APPENDIX 78
Memorandum from Professor Christopher
Edwards, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
I am writing in connection with the recent Press
Release inviting written evidence in connection with the future
of NIMR. My reason for writing is that I have extensive experience
of this area, stemming from my appointment as the first Principal
of the Imperial College School of Medicine in 1995. I was asked
to implement the vision outlined in Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report
on London Medicine. In the following five years we were able to
effect a transformation of academic medicine in West London with
the mergers of St Mary's Hospital Medical School, the Royal Postgraduate
Medical School at the Hammersmith Hospital, the National Heart
and Lung Institute at the Brompton Hospital and the Charing Cross
and Westminster Medical School with Imperial College. The results
have been dramatic with markedly enhanced research activity and
income, the largest group of 5* research workers in any UK university,
major benefits to the NHS with improvement/reorganisation of services
to say nothing of the financial benefits to the UK from increased
spin-out activity. One of the key driving forces for this was
the recognition that modern biomedical research requires the juxtaposition
of first-class basic science with clinical medicine. This has
to be the most important consideration when determining the future
of the NIMR. In this context I would make the following points.
1. The UK has a remarkable record of achievement
in basic science but a very poor one of translating that research
into health or economic benefit. One of the aims of any new vision
for the NIMR would be to put it in an environment where its excellence
in research is more likely to be translated into benefit.
2. One of the major advantages of the mergers
in West London was that, after three years, there was no basic
science or engineering department in Imperial College which did
not have research grants with the School of Medicine. If the NIMR
was co-located with a university/hospital I would expect a major
increase in the number of collaborative research projects. Currently
the 200 scientists and 100 post-docs appear to have about 67 collaborations
in London. A close analysis of this would be helpful.
3. I am surprised at the small number of
postgraduate students (100) at NIMR. Given the size of the scientific
staff this is a matter of concern. The staff have no undergraduate
teaching and an excellent research environment. Given a new university
based environment I would expect the number of postgraduate students
to increase significantly. People trained in this environment
must be a critical resource for the future of UK biomedical science
and commercialisation. In addition, if NIMR was moved then it
is much more likely that they could recruit more clinically qualified
students to do postgraduate degrees. These students could well
be leaders of UK clinical medicine in the future. One of the aims
of a new NIMR must be to produce an environment in which young
clinicians can be exposed to high quality scientific research
and in which senior scientists can interact with clinical medicine.
All too often one hears the expression of taking research from
"the bench to the bedside". Major pharmaceutical companies
are now understanding that many of their very expensive mistakes
could have been obviated if there had been more input from the
bedside ( ie the patient) to the laboratory bench. This interactive
feedback is greatly facilitated by co-location of the basic research
and the patients.
4. The key question that the Select Committee
should be asking is whether the status quo is tenable?
If it is not (and I have seen considerable evidence to indicate
that this is the case) then all concerned should be prepared to
have an open mind in considering future options. The NIMR is too
important to the future of the UK biomedical research to allow
its future to be determined entirely by its past.
23 November 2004
| 
