APPENDIX 64
Memorandum from Anna O'Garra, National
Institute for Medical Research
BRIEF EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
I provide evidence in the document attached
to the Science and Technology Committee, House of Commons, inquiry
into the future of the Medical Research Council's (MRC) National
Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) and thank the Select Committee
for the opportunity to do so. In brief, as head of Division of
Immunoregulation, NIMR. To summarize, although I welcome changes
that enhance the future development of the NIMR, a major concern
is that a move to central London is unlikely to retain the key
features of the Mill Hill site that have determined and will determine
its success in multidisciplinary research and clinical translation
in biomedical research. The major concerns are that:
(a) Dismantling an Institute such as the
NIMR by a move to Central London promises to stifle an important
future need for UK. Biomedical Research by reducing and restricting
the Animal Facilities and Expertise, as well as the Containment
Facilities that currently exist on the Mill Hill site.
(b) Movement of the NIMR is likely to result
in the exodus of many of its scientists, many to locations abroad.
(c) Restricting the interactions of the NIMR
with one London Institution by placing this MRC Institute within
the confines of one University/Hospital could greatly reduce its
collaborations with clinical research laboratories. My own experience
(please see below) and those of other NIMR researchers, is that
it is very easy to set up productive collaborations with a vast
number of London and other UK Institutes/Universities (ICH, UCL,
GKT, Imperial College, London—to name but a few, and other
countries including developing countries such as in Africa and
Asia) from the Mill Hill site. This is completely in keeping with
the MRC Vision.
The reasons stated above and the overall cost
of relocating the NIMR to a new building in central London, beg
the question—are the MRC's plans for the renewed NIMR justified
by hard evidence and will they really benefit Biomedical research
in the UK? I am greatly concerned that the Mill Hill site has
been excluded as an option for future development, and by the
procedure by which this and other key decisions have been made
with respect to the future of the NIMR.
1. Background
I worked at the DNAX Research Institute, California,
USA, (owned by Schering Plough, NJ, USA) (from 1987-2001), studying
cytokine gene regulation and its effects on the immune response.
In 2000, I decided to move from DNAX. Despite offers from several
other institutions in both the US and the UK, I accepted a position
as Head of the new Division of Immunoregulation at NIMR. The major
objective of this division is to interface basic immunology research
with the study of infectious diseases. In particular, I am committed
to researching the immune response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis
(MTB) infection (identified as a critical disease area by the
MRC), with the emphasis to further our knowledge on mechanisms
of cure.
A major reason for my choice of the NIMR was
its extensive expertise and use of transgenic/knockout mouse technology,
which is unsurpassed in any other institute in the UK, and amongst
the top internationally. In addition, NIMR has excellent specific
pathogen free and containment facilities (Category II, III and
IV), which are essential for the study of infectious pathogens
such as MTB both in vitro and in animal models. These superb Institute
facilities will play a key role in the successful outcome of my
research. Thus, the expertise at the NIMR and the excellent secure
animal facilities (including available land space for future expansion)
form a unique basis for research on the immune response to, and
structure of dangerous infectious pathogens.
2. Concerns regarding a move of NIMR to Central
London
(a) The Future Needs for Animal Models and
Containment Facilities in Biomedical Research. My major concern
is that, by moving to central London the level of the excellent
animal and containment facilities provided by the Mill Hill site
will not be achievable. Full utilization of information from the
human genome project will undoubtedly require the extensive use
of mouse models to identify the functions of novel genes. Suggestions
that there will be a reduction in the use of mouse models for
biomedical research (for basic, translational and pre-clinical
studies) are completely unfounded. It is clear that there is an
ongoing commitment in the use of mouse models for academic, medical
and industrial research, which will continue for at least the
next 20 years. In immunology, for example, great advances have
been made to create mice with many components of the human immune
system to advance in vivo studies. Together with the high level
containment facilities (Category II, III & IV) at the NIMR,
the extensive experimental animal accommodation is essential for
continued success of basic and translational research at NIMR.
Any conceivable advantages of moving the Institute to central
London will be hampered by the inevitable space constraints, which
will prevent animal facilities from being expanded as the need
requires it, in the future years of biomedical research.
(b) Concerns for the security of animal facilities
if NIMR moves to central London. It is of great concern that the
building of new animal facilities in central London will generate
unwarranted attention from the anti-vivisectionist movement which
has recently disrupted developments at Cambridge University and
more recently at Oxford University, as reported in the Economist,
p29, 24-30 July 2004. Although I acknowledge that MRC strategies
should not be driven by the activities of anti-vivisectionist
groups, I am concerned that building new animal facilities in
central London to cater for the NIMR renewed vision would exacerbate
this issue creating unnecessary adverse publicity for animal research.
This could be avoided by simply supporting NIMR on the Mill Hill
site with its existing secure facilities, which could readily
be expanded to serve its own needs and also those of other London
institutions.
3. Enhancing translational and clinical research
at NIMR does not require relocation to central London
(a) Examples and Advantages of Collaborations
from the NIMR
I stress that enhanced interaction between basic
and translational and clinical researchers is not necessarily
achieved by placing them in close proximity to each other (the
MRC's own experience at Northwick Park being an example). The
most effective and efficient way of achieving this is by funding
appropriate shared research programmes aimed to improve and increase
training of MD fellows, and cross-disciplinary translational studies.
Since my move to the NIMR I have established
multiple translational and clinical collaborations to study the
use of immunomodulators in the treatment of TB and in intervention
on allergy and asthma. I provide details of these as examples
below:
Use of Immunomodulators to cure TB:
In collaboration with:
A E Goldfeld, MD, CBR, Harvard Medical School,
USA & Cambodia Health Committee (CHC), Cambodia.
R Coffman, PhD, Dynavax, USA.
J Banchereau, PhD, Baylor Insitute for Immunology
Research, Dallas, USA.
D Young, PhD, Imperial College, London.
G Bancroft, PhD, London School of Hygiene &
Tropical Medicine, London.
D Robinson, MD, & O M Kon, MD, St. Mary's
Hospital, Imperial College, London.
G. Trinchieri (Schering Plough, France—now
NIAID, NIH, Bethesda, USA).
Use of Immunomodulators as therapy for glucocorticoid
resistant asthma:
In collaboration with:
C Hawrylowicz, PhD, & Tak Lee, MD, GKT,
King's College. London.
These collaborations were set up easily from
the NIMR at Mill Hill, within the last three years since I returned
to the UK. Importantly, I did not require my laboratory to be
embedded in the institutions I am collaborating with. Thus, I
suggest that you consider how the research funds of the UK and
the MRC would be best used to achieve the MRC Vision, and maintain
and increase the UK excellence in Biomedical Research by taking
advantage of already existing successful operations such as NIMR
and funding enhanced interactions between such research institutes
with translational/clinical centres, whilst maintaining the current
expertise and advantages of the Mill Hill Site.
4. Dangers of dismantling the NIMR by a move
to Central London
(a) Dismantling an Institute such as the
NIMR by a move to Central London promises to stifle an important
future need for UK. Biomedical Research by reducing and restricting
the Animal Facilities and Expertise, as well as the Containment
Facilities that currently exist on the Mill Hill site.
(b) Movement of the NIMR is likely to result
in the exodus of many of its scientists, many to locations abroad.
(c) Restricting the interactions of the NIMR
with one London Institution by placing this MRC Institute within
the confines of one University/Hospital could greatly reduce its
collaborations with clinical research laboratories. My own experience
(please see above) and those of other NIMR researchers, is that
it is very easy to set up productive collaborations with a vast
number of London and other UK Institutes/Universities (ICH, UCL,
GKT, Imperial College, London—to name but a few, and other
countries including developing countries such as in Africa and
Asia) from the Mill Hill site. This is completely in keeping with
the MRC Vision.
The reasons stated above and the overall cost
of relocating the NIMR to a new building in central London, beg
the question—are the MRC's plans for the renewed NIMR justified
by hard evidence and will they really benefit Biomedical research
in the UK?
These are important practical concerns regarding
the MRC proposals for the future of the NIMR. It is somewhat surprising
that the expertise of researchers at the NIMR was not regarded
by the MRC throughout the whole process of evaluating the future
of the NIMR. In particular this would seem important for example
in areas regarding animal issues and practicalities for animal
research and its future in the next 20 years of Biomedical Research,
of which NIMR researchers have great expertise. On this note,
I would like to comment finally on what appears to have been a
failure throughout the whole process with respect to the MRC evaluation
of the possible options for the future of the NIMR. First, conclusions
were arrived at by the Task Force and the MRC which apparently
had disregarded feedback from (1) the Medical Research Council
Task Force on NIMR Consultation with stakeholders, May 2004; and
(2) the opinion of the NIMR staff (from discussions of the MRC
with NIMR).
22 November 2004
|
