APPENDIX 77
Memorandum from Professor Andrew Michael,
Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital,
Oxford
1. I am the Director of the Weatherall Institute
of Molecular Medicine (WIMM) in Oxford, Honorary Director of the
MRC Human Immunology Unit, Chairman of the MRC Infections and
Immunity Board and a member of MRC Council (since August 2004).
I qualified in Medicine in 1968 and spent three years at NIMR
between 1971 and 1974 working for my PhD. I have visited NIMR
frequently since then and have collaborated with NIMR scientists.
I was a member of the MRC site visit that reviewed Immunology
in July 2004 and chaired the site visit that reviewed the Infections
divisions in September 2004.
2. I have only been part of the review process
for the future of NIMR since joining MRC Council three months
ago. However I have followed events, have read the Task Force
report and all associated papers, and have formed an opinion as
to the process and the future of NIMR. This submission is made
in my personal capacity.
3. The science in NIMR is of the highest
calibre and the scientific leadership has been outstanding. It
was the opinion of both recent review committees, that I was on,
who examined each scientific programme and the opinions of more
than fifty external referees, that the science in the Infections
and Immunity Groups are both of the highest international class.
Both groups were rated alpha-A, the highest category. These assessments
recognise the very high quality of research carried out at NIMR,
sustained over several decades. The MRC is rightly proud of the
achievements of NIMR.
4. It is worth pointing out where research
sits at NIMR vis-a"-vis the overall research portfolio of
the MRC. The MRC quite rightly funds a spectrum of research from
basic molecular and cell biology to phase III and IV clinical
trials. In between is translational research is the process that
leads from basic research to experimental medicine and then full
scale clinical trials. The Cambridge Laboratory of Molecular Biology,
focuses on basic biomedical research and is the world leader with
a clutch of Nobel prizes. NIMR has a broader remit, from basic
molecular and cell biology to model systems and translational
research. Examples of NIMR translational work are; the classification
and molecular epidemiology of the influenza, malaria vaccine and
drug discovery and TB model systems. I am personally indebted
to their Immunology programme, which has underpinned much of the
clinically orientated work in my own group.
5. I support Council's decision to review
the two options of moving NIMR to either University College London
or Kings College London. The Task Force has made a cogent scientific
case for this after months of deliberation with a very large number
of consultations and submissions, I see the clear advantages in
such a move, if an equivalent facility can be set up in a University
site and attached to a Medical School. The University site will
open up possibilities for innovative and exciting collaborations
in the basic sciences, particularly the physical sciences. The
integrated Medical School connection will offer new opportunities
to expand their translational research and develop programmes
in experimental medicine. The move would make NIMR more accessible
to clinical scientists who could develop full careers within its
structure. The move to more clinical research has been highlighted
as a direction in which the MRC must travel over the next 10-20
years. This must be true, although it cannot happen in a vacuum
and will always be dependent on excellent basic research, which
the MRC must continue to support.
6. I am fully signed up to MRC Council's
decision, but I do have a concern that the cost of moving their
outstanding biomedical research unit and NMR facility, as well
as providing equivalent space in a new central London institute
may prove too costly. Obviously every effort will be made to find
the funding and to ensure the full transfer of facilities, the
option of seriously cutting down the scale of the National Institute
is not acceptable. We need a National Institute; the US National
Institutes of Health campus has several Institutes of NIMR size,
we are seeking to support only one.
7. The business plans for the UCL and KCL
bids will soon be compared, by MRC Council, with the costs of
keeping NIMR at Mill Hill. If the UCL and KCL bids fall below
the standard required, then the Mill Hill option will be revisited.
My personal view is that it might be possible for the Mill Hill
option to deliver a substantial part of the new vision, if the
full scale move to UCL or KCL proves impossible. There are other
famous Institutes of medical research that are similarly distant
from a medical school, for instance the Naval Yard Facility at
Harvard, which is 20 minutes from the Massachusetts General Hospital,
carries out outstanding translational research. The Infections
Group at NIMR exemplifies that certain types of translational
research can be carried out at Mill Hill. However, for the Mill
Hill option to move forward, I would urge much closer interactions
with one of the London Medical Schools, including space sharing
on both sites and more external grant funding for research at
NIMR.
8. The option, sometimes floated, of closing
the Institute or splitting it up and relocating groups would be
extremely damaging. The NIMR carries out biomedical research at
the highest level and has an outstanding international reputation.
NIMR, together with the Cambridge Laboratory of Molecular Biology,
flies the flag for UK medical science. Closure, which would certainly
precipitate a US-led recruitment drive for the brightest talents,
would send out a disastrous message with far reaching negative
implications. MRC Council has already correctly rejected this
option.
9. Whatever the outcome of Council's assessment
of the bids from UCL and KCL and the comparison with the "enhanced
Mill Hill" option, crucial factors will be the retention
of the core scientific structure, including several key groups,
in NIMR and the appointment of the new Director to succeed Sir
John Skehel in 2006. His/her vision and ambition will be the most
critical element in the future plan. There needs to be an end
to the uncertainty so that a vigorous recruitment exercise can
get under way in the very near future.
10. Finally, I believe that the MRC has
acted correctly and fairly in setting up the Task Force and acting
on its recommendations. The next phase will to look at the facilities
that the two bids offer and the costs involved, comparing these
with the costs of an enhanced Mill Hill option. MRC Council, since
before I was a member, has continuously engaged with staff at
Mill Hill and this continues. I have accompanied Professor Blakemore
on a recent visit to meet staff. Their views have been considered
carefully and Council will certainly continue this dialogue.
SUMMARY
I am a recent member of MRC Council, though
this submission is in a personal capacity. I have considerable
experience of NIMR and of biomedical research including translational
research and experimental medicine. The proposal to move NIMR
into a clinical setting in UCL or KCL potentially offers considerable
advantages for the progress of clinical research in the next 20
years. However, should the bids not measure up to the vision the
Mill Hill option must be revisited; I think there are ways this
could deliver much of the vision of the Task Force. I believe
that MRC Council and the Task Force have acted correctly and fairly
in preparing, delivering and assessing their report. The process
continues and the quality of the bids and budgetary implications
are now high on the agenda. The MRC needs the time and space to
continue to assess all the options so that a final decision can
be made in the near future.
23 November 2004
|
