APPENDIX 57
Memorandum from Professor Dafydd Walters,
St George's Hospital Medical School
1. This letter is written to express a personal
point of view in response to the call for evidence and comments
on this issue.
2. The message I would very much like the
Committee to take from my letter is that I and many of my colleagues
have noted a growing divergence between the two most important
groups for the advancement of medical science in the UK ie the
scientists and the clinicians. I believe it is vitally important
that these two groups are encouraged to interact at all levels
and that this is best done by their co-localisation. The creation
of a site where this can occur, just by its existence, would attract
individuals who would want to work in such an atmosphere.
3. I have spent most of my career, of over
30 years, at the interface between basic scientific research and
its application to the practice of medicine. I continue to perform
basic physiological research in the laboratory, but I am also
a practising clinician in Paediatrics and I have undertaken clinical
research in my subject. In addition, I believe I have an overview
of both clinical practice and research in the country through
my positions in the past few years as Secretary of the Association
of Clinical Professors of Paediatrics for (1998-2003) and as Deputy
Chairman and then Chairman of the Executive of the Physiological
Society (2001-04).
4. My colleagues and I have noted with regret
over the past two decades a slow but steady separation between
scientists and clinicians. This change is understandable given
both the increasing emphasis in the scientific university community
on short term productivity which has led to much more focus on
immediate results and also the major changes in postgraduate medical
education as a result of government directives which have shortened
the post-graduate training program. The European Working Time
directive has resulted in further pressures on junior clinicians
which have inhibited exposure to research. In short, scientists
have less reason to have interaction with clinicians and clinicians
in training certainly have less opportunity and motivation to
become involved in scientific research and this formative experience
is difficult to regain at a later date. This is sad, for Britain
possess a strong reputation for clinical science. The crisis in
the training of clinical scientists is well known and has been
a major pre-occupation of all the Royal Colleges and of the Academy
of Medical Sciences for most of the past decade.
5. I understand that the mission to be given
to the National Institute of Medical Research for the next generation
is to have an emphasis on translational research which in my understanding
means the application of basic scientific discoveries to health
care. Given that it is increasingly difficult for the same person
to be involved at the cutting edge of both sides of this endeavour,
it strikes me that it is vital that individuals on each side of
this divide should be encouraged to interact. Obviously this aim
would be served best by co-localisation of scientists and clinicians.
6. Of course, co-localisation does not in
itself guarantee success. However, I have been fortunate over
the past decade to work at St George's Hospital and its Medical
School which on its new site in Tooting in the late 1970s was
designed deliberately to intermix scientists and clinicians. My
own department is firmly ensconced within the clinical area and
carries out basic and clinical research work. I have seen at first
hand the benefits of this geographical proximity.
7. I have no personal or vested interest
in any of the three sites that are to be considered for the NIMR
and having been at St George's Hospital Medical School for over
10 years I feel I can give an unbiased view. (Perhaps for complete
transparency I should state that I spent many years working at
UCL and teach regularly at King's College London.)
22 November 2004
| 
