APPENDIX 91
Memorandum from Professor Robert Liddington,
Burnham Institute, La Jolla, California
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I wish to make two arguments for not moving
the NIMR to a central London site. First, the NIMR is scientifically
outstanding, and the science within the institute is very well
integrated, but it is a precious commodity that may not survive
a move to the center of London, owing to the way in which science
is actually done at a research institute. Second, the rationale
for siting the NIMR next to a hospital is poor. There is no weakness
in the selection of research priorities by the basic scientists
at the NIMR that would benefit from interactions with physicians.
The government should instead be focusing its efforts on encouraging
the early-to-mid stages of drug design—medicinal chemistry
and animal trials—especially for the treatment of infectious
diseases, because this is where a gap exists in the drug design
pipeline that makes the creation of new drugs economically unattractive
to drug companies. A move to central London would only hinder
such efforts.
MY CREDENTIALS
Professor Liddington trained in the UK at Oxford
(BA) and York (DPhil) universities, and in the US at Harvard University.
He held a Faculty position at Harvard Medical School (1990-95)
before returning to the UK as Chair of Macromolecular Crystallography
at the University of Leicester (1995-99). He returned to the US
in 1999 to become Professor at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla,
California, and is now Director of the Program on Infectious Diseases.
He directs a group of 10 faculty, and also runs a research laboratory
of 25 persons funded exclusively via peer-reviewed grants from
the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense.
POINT 1: The NIMR is a precious commodity
that cannot readily be transported to another site
I was recently asked to act as an external reviewer
of the Structural Biology program at NIMR. I found the quality
of the science to be outstanding—comparable or better than
any major department in a US university or research institute.
The choice of research topics was absolutely at the cutting edge
of modern molecular biology, and highly synergistic with the other
research programs within the institute. The level of achievement,
as judged by the publication of a large number of papers in the
top scientific journals—Nature, Science and Cell—was
truly extraordinary. The creation of such an intellectual resource
requires strong leadership and the recruitment of key individuals—lieutenants—who
provide the day-to-day drive and enthusiasm for this scientific
work. Although their academic standing is comparable to a University
Professor, they continue to do experiments themselves at the same
times as directing and training junior colleagues. Because of
this they work long and irregular hours (with modest pay). They
are typically in their thirties and forties with young families
to support. I doubt that the prospect of a long commute to the
centre of London will appeal to these individuals, and therefore
they will either find jobs elsewhere or productivity will suffer.
Please note that such highly skilled and dedicated scientists
may be impossible to replace. Of the four lieutenants in the structural
biology division at NIMR I cannot think of more than a dozen other
scientists with comparable credentials within the UK.
POINT 2: The critical step in bridging the
drug design gap is the provision of funding for drug lead optimization
and animal trials
New treatments for infectious diseases—whether
caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, emerging viruses such
as SARS and West Nile, or the work of bioterrorists, are likely
to be of critical importance over the next decades. Drug companies
have classically focussed their efforts on the treatment of chronic
diseases rather than acute ones owing to economic imperatives.
Therefore, university researchers and government must change this
situation by making the design and testing of treatments for acute
diseases economically attractive to industry. Historically, basic
scientists have not had the resources to take drug discovery beyond
inhibitor design in the test tube. One way to bridge the gap to
industrial drug design is for the government to fund the intermediate
steps in drug discovery—lead optimisation through medicinal
chemistry and animal trials—which can lead to compounds
with proven efficacy in animals that are patentable and that can
then be developed further by biotech or drug companies. This is
a key area for development. Moving the NIMR to the center of London
will not further this objective, and will actually impede research
by making animal trials harder to perform.
23 November 2004
|
