APPENDIX 88
Memorandum from the Heads of Division
Committee, National Institute for Medical Research
SUMMARY
The Heads of Divisions of NIMR welcome changes
that enhance the future development of the National Institute
for Medical Research. However, a move to central London will lead
to the inevitable loss of features of the Mill Hill site that
are important determinants of NIMR's success in multidisciplinary
research and clinical translation. We are greatly concerned that
the Mill Hill site has been excluded as an option for future development,
and by the procedures which have resulted in this decision.
COUNCIL'S
DECISION TO
EXCLUDE A
FORMAL BID
FROM NIMR AT
MILL HILL
1. We welcome the MRC Council's endorsement
of the future NIMR as a multidisciplinary institute, building
upon its basic science core with an increased emphasis on clinical
translation, on a single site in London. However, the Council
proposes only to consider two central London bids and to exclude
the option for development of the renewed NIMR at Mill Hill. As
we have always stated, and reiterate here, we are not opposed
to any change that offers real improvements. We believe that investment
in a renewed NIMR on the Mill Hill site would serve the MRC's
vision best and would be by far the most cost-effective option.
We fear that, in pursuit of its vision of an institute embedded
in a hospital and HEI setting, the MRC will end up spending large
sums of public money on building an Institute with facilities,
resources and a culture that are inferior to those that already
exist at Mill Hill. In excluding Mill Hill as a formal option,
MRC is putting vision before common sense.
2. The recommendation of the Task Force
that NIMR moves to central London is based on a view that the
potential advantages outweigh the disadvantages. It is therefore
essential that any decision is based upon a proper evidence-based
analysis of the key factors. The NIMR culture of interactiveness
and cross-disciplinarity, excellent basic research and clinical
translation are the result of the co-location of disciplines within
a single building at a convenient location, extensive on-site
animal facilities, and independence from a specific HEI/hospital.
Future scientific developments, increased interactions with MRC
Technology, inward investment from industrial and/or academic
partners, an increase in our national role in the provision of
large-scale facilities and in training of clinician scientists,
will all require space. There are obvious and considerable difficulties
in recreating these essential features of the Mill Hill site in
central London. The Task Force report presented no data or informed
discussion relevant to the central issue of whether basic/translational
research is more effectively conducted by a multidisciplinary
institute on an HEI-embedded site rather than an independent site.
3. A cost/benefit analysis can only realistically
be carried out by direct comparison between Mill Hill and the
central London options once the full costs for each are properly
assessed. Following Council's meeting on 13 October, we were asked
to prepare a last-minute "enhanced" Mill Hill proposal.
It was emphasised that this would not be considered as a formal
option, but rather an enhanced "baseline" against which
the two central London options would be assessed. In the not unlikely
event that neither UCL nor KCL meets the criteria for Council's
vision, the MRC has stated that the entire issue would be reconsidered.
The Select Committee can imagine how we feel about that prospect.
It is foreseeable that a third protracted enquiry run by the MRC
will lead to a mass exodus of senior scientific and support staff
and a break-up of the structure and culture of the existing Institute.
4. The comparison of the three sites involves
scientific, organisational and financial issues. Analysis of the
advantages and disadvantages will be a complex exercise. We would
like to know if independent scientific opinion will be sought
by the steering committee set up by Council to assess the bids.
For example, proximity to expertise in disciplines such as chemistry,
physics, nanoengineering and mathematics was a major motivation
of the Task Force in recommending relocation, yet these disciplines
are dispersed across the multi-site campuses of KCL and UCL. Who
will advise the MRC steering committee on whether this is as serious
a problem as it appears to be? Finally, what opportunity will
NIMR representatives be given to comment on the bids—for
example, on whether the proposed animal facilities are adequate.
We have raised the key question of NIMR input several times with
the MRC, but have yet to receive a response.
THE TASK
FORCE PROCESS
5. It is clear that some Task Force members
felt that an enhanced Mill Hill option should be considered on
an equal basis with the central London options. This was in fact
the majority view expressed by those present at the last Task
Force meeting. It was highly inappropriate that no formal minutes
were kept at this or any other Task Force meeting. As a result,
there were protracted disagreements between Task Force members
about what was or was not discussed and agreed. This is evident
from the selection of email exchanges between Task Force members
that has been published (especially those from the period leading
up to publication of the final Task Force report). However, only
a selection of the email correspondence has been published by
MRC. We urge the Committee to ask that all of these communications
be made available as we believe they will provide a unique indication
of the direction of the Task Force discussions and the unsatisfactory
manner in which the Task Force was conducted.
6. We are astonished that the MRC managed
a year-long, time-consuming and expensive review process without
properly discussing the future proposals from NIMR for an enhanced
NIMR at its current site, and whether this could serve the strategic
vision of MRC. This is of especial concern given that two of the
Task Force members (whose votes contributed to the final 5:4 majority
to exclude the Mill Hill option) never visited the Institute,
and one of these did not attend a single meeting in person.[5]
(A request by our Task Force representatives for attendance of
Task Force members at these meetings and conferences calls to
be put on public record was denied by the Task Force secretariat).
In his most recent discussions with us, the MRC CEO offered two
reasons for excluding Mill Hill as an option:
(i) his prejudice (sic) that NIMR staff would
not engage in discussions of the other options if the Mill Hill
option were considered; and
(ii) its inclusion might preclude later bids
from other HEIs (eg Imperial College) being considered. These
are not reasoned scientific arguments for excluding the Mill Hill
option, a point forcefully made by our Director, John Skehel,
in his presentation to Council at their last meeting (see Statement
from NIMR Director 13 October at http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/future/).
The CEO's failure to provide staff with a credible reason for
excluding Mill Hill as an option exemplifies a managerial approach
that has repeatedly undermined productive engagement with NIMR
staff.
7. The management consultants hired to facilitate
the business of the Task Force carried out an extensive public
consultation on a range of options for NIMR, including the key
issue of NIMR's location. Individual responders voted overwhelmingly
(85%) for a model in which a renewed NIMR conducts basic and translational
research at a single site, and remains independent of any HEI/hospital.
This conclusion holds up even after discarding all responders
with any past or present connections with NIMR (of which, not
surprisingly, there were a significant number). It appears that
the Task Force placed much greater weight on the small number
of organisational responses than the opinions of the vast majority
of individual responders.
CONCLUSIONS
8. NIMR at Mill Hill is a major national
asset of proven excellence. We are unanimous in our belief that
the exclusion of Mill Hill as an option is a mistake, arising
from another flawed review process by the MRC (the first being
the widely discredited recommendations from the FIS process in
2003). The MRC is proposing to move NIMR to central London without
adequate cost/benefit evaluation. Such a move is certain to be
both costly and disruptive, and carries with it a real risk of
destroying world-class research teams and clinical links that
have taken many years to establish. The vision that is driving
the MRC to this decision shows little understanding of the essential
components that maintain the current highly collaborative interdisciplinary
culture at Mill Hill. The exclusion of Mill Hill as an option
is based on a narrow majority of a split Task Force and a poorly
run review process. The MRC is damaging its reputation in the
eyes of the scientific community both within the UK and abroad.
We hope that the Committee will probe the reasons for this state
of affairs, establish the real reasons behind the MRC's determination
to close NIMR at Mill Hill, and make recommendations about how
the MRC should act to restore the confidence of the scientific
community in its management of strategic reviews.
NIMR Heads of Division Committee:
| Tim Bliss | Division of Neurophysiology
|
| Tony Holder | Division of Parasitology
|
| Dimitris Kioussis | Division of Molecular Immunology
|
| Lee Johnston | Division of Yeast Genetics
|
| Kathleen Mathers | Biological Services
|
| Tim Mohun | Division of Developmental Biology
|
| Justin Molloy | Division of Physical Biochemistry
|
| Anne O'Garra | Division of Immunoregulation
|
| Vassilis Pachnis | Division of Molecular Neurobiology
|
| Iain Robinson | Division of Molecular Neuroendocrinology
|
| Jonathan Stoye | Division of Virology
|
| Willie Taylor | Division of Mathematical Biology
|
| Victor Tybulewicz | Division of Immune Cell Biology
|
| David Wilkinson | Division of Developmental Neurobiology
|
| 23 November 2004 | |
5
The Task Force originally consisted of 10 members, five nominated
by the MRC and five by NIMR. An NIMR nominee, Professor Peter
Gruss, resigned because he could not devote the necessary time
to Task Force business. Professor Gruss is head of the Max Planck
Society, a major funder of research institutes in Germany. The
member of the Task Force who did not attend any meetings in person
was Professor Alan Bernstein, head of CIHR, the main biomedical
funding agency in Canada, which supports only extramural university
research. We do not know if Professor Bernstein similarly offered
to resign. Back
|
