APPENDIX 48
Memorandum from Professor Dario Alessi,
University of Dundee
1. I am a Principal Investigator working
in the MRC Protein Phosphorylation Unit at the University of Dundee
and I carried out much of my PhD research at NIMR (1989-91) under
the supervision of Dr David Trentham, FRS, a renowned biophysicist,
at this Institute. At the time, and I still feel the same is true
at the present, it was really a unique place to work as it was
a highly multi-disciplinary centre where scientists from different
disciplines got together to do highly original science in a manner
that is difficult in other institutions. In my case I was combining
chemistry, biophysics and physiology working between 4-5 different
groups, each possessing distinct expertise. This type of research
is difficult to undertake in smaller MRC Units such as the one
I am working in at Dundee in which all the groups work on a more
related theme of work. The training I received at the NIMR played
a significant role in enabling me to get to the senior MRC funded
research position that I am fortunate to currently have.
2. I am not convinced of the argument that
moving the NIMR into the centre of London to a new facility would
greatly benefit UK science. A major concern is that this would
be hugely expensive. Presumably, the large amount of money that
would be required for this would need to come from the MRC budget.
As the MRC only has a defined annual budget, the cost of re-locating
NIMR to the centre of London will have to be borne by other MRC
funded researchers working elsewhere in the UK. This will effectively
harm a considerable amount of other MRC funded projects.
3. One of the great benefits of NIMR is
that they have very effective animal research facilities on site.
I understand that for the UCL bid for NIMR, the animal facility
will be located one mile away. Anyone who has done animal-based
research, such as myself, would recognise that this is highly
impractical as experiments are much better performed if the animal
facility is within the same building as the laboratories in which
the researcher is working in. Moreover, with the increasing numbers
of animal rights campaigners, having an animal research unit at
a separate location will have serious security implications as
the staff working in this Unit would be clearly identified by
the campaigners as will the researchers entering and exiting the
unit with research equipment as well as animal samples for analysis
in their laboratory up the road. Animal samples will be transported
in easily identifiable dry-ice boxes, liquid nitrogen containers
or live animals in cages. Construction of these new animal facilities
would also be highly expensive and cause a lot of unnecessary
problems given that NIMR already possesses one of the best animal
research facilities in the UK.
4. I understand that the King's Building
bid for NIMR proposes to divide it into two separate buildings.
This would effectively destroy the unique culture that has evolved
in the NIMR that enables diverse research groups to work together
in the same building. Splitting NIMR in half will harm collaborations
and interactions between the researchers working in the different
buildings.
5. Taking the above points into consideration
the most cost effective and scientifically best option in my opinion
would be to leave NIMR at its current site.
6. I understand that the MRC in a sensible
drive to get best value for research are keen on the idea of MRC
centres rather than specialised MRC Units such as the one that
I work in. I think this is a potentially harmful policy as many
of the top UK scientists work in MRC Units, as they are they are
fabulous places to work in and make a major contribution to the
highest quality UK research publications. If getting rid of MRC
Units and converting them to Centres is the mechanism by which
the MRC is going to come up with the additional funds to pay for
the translocation of NIMR to the centre of London, this I do not
feel will benefit at all UK science. Many scientists might consider
going to work in the USA where they can receive better support
for their research.
22 November 2004
| 
