APPENDIX 82
Memorandum from The Royal Society of Edinburgh
1. The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE)
is pleased to respond to the House of Commons Science and Technology
Inquiry into the future of the National Institute for Medical
Research. This response has been compiled by the General Secretary,
Professor Andrew Miller and the Research Officer, Dr Marc Rands,
with the assistance of a number of Fellows with considerable experience
of the MRC.
2. The current impasse regarding the location
of the Institute must be resolved quickly and in such a way that
the staff at NIMR as well as the Medical Research Council (MRC)
can move forward in a co-operative mode. Biomedical research is
at a critical stage and the prospects of real advances in areas,
such as malaria, within the NIMR's Infection and Immunity group
have never been better.
THE RATIONALE
BEHIND THE
MOVE OF
THE NIMR
3. There is no doubt that work of the highest
quality is being done at the NIMR at Mill Hill and has been throughout
its existence. The level of performance, however, has been patchy
and the spread of expertise, facilities and world class research
does not map onto current MRC priorities or its vision for the
future. A key criticism is that the structure and management at
the NIMR lacks the necessary flexibility and dynamism to respond
to rapidly changing perspectives and capabilities in modern biological
and medical research. A move was therefore proposed in order to
put into place appropriate structures and staffing mechanisms
and re-align the emerging institute with the developing strategy
of MRC. This would introduce a flexibility to respond to future
changing capabilities and priorities in biomedical science.
4. In early 2003, a sub committee of the
MRC was given the task of examining the MRC's Forward Research
Strategy and recommended that NIMR at Mill Hill should be closed
and moved to Cambridge. However, the rationale for this recommendation
was poorly explained and none of the NIMR scientists were consulted.
This resulted in significant loss of morale amongst the staff
at the NIMR and has made it difficult for all to move into a more
co-operative mode. The MRC Council subsequently created a Task
Force with both national and international members (nominated
both by the MRC and NIMR) and with two NIMR staff to re-examine
this issue. The Task Force reported in July this year and recommended
that NIMR should be closed and moved to a site in London, proximal
either to University College or King's College, identifying a
clinically-aware culture and translational research as being important
for the NIMR. However, the NIMR staff have disputed the Task Force
conclusions.
5. The MRC has now appointed a steering
group to prepare the business and scientific cases for removing
NIMR to the central London sites, as well as a base case to set
out what would be required at Mill Hill in order to meet as closely
as possible the Task Force vision.
THE IMPACT
OF THE
PROPOSED MOVE
ON THE
WORK OF
THE NIMR
6. The impact of the proposed move on the
work and, equally importantly, the international reputation of
the NIMR should be enhanced greatly, as a result of its sharper
focus and increased flexibility. Locating the NIMR within a hospital
site should also further focus on clinical research and/or the
translation of basic to clinical research. However, whilst these
are laudable goals there are a number of concerns. While the ultimate
location of NIMR is undoubtedly important, the geography of the
site is not the only major factor; the status of research as viewed
by clinicians as much as it does the geography of the collaborators.
In the UK, there are no career paths that enable clinicians to
devote themselves to scientific studies in the long term, and
most clinician-scientist collaborations have a considerable ad
hoc element. There needs to be more clinicians trained in research
and the creation of effective multidisciplinary teams where the
roles of clinical and basic research staff are better understood
by all. These teams would have shared objectives, and commitments
and leadership would not necessarily come from one side or the
other.
7. These underlying, cultural aspects will
not themselves be changed by relocating NIMR and re-moulding its
brief. Overall, collaborations work best when the investigators
choose whom they want to work with and where the most appropriate
patient cohort is based. Forced collaborations tend not be successful
and an early attempt to artificially bring MRC scientists and
clinicians together at the Northwick Park Hospital was unsuccessful
and was abandoned.
8. In addition, the NIMR at Mill Hill has
a 47 acre site with consequent flexibility for redevelopment that
would not be the case in central London. It has high class containment
facilities to study emerging infections (which will be important
in light of climate change and the likelihood of new diseases
appearing in Britain) and there are excellent animal facilities
which are unlikely to be readily available in central London,
or would have to be duplicated on a crowded site. Given the magnitude
of future threats of infection cannot be foreseen in these uncertain
times, limitations on NIMR's potential for expansion should be
avoided at all costs.
THE FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS FOR
THE MRC
9. Through enhanced focus and the opportunity
to close down ineffective research programmes, this initiative
has the potential to deliver more world class science. It may
be tempting to believe it will also save money but this is unlikely.
However it should not undermine the key priority to further develop
the science and its exploitation in the development of new treatments
for major diseases. Overall, the rationale for moving to a central
London location is unclear, and will not prove to be in any way
cost-effective or provide a location capable of attracting and
retaining the best scientists. It will lead to yet more pressure
on housing and transport in Central London and the further consolidation
of the Golden Triangle of research funding. Relocation to a major
centre out with London would be preferable and consideration should
be given to other possible locations. Alternatively, consideration
should be given to addressing the situation at Mill Hill to meet
the Task Force vision without relocation.
THE BALANCE
OF THE
MRC'S STRATEGIC
PRIORITIES
10. We welcome the MRC's interest in pursuing
translational research, but there appears to be a narrow view
of what this is and how best to approach it within the UK. There
are various ways to pursue translational research which this initiative
may ignore such as working successfully with pharmaceutical, biotech
and diagnostic companies. These are, at least, equally important
interfaces that in many areas of highly competitive basic research
can provide more effective ways to develop new medicines and treatments
for disease. And there are cultural issues that affect our ability
nationally to develop an effective clinical-basic research interface
which moving NIMR will not solve.
11. It is perhaps surprising that the MRC
did not consider diverting resources away from NIMR, given that
a significant component of the MRC budget is currently spent there
and that there are great pressures on resources, not least from
those with unfunded alpha plus-rated research grants. Other expensive
projects, like the Biobank, are straining its resources and, in
the absence of substantial new funding, it appears there is a
need to redeploy resources in a more cost-effective way. This
would be achieved for example, by only funding the most excellent
basic science at the NIMR, perhaps without the very costly move,
and re-investing the savings in several successful centres around
the UK where the best translational research would be easier to
achieve.
12. The role of MRC institutes should be
recognised in providing the environment for tackling long term
research questions that cannot be addressed easily through five-year
research grants to universities.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
13. In responding to this inquiry the Society
would like to draw attention to the following Royal Society of
Edinburgh responses which are of relevance to this subject: Healthcare
in 2020 (September 2000), Fighting Infection (October
2002); A Vision for the Future (December 2002); Health
Protection in Scotland (January 2003). Copies of this response
and the above publications are also available from the Policy
Officer, Dr Marc Rands (email: evidenceadvice@royalsoced.org.uk).
23 November 2004
| 
