APPENDIX 51
Memorandum from Dr Anthony Holder, Medical
Research Council
The proposed move makes neither scientific nor
economic sense and may destroy the very areas that the MRC is
wishing to promote. Translational research (both clinical and
product-oriented) is underpinned by successful basic science—the
evidence presented below is from malaria research at Mill Hill.
1. As Head of the Parasitology Division
at NIMR I am responsible for the area of malaria research at the
Institute. The environment at NIMR allows extremely productive
interactions with colleagues in the Institute and the adjacent
MRC Technology (MRCT). Our research spans basic and translational
areas.
2. This strong environment has allowed us
to collaborate with other scientific and clinical groups world
wide, as well as with Pharma, small biotech and diagnostic companies.
According to the MRC's own definition we carry out clinical research.
3. In addition to funding from MRC, this
base has allowed us to compete successfully for funding from The
Wellcome Trust, European Union, WHO, US National Institutes of
Health and USAID. We have currently submitted by invitation with
colleagues, a $20 million proposal to develop new diagnostic methods
for malaria funded by the Gates Foundation.
4. In the last five years we have:
— filed eight patent applications;
— identified several targets for antimalarial
drug development, of which three will be examined in high-throughput
screens for suitable leads (with MRCT);
— developed what is one of the best
candidate malaria vaccines;
— developed a product with a diagnostics
company that is used in the Blood Transfusion Service to screen
donors for malarial antibody (saving thousands of donations per
year); and
— produced over 150 scientific publications
in high quality journals.
5. Without the basic science and the synergy
with MRCT these successes would not have been possible. The quality
of the current science at NIMR (as evidenced by the on-going five-year
reviews) is unquestionable. What has been ignored by MRC is the
current extensive translational research that will be jeopardised
by their decision. This is the breadth of research that will be
disrupted by the proposed move to central London, without obvious
benefit.
6. If the MRC wishes to build a new institute
for clinicians, why do that at the expense of a basic and translational
science Institute that is constantly evolving to meet new challenges?
Rather than putting money into buildings why not support the very
processes that the MRC says it wants to promote? The scientific
opportunities described above represent examples of where an organisation
serious about translational research should provide the relatively
small sums of money required to produce a malaria vaccine in a
form suitable for clinical evaluation or support novel anti-malarial
drug discovery.
7. A brand new independent national institute
in central London of a similar size and with facilities better
than those currently existing at Mill Hill is very attractive.
However, the failure to consider the option to remain at Mill
Hill must be seen at best to be irresponsible in view of the preliminary
nature of the University bids, and at worst evidence of another
agenda, given the fact that the money is not currently available
and the huge cost of the move for an intangible gain.
— It appears that the MRC has made
no proper evaluation of the cost of developing the science at
Mill Hill.
— The move does not make economic sense,
it would cost tens of millions of pounds.
— The destablisation involved will
undoubtedly result in the departure and loss to UK science of
key staff, the money they attract and the training they provide,
with the obvious consequences for science, UK plc and human health.
22 November 2004
| 
