APPENDIX 74
Memorandum from the Association of University
Teachers
INTRODUCTION
1. The Association of University Teachers
is the recognised trade union which represents the non-clinical
scientific staff of the Medical Research Council.
2. The union and its members are committed
to delivering top quality research at the MRC and in universities
and colleges across the country.
3. We welcome the decision of the Science
and Technology Select Committee to launch an inquiry into the
MRC proposals to move the National Institute for Medical Research
(NIMR) to one of two central London sites.
4. We do not believe that these proposals
have merit. We believe they will have a detrimental impact on
the ability of NIMR to deliver the high quality research it is
rightly famed for. We believe the decision has been taken in a
way that has not taken full account of all the available options.
We further believe that the decision to move the Institute into
central London may be unwise in the current international political
climate.
5. We are relieved that the MRC has, at
least, accepted the need for the NIMR to remain on a single site
as a single entity. It is vitally important, due to the collaborative
nature of the work carried out by the Institute, that physical
cohesion is central to any discussion about the future of the
Institute.
6. We also welcome the recognition of the
Chief Executive Officer of the MRC, Professor Colin Blakemore,
that the NIMR can play a more central and important role in aiding
the development of research into clinical practice. This has been
a strategy of the scientists who work at the NIMR for many years.
7. We also believe that Professor Blakemore
shares our commitment to maintaining NIMR's basic medical research
to underpin the desire to play a greater role in developing clinical
practice.
8. However, it is at this point where the
view of the staff at NIMR diverges from Professor Blakemore and
his management team.
THE CASE
FOR MILL
HILL
9. We have failed to receive an adequate
explanation from anyone involved in framing the proposals of why
staying at the Mill Hill site and developing it further is not
included in the options.
10. It seems to the AUT that the Mill Hill
site is the ideal location for the NIMR. It is secure. It is a
single site. It does not have the same monetary land value a London
city centre site would surely have. Most importantly, there is
more than adequate space and infrastructure for future development,
allowing Professor Blakemore to deliver his vision of a more central
role for the NIMR.
11. We also understand that it is unlikely
that the full range of research facilities available to NIMR in
Mill Hill will be located at a single central site. The space
available and the cost would both appear prohibitive.
12. This possibility has already been considered
in the MRC Task Force, but appears to have been relegated to a
position where it has no bearing on the decision. We see no feasible
way for the necessary animal accommodation and nuclear magnetic
resonance facilities to be provided on a single site in central
London.
13. With the lack of explanation from the
management of the MRC, we are left with the conclusion that the
decision not to include staying at Mill Hill amongst the options
is based on the value of the site on the open market. This is
not the basis for making far reaching decisions about the future
of medical research in the UK.
THE SCIENTIFIC
CASE
14. We also believe that the scientific
case for the move has not been made. We believe that many of the
current cadre of scientific staff at Mill Hill would not seek
to move with the Institute into central London. They have chosen
to work outside central London for a reason and this will inevitably
lead to the break up of many high-quality and well-respected teams.
This seems a strange way to ensure the future and development
of the NIMR.
15. There has not been a level playing field
in making the proposals between the Mill Hill site and the two
other sites in central London. A direct comparison of the benefits
of the three options is the least that the staff and the public
purse can expect.
16. We also believe that one of the main
attractions of the NIMR in working with other seats of scientific
research (most notably the university sector) is its independence.
Delivering the name, resources, background and some of the staff
to a single university could well lead to a reduction in the amount
of collaborative work the NIMR will be involved with. One university's
immense gain will be a loss to UK medical scientific research.
SAFETY AND
SECURITY
17. The NIMR has Category 4 containment
facilities for dangerous and potentially lethal pathogens. We
are frankly astonished that with the ever present dangers of terrorist
activity in the current political climate that the MRC could even
propose to move such facilities into central London.
18. The NIMR has extensive and secure animal
facilities, essential to many areas of research. Given the current
level of protest by animal activists at Oxford, Cambridge and
outside NIMR, it is very doubtful if new animal facilities could
be built in central London without much disruption.
19. If a decision is made that these specialist
facilities should not be in central London or Mill Hill, a matter
on which we are sure that the Government, emergency services and
security services would have strong views, then this could potentially
lead to the break up of the NIMR.
20. We do not believe that this possibly
lethal material would be as safe in central London as it currently
is in the very secure Mill Hill site.
THE NEED
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION
21. We believe that the MRC should explain
why the current Mill Hill site is not included in the options.
22. We believe that the MRC should explain
how they expect to replicate the current facilities at Mill Hill
at a single site in central London.
23. We believe that the MRC should provide
full details of the risk analysis of the proposed move to central
London.
24. We believe that the MRC should seek
the advice of the emergency and security services about the relative
safety of the potentially lethal material currently stored at
Mill Hill if this work is moved to central London.
25. We believe that the MRC should seek
the views of current and prospective scientific partners about
the possible impact on future working relationships if the NIMR
is placed within a single university.
26. We believe the MRC should be asked to
provide a full financial breakdown of the costs required to move
all the facilities, staff and material at Mill Hill to an adequate
and safe central London location. These figures should be made
available to the Committee and the trades unions at NIMR before
any decision is made.
27. We believe that the MRC should ensure
that staying at Mill Hill should be one of the options considered
and an analysis of the benefits and problems of Mill Hill and
the two proposed London sites should be published prior to any
decision being made.
28. The AUT is also concerned about the
move away from support of full-time Research Institutes. This
has great importance to the staff at NIMR and AUT members in general.
29. Considering our objections to the proposals
made by the MRC working group on financial, scientific and security
grounds we would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence
to the Select Committee if you feel that would be appropriate.
30. We thank the Committee for the opportunity
to produce this evidence and we look forward to your deliberations.
22 November 2004
| 
