APPENDIX 71
Memorandum from Gordon Reid, National
Institute for Medical Research
I am employed as a Higher Scientific Officer
at the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), where I
have worked for 20 years.
In this time I have contributed to many scientific
papers in top class peer reviewed journals.
I am opposed to the MRC plans as they do not
present a convincing case that moving to a central London site
will improve the work of the MRC either on scientific grounds
or on a financial basis. In fact, it would be to the detriment
of NIMR`s science as the animal and NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance)
facilities would be greatly affected. Other work could be done
in a central London location however no benefit arises through
such a move and would be at great expense. The MRC would lose
the benefit of a great site in Mill Hill. There is room to expand
and we have an internationally renowned reputation. We are a scientific
centre of excellence and this cannot be achieved overnight but
can be easily destroyed.
Salaries for scientific research are very poor
compared to other fields of work especially when the academic
requirements are so great. People work hard because we believe
in the work. We are driven by an enquiring mind and not personal
financial reasons.
Many of us at NIMR will not still be working
(ie retired) or will be on short-term contracts by the time these
plans come into effect. Others will not even be working in this
country never mind the MRC. Despite this we are strongly opposed
to these plans. There cannot be many employers who would have
employees so upset over a situation whereby no personal financial
or other gain exists. Surely, this verifies our sincerity.
Millions of pounds spent on moving only 10 miles,
without a convincing case for improvement, appear to be a waste
of public money.
The money would be much better spent expanding
the present site.
The following questions come to mind:
1. What will be the effect of the proposed
move on the MRC-T?
2. Is all this consultation bogus: are the
MRC's plans financially driven rather than the stated aims of
translational research etc?
3. Consultation is a two way process, what
evidence exists that the MRC have taken on board our concerns?
4. Is there a hidden agenda agreed with government
that a sale of the Mill Hill site would provide a new housing
development on a brown field site?
5. What evidence exists that translational
research can be done better in a University/Hospital campus? There
are many instances whereby this is not the case.
6. The MRC already has units/centres in university/hospital
sites why do they also need NIMR on such a site?
7. Animal rights protesters have a presence
every Wednesday at the Mill Hill site. Would relocation to a central
London site exacerbate this due to increased numbers of people
and resulting higher profile protests?
8. What plans do the MRC have for the Mill
Hill site and is this a factor on the plans for the future of
NIMR?
| 
