUK institute
in Cambridge, as successes worthy of emulation. These institutions
have over an extended period of time established an international
reputation as centres of excellence. The name and reputation of
an institute is an asset that is difficult to price and my overall
view in the case of NIMR is that the MRC have been careless in
how they have handled this asset.
1. If the MRC had chosen to work closely
with NIMR scientists at the outset, the polarisation that has
occurred could have been avoided. Under those circumstances an
argument to relocate NIMR to a London/Cambridge University/Medical
School may have been won. However it now seems that any decision
to move the NIMR would be seen by the staff and the community
at large as a battle lost. Given the spirit in which this process
has progressed to date, one can't help suspecting ulterior motives
behind such plans. For example one might imagine that approval
of a move to one of the London sites might be followed by progressive
reductions in the ambitions for the relocated institute during
the interregnum, or death by a thousand cuts. At this stage I
would be very concerned that further destabilisation of NIMR will
trigger an exodus. One could envisage a situation where only those
who couldn't readily find an alternative home, the less able,
would be left in a new "slimmer" institute. I would
suggest that no plan for NIMR should be approved without the clear
approval of the majority of NIMR staff. Only that way can the
morale and hence the identity of the institute be preserved.
2. It is often said that the UK has not
done as well as we should in turning great science into health
and wealth for the nation. This is a complex problem which needs
to be tackled from many different angles. Undermining innovative
basic science however is killing the goose that lays the golden
eggs! The notion that one can anticipate where the next important
breakthrough may come from is in my view not supported by the
facts. Most important scientific advances have involved some degree
of serendipity. A simple formula, and the one that I think has
served UK science best is to back excellent people and let them
follow their instincts. In this regard I am concerned about the
use of the terms "translational research" and "clinical
research" in documents relating to plans for NIMR. These
terms have not been foisted on the MRC-LMB, the most successful
UK life sciences institution in terms of Nobel prizes. Here scientists
have been free to pursue what they perceive as fundamentally important
questions and trusted to get on with it. The benefit to the nation
in terms of inventions, patents, wealth creation and employment
creation has been enormous and represents extremely good value
for the taxpayer. Translational research by definition is probably
best carried out by companies. Clinical research also has its
own special settings and environments. Both will be impoverished
if innovative basic science in the UK is undermined. Although
the MRCs questionnaire about NIMR did not include a research portfolio
option of "only innovative basic science" this is what
I would have chosen.
3. In my view the best solution to the current
situation is to delay making a decision about relocating NIMR
until a new Director has been identified. The MRC should find
an individual with an exceptional track record in scientific research,
and most importantly an individual who could gain the support
and trust of NIMR staff. This I think could go a long way towards
reversing the negative effects of events to date, sending a clear
signal of support for NIMR to the scientific community. This in
turn should open the door for an inclusive appraisal of options,
including possible relocation.
22 November 2004
|
