APPENDIX 80
Memorandum from Professor Sir Paul Nurse,
former MRC Task Force member on the NIMR
1. The National Institute for Medical Research
is an excellent biomedical research institute with a strong international
reputation. It has prospered well under its current leadership
and I would rank it amongst the top five or so such institutes
in Europe at the present time. The UK and the MRC should be proud
to have NIMR as part of its scientific research portfolio.
2. Although NIMR is prospering, its present
site is not completely ideal, being located in outer London which
is less than perfect for travel, and not being located near other
biomedical research activities. Given it is the National Institute
for Medical Research a central London location would be better,
where connections to the rest of the UK and the world would be
better. There would also be advantages if NIMR were closer to
other major biomedical research facilities and research hospitals
(eg Imperial, Kings, UCL). It is important that NIMR should collaborate
throughout the UK and the rest of the world. However, research
contacts can be easier to set up when activities are more closely
located, and there are cultural differences in the way patient
based and basic research are carried out, and greater exposure
of NIMR scientists to clinical scientists working in research
hospitals would be an advantage. A central London site near one
of the bigger research universities would provide an ideal location
for NIMR in the 21st century.
3. A move to central London should be combined
with an increased focus of the institute providing national leadership
and driving up standards of basic and clinical research throughout
the country. This is an exciting vision for biomedical research
in the UK. However, there are potential obstacles in realizing
this vision briefly summarized in the next three paragraphs which
are also important for understanding the present unease about
the future of NIMR.
4. A suitable site in central London large
enough to accommodate NIMR at its present size needs to be found,
and the resources to purchase the site and build a new institute
need to be made available, if necessary by additional support
to the MRC. Given that this is an investment for the next 50-70
years, the capital costs will in reality be amortized over an
extended period of time. Viewed this way the annual costs are
more acceptable and should not distract from the future vision
for NIMR.
5. Although located closely to other biomedical
research facilities, the governance of NIMR should remain independent
of any adjacent university. Interactions need to be close and
whenever possible research costs shared, but the institute is
a national facility and must maintain its independence if it is
to fulfill this role effectively.
6. The size of NIMR in central London should
be similar to the present institute at Mill Hill. It will be difficult
for it to carry out its new national mission unless its present
size is maintained, and so moves to reduce its size should be
resisted.
7. The MRC has had financial problems in
recent years which have led to extramural response mode research
funding being reduced. In turn this has led to some, particularly
in the university sector, arguing that MRC institute funding should
be reduced to fund the short fall, and they may like to see MRC
council reduce NIMR support to fund this deficit. This is quite
wrong. Extramural response mode funding and the universities indeed
need support, but this should not be at the expense of MRC institutes
such as NIMR which play a special role in the UKs research portfolio.
Institutes are important for highly innovative research (for example
calculate the numbers of Nobel prizes awarded from work in institutes
and compare this with the total funding given intramurally to
institutes compared with extramural response mode mechanisms),
they can be more strategic, and they are also more effective for
inward international recruiting. Government should be urged to
address the MRCs present financial problems so short term thinking
does not dominate future plans for NIMR.
8. The discussions concerning NIMRs future
in recent years have put it in a potentially fragile condition.
High quality research takes years to build up and can be very
quickly destroyed. Stabilizing the present research scientists
at NIMR must be a priority for UK science, and the easiest way
to achieve this is to guarantee the long term future for NIMR.
The best solution would be re-location to a central London site
of the right size with appropriate resources and governance arrangements
to maintain the present NIMR research activities. Should this
not be possible in the short to medium time frame, the present
Mill Hill site should be maintained keeping NIMR at its present
size. NIMR has been a success and its new national and clinical
focus could continue to be effectively supported at the Mill Hill
site. If MRC could give such a clear guarantee then I believe
the present unrest would subside allowing the negotiations concerning
relocation to central London to proceed more smoothly.
23 November 2004
| 
