APPENDIX 83
Memorandum from Professor Kathy Cheah,
University of Hong Kong
1. I write to express my views on the recommendations
for the future NIMR. My comments stem from:
(a) the perspective of a senior University
academic with experience of working in different research environments;
(b) over 20 years personal experience of
the research environment and culture at the NIMR (1980-present)
through association as a visiting scientist at various stages
of my scientific career.
I am currently Chair of Biochemistry, Head of
the Department of Biochemistry and the Interim Director of the
University of Hong Kong Faculty of Medicine Research Centre for
Reproduction, Development and Growth. I have worked previously
in the then Imperial Cancer Research Fund Laboratory at Lincoln's
Inn Fields, London. My research is mainly in basic science research
but I have also had extensive experience of collaborative research
and interactions with clinicians over many years. For example
I hosted and mentored an orthopaedic surgeon in basic research
during his 12 months research training fellowhip where he was
relieved of clinical duties. I am currently leading a large multidisciplinary
"Area of Excellence" five-year research programme involving
basic scientists and clinicians.
My experience of the research environment and
interaction/collaboration with the many outstanding scientists,
junior and senior, in the NIMR has profoundly influenced my own
strategic planning as an academic leader in the University of
Hong Kong.
2. The NIMR has a long established international
reputation for excellent scientific research in multidisciplinary
areas of importance to both human health and fundamental biology.
The Institute attracts many of the best young researchers in the
UK and internationally as a highly desirable place for career
development, an incubator for fundamental discoveries and is a
magnet for many foreign scientists across the world. Having had
the privilege of observing the development of research at the
NIMR for nearly 20 years both from without and within, I am able
to offer an external international perspective on the importance
and role of the Institute and comment on the proposed changes.
I have contributed in the previous consultation on the future
of NIMR as articulated in the MRC Forward Investment Strategy
and have been following the subsequent developments and recommendations
with interest. I note that the major outcome of the review is
that The MRC Task Force have recommended:
"that the NIMR should be renewed as a multidisciplinary
research institute, based in the London area, focused on basic
and translational research, and that the plan is to co-locate
the NIMR with a major academic and clinical partner: King's College
London and University College London as possible options."
I also note that the current call for views
by the select committee arises because " The NIMR's Director,
staff and trade union representatives argued strongly that Mill
Hill should be considered as a third and equal option for the
renewed institute, including for reasons of economy. The Council
carefully considered their view that the vision for the NIMR could
be realised by investment at Mill Hill, but concluded that the
case for co-location with a university and hospital, as set out
in the Task Force report, remains persuasive. It could not reconcile
the NIMR in its present form with the strategy for achieving the
vision proposed by the Task Force".
3. In order to assess whether the proposed
changes to the NIMR would be the best way forward, one should
ask the following questions:
(a) Is the NIMR an internationally competitive
excellent institution? Has there been translational value for
their work? The MRC in its Forward Investment Strategy paper clearly
acknowledges the excellence of the NIMR. Professor Raisman's ground
breaking work on spinal cord repair leading to future clinical
trials is a prime example of the clinical relevance and translational
potential of the basic research at the NIMR.
(b) The second question to ask is what are
the critical factors behind the current high standing of the NIMR
and how the proposed changes would impact on this. I believe that
the success of the NIMR stems from several critical factors. The
well established infrastructure and number of sizeable research
Divisions with complementary and multidisciplinary teams with
expertise in key areas of biomedical and biological research provide
the necessary breadth and supportive environment which has enabled
the NIMR to attract, train and nurture exceptionally high quality
scientists. The strategy of targeted recruitment of excellent
scientists at both junior and senior levels and provision of opportunities
for creative research through a stimulating and highly interactive
research environment.
NIMR's independent status as a separate
premier research institute enables it to interact with a wide
range of basic science and clinical researchers from different
academic centres in London and elsewhere. It interacts with some
of the best medical schools and life science departments in the
UK, such as University College London, the other London University
Colleges and medical schools, the Cancer Research UK laboratories
in Lincoln's Inn Fields and Clare Hall and others. These advantages
considerably enhance the attraction of the NIMR to many excellent
scientists from all over the world, as a place for sabbaticals,
training and collaborative research. As a result the NIMR has
a strong international profile as the flagship national biomedical
research institute for the UK. It is internationally respected
as one of the premier research centres in the UK for developmental
biology, neuroscience and infectious diseases. These are the features
of the NIMR which have been appreciated tremendously by many scientists
and have made the NIMR such a unique Institute over the years.
(c) The third question is should there be
a significant shift away from basic to translational research
or should equal emphasis be made on both? I believe that both
should be emphasized and that there are ample examples where major
clinical applications and translations of basic research have
been made, not simply by setting out at the first instance to
find an application, but rather the importance lies in recognizing
the potential application value of discoveries arising from basic
research. Therefore emphasis should be on both.
(d) The fourth question is how best to achieve
the realization of clinical potential of basic discoveries. It
is true that interactions between scientists and clinicians are
very important and that both should understand the perspective
of each other. While it is cited that embedding labs in a clinical
setting will facilitate such interactions, I am not aware of solid
data showing that that is the only or preferred option. There
are many examples of successful partnerships between basic science
institutes and industry/clinical medicine such as for the Salk
Institute, EMBL, ICRF etc. One also asks if co-location has resulted
in increased translational research—perhaps examination
of the experience of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology located
very close to a hospital setting may be informative. From personal
experience it is not the proximity of the lab to the clinic that
facilitates interactions, rather it is the resources available
to clinicians for laboratory research and the amount of dedicated
research time that the clinician can spend interacting with the
basic scientist that is important. Indeed the temptation to run
to the ward or being on constant call back to the wards disrupts
both experiments and interactions. Rather providing time and opportunity
for clinicians to really spend time in the lab is the most effective.
(e) For the NIMR, considering the major impact
changes will have on its future as the flagship British Institute
for medical research it seems imperative that all possible scenarios
be examined and carefully weighed before making decisions.
(i) So one asks: have all possibilities been
thoroughly explored in regard to their feasibility and their value
in ensuring research excellence will be maintained?
(ii) What is the rationale for excluding consideration
of redeveloping NIMR on its present site as an option? The current
site has the advantage of ample space for expansion. From the
outside, it seems that it would be very expensive to relocate
and rebuild the NIMR in central London where space is in short
supply, so the cost and benefits should be closely examined and
the final decisions should be based on solid evidence.
5. Finally I believe that the decision on
the future of NIMR is so important to biomedicine in the UK that
the decisions should be taken only after thorough, transparent
and evidence-based considerations.
23 November 2004
| 
