APPENDIX 70
Memorandum from Steven Ley, National Institute
for Medical Research
1. The Medical Research Council (MRC) decided
at its meeting in October that the National Institute for Medical
Research (NIMR) should not remain at Mill Hill but rather be relocated
to a central London site, adjacent to either UCL or KCL. As scientists,
we are of course in favour of any changes that improve our scientific
environment, including enhancing opportunities for translational
research. However, we have concerns about the rationale behind
this decision, its huge cost implications and about the way in
which the decision was reached by the MRC. We are also unconvinced
that the developments envisioned by the MRC will ever materialise.
THE DECISION
2. The Task Force stated that the proposed
bid for a relocated NIMR would have to be more attractive than
what could be achieved by NIMR at Mill Hill. However, from what
we know about the bids from UCL (animal facilities one mile away
from the Institute) and King's (Institute split into two buildings),
we think it is very unlikely that either option will come close
to matching our current facilities. In view of this, we are astonished
that the MRC has excluded the possibility of NIMR remaining at
Mill Hill. Furthermore, while the MRC have recently requested
that NIMR submit plans for an "enhanced" Institute at
Mill Hill to act as a baseline comparison for the UCL and KCL
bids, they have still refused to consider the Mill Hill site as
a full option. This decision defies logic and common sense.
3. In our view the Mill Hill site offers
enormous advantages over the proposed central London sites. We
have extensive research animal facilities (9,000 square metres;
housing mice, rats, frogs and fish) which are unique in the UK
in terms of their size and "state of the art" capabilities.
These animal facilities form an essential part of our research
infrastructure. Replicating this on a central London site would
be very expensive and also difficult to achieve in view of the
likely response from animal rights groups. The Mill Hill Institute
also houses the MRC Biomedical NMR facility and is immediately
adjacent to MRC Technology (MRC-T), the technology transfer arm
of the MRC. However, we understand that these facilities would
not be co-located with the renewed NIMR on either of the central
London sites. This would damage our science and capacity for translational
research.
4. We are concerned that embedding NIMR
within UCL or KCL will diminish the scientific and managerial
independence of the Institute. We believe that independence is
essential if NIMR is to carry out fully its national role, as
recommended by the Task Force. In strong support of this view,
the vast majority (83%) of independent scientists and clinicians
who responded to the Task Force consultation exercise recommended
that NIMR should stay at Mill Hill.
5. The Mill Hill site covers 47 acres, of
which NIMR currently occupies about 25%. This provides the possibility
of considerable expansion in the future, which could be funded
by the MRC and also by inward investment from other stakeholders.
This flexibility would be lost upon relocation, since the space
available for the new NIMR would, for cost reasons, necessarily
be limited to the current size of NIMR at Mill Hill at best. We
believe this is a poor strategic decision, since over the proposed
20-30 year time frame for the renewed NIMR, we envisage a large
increase in demand for biomedical research. In particular, it
is inevitable that animal models will become increasingly important
for both basic and translational research. It is crucial that
NIMR does not lose the possibility of expanding its animal facilities
beyond its current level in the future.
THE COST/RISK
6. The MRC's decision to move NIMR to central
London was made without a systematic analysis of the scientific
advantages, risks and costs of the two central London locations
compared with the Mill Hill site. Indeed, the detailed business
cases from UCL and KCL were requested by the MRC only after it
had already decided to exclude the Mill Hill site as an option.
We have received no convincing justification from the MRC of why
a proper comparative cost/risk analysis was not carried out before
making any decisions about the future of NIMR. This has completely
undermined our confidence in the abilities and motives of MRC
management.
7. The major rationale for relocation of
NIMR to central London appears to be co-location with a research
medical school in order to enhance clinical collaborations and
translational research. However, the current NIMR already has
extensive collaborations with clinical groups in London, in the
rest of the UK and internationally, as demonstrated in submissions
to the Task Force. Furthermore we believe that co-location of
NIMR with a research hospital may reduce flexibility by restricting
our ability to form collaborations outside of the host HEI. At
present, we enjoy clinical collaborations with all of the major
London research hospitals and their associated academic centres.
It is important to note that a previous embedding of an MRC Institute
with a hospital (the Clinical Research Centre at Northwick Park)
was widely regarded as a failure and the MRC was eventually forced
to close it. We therefore believe that the MRC proposal to relocate
NIMR from Mill Hill is associated with considerable risk and uncertainty.
Since a huge amount of money would be required to relocate NIMR
from Mill Hill, we question whether this is prudent use of public
funds.
8. The exclusion of Mill Hill as an option
by the MRC has had a destabilising effect on the Institute. Many
of us have been approached with alternative job possibilities
both in the UK and abroad. Clearly, if the current uncertainty
regarding the future of the Institute continues or if the MRC
approves a substandard bid for NIMR, many of us will seriously
consider leaving. This will result in the loss of important research
programmes from the MRC and probably the UK. This cannot be a
good outcome for British science and would be the direct result
of MRC mismanagement of its review of NIMR during both the FIS
and Task Force phases.
THE PROCESS
9. The decision to relocate NIMR to central
London and to exclude the possibility of NIMR remaining at Mill
Hill was taken by the MRC in light of recommendations from the
Task Force. However it is clear from the reports of the Task Force
and in subsequent emails (all released by the MRC) that the option
of NIMR remaining at Mill Hill was not properly discussed at its
fifth and final meeting. We consider this a clear failure of management
of the Task Force by the MRC. The subsequent decision to exclude
the Mill Hill option was reached by e-mail and telephone conversations
and agreed by a 5-4 vote. The five member majority was achieved
by the casting vote of the Chairman.
22 November 2004
| 
