Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320-339)
DR ANTHONY
HOLDER AND
MS EILEEN
CLARK
13 DECEMBER 2006
Q320 Dr Turner: One of the other
consequences of the move to central London would be obviously
increased costs, which is part of the equation, about roughly
a 20% increase in the running costs. Can you see any advantages
to compensate for that for location in central London? Would it
make it easier to retain staff or not?
Dr Holder: If I go back to the
running costs, again the Task Force recommended an increase in
running costs to compensate for the increased costs in Central
London. The MRC have recently announced a cap that would prevent
that from happening. We have existing collaboration with UCL and
many other colleges within the London area anyway as we have with
UK and international institutions. Again, my personal view is
that we would not benefit scientifically from being co-located
on the NTH site about 15 to 20 minutes away from the University
College Hospital and even further to the UCL main campus.
Q321 Dr Turner: You could say that
being on the wrong side of the Euston Road, it might as well be
at Mill Hill.
Dr Holder: It is approximately
five miles as the crow flies.
Ms Clark: You asked about retention
of staff. Amicus represents the biological services staff and
in fact there is some evidence that, in central London, they have
trouble recruiting. From my union colleagues, I believe that the
Prion Unit had to actually pay considerably more over the average
salary to get biological services staff whereas I believe at Mill
Hill we do not have any problem recruiting. That section of staff
was also particularly concerned at the security of the site at
the National Temperance Hospital. We have animal rights people
once a week at the moment and they are safely contained outside
the gates, so people can drive in and out without being hassled
too much. Certainly a section of staff are worried about that.
Q322 Dr Turner: I was coming to that
because there were key facilities like very large animal facilities,
like specialised NMR that have faculties and level four containment
laboratories. Would it be possible even to replicate those at
NTH?
Ms Clark: The original plan from
the business case was to have all these facilities on the one
site. We believe that there are possibly problems with planning
and obviously concerns about the security. So, whether ultimately
they would be able to put these facilities on the site, we do
not know.
Q323 Dr Harris: I would like to ask
a question on the animal facilities. I understand what you are
saying but do you understand the alternative argument that, if
you are seen to change policy, science policy and planning rules
in a free society because of concerns about intimidation and the
inability of the police to police this, then you just encourage
the extremists to continue to protest. Do staff take the view
that you should not take that as a stance?
Ms Clark: Yes, I think staff generally
would agree with that but they are intimated potentially on a
weekly basis and it is not very pleasant to have people waving
placards or shouting insults at you as you go in and out from
your work. I think that people would generally agree with you
that that is the stance we would all like to take but these people
have to deal with it.
Q324 Dr Turner: The MRC's scientific
argument is that co-location with UCL would facilitate translational
research. What comments do you have to make on that?
Dr Holder: Eileen is the Technology
Transfer Liaison Officer in the Institute, so she can probably
answer that in detail. If I give an example of my own work which
is in malaria research, we do translational science. Our work
has led to the current major candidate for a vaccine for malaria.
We have drug discovery programmes. We have a diagnostic that is
currently used by the National Transfusion Service. We are doing
translational science already. I do not think that we are inhibited
from doing it on the current site and I think, as we said earlier,
the Institute will evolve to take a greater share of translational
science in the future without necessarily needing to be located
in a different situation.
Q325 Bob Spink: What specific facilities
or skills do UCL have that would facilitate translational research
that you do not have?
Dr Holder: Our clinical collaborations
are in Africa, so moving down the road from us is not actually
going to help. Obviously, we are in a little bit of a special
case. Clearly, we do not have a hospital adjacent to us on the
Mill Hill site and clearly UCH has a very good clinical facility.
We already collaborate with the mathematicians and computer scientists
at UCL. We have a strong collaboration with MRC Technology, which
is at the Mill Hill site, in terms of drug discovery. I think
that in terms of hitting those points, we already do it. I am
not sure that there is a significant advantage in terms of translational.
Q326 Dr Turner: Do you have anything
to add, Ms Clark?
Ms Clark: Tony mentioned the field
of malaria and we are also involved in TB, human papilloma virus
and the flu obviously is the very current one. There are treatments
which have come out of the Institute as well: spinal cord repair
is one. Again, we are involved in cancer research. We actually
put reagents out into the scientific world as well, things like
antibodies and devices. We do a fair amount of translational and
I think that it is a mindset with the scientists rather than where
we physically are.
Q327 Dr Turner: Would it be fair
to say that, at the present time, roughly 10% of your collaborative
work outside the Mill Hill site is with UCH and the rest is with
other institutions?
Ms Clark: I am sorry, I do not
know the figures.
Dr Holder: Ours would be less
than that but I do not know the figures. There is a lot of collaboration
with, for example, the Institute of Child Health to take a UCL
institution.
Q328 Dr Turner: May I be very blunt
with you. What staggers me about this conversation and this whole
debacle—it is becoming a debacle—is that you have
the Medical Research Council here who have consistently, not just
over the last few years but even leading up to the proposals to
move to Cambridge, said that there is a need to build new facilities
outside of the Mill Hill centre where you do not have a hospital
to do the clinical research. We have now had Cooksey which is
asking us to bring together these two elements of pure research
and translational research. Why are they so wrong? With great
respect, both successive Chief Executives and indeed the successive
Chairman of MRC are not stupid people. They are good scientists.
Why is there such a division between you?
Dr Holder: I am not saying that
they are wrong, obviously. In terms of overall policy making,
the priority to move medical research in the direction of translational
research is a good one, but I think that the NIMR Institute is
sufficiently large and sufficiently diverse and sufficiently multidisciplinary
to actually be able to deliver to those health priorities and
those national needs without necessarily being co-located. In
a time of instant communication worldwide, I am not sure that
geographical closeness really determines whether or not collaboration
will develop.
Q329 Adam Afriyie: It seems to me,
with a background of 15 years in technology, the internet, easy
transmission, even within the NHS, of X-rays and clinical data,
that, in the modern world, actually there would have to be an
incredibly strong financial or strategic case in order to make
such a move with such huge numbers. Would you agree that, with
modern technology, especially as it has evolved in the last three
or four years and broadband technologies, it would be relatively
straightforward to keep two separate sites?
Dr Holder: Absolutely. To give
you an example, with have strong collaborations funded by National
Institute of Health in America and we have conference calls on
a regular basis and that works extremely well. The geographic
constraint is not a problem in today's world.
Q330 Dr Iddon: Just on the point
that the Chairman was making about the retention of the Mill Hill
site, obviously we all know that the MRC have turned their back
against that quite adamantly, but have you had any chance to discuss
that decision with the Chief Executive of the MRC?
Dr Holder: The only time that
that has been clearly and expressly stated was at the last council
meeting in October when it was stated, as far as I understand,
that the MRC saw no further potential for the NIMR to remain on
the Mill Hill site. The Task Force certainly never conclusively
excluded NIMR remaining on the site. As you probably know, there
was some controversy at the time of the Task Force and it is only
in the last month that this decision seems to have been made and
also, as far as I understand, there was no influence from the
Government to, if you like, embed NIMR in the university sector.
We talked to Lord Sainsbury when he was Minister in September
2003 and he certainly assured us at that time that there was no
imperative for that to happen.
Q331 Dr Iddon: In the Step Change
Report, the 2004 costs of retention of Mill Hill were £35
million, considerably cheaper than the shortfall in the cost of
moving to the Temperance Hospital site now. Obviously, those costs
will have increased and I accept that. Has this option been updated
in your view to take account of current prices and, if so, what
is the new option?
Dr Holder: That option has never
been really considered by MRC as an option. It was part of the
enhanced base case but it was never considered as a real option,
it was simply for comparison. That would not only renovate the
building more speedily, but it would also provide new facilities,
for example chemistry and an infection and immunity enhanced facility.
I do not know what the effect of inflation would be in the intervening
period but I would suspect that we are talking about £40
million at today's prices.
Q332 Dr Iddon: Was the cost of new
build included in that price?
Dr Holder: It was, indeed.
Q333 Dr Iddon: What else did the
estimate include?
Dr Holder: The estimate included
about £10 million for refurbishment of the current building
which is an ongoing thing but this would enable an accelerated
refurbishment. I think there is about £2.5 million to £3
million for an enhanced chemistry facility. I do not have the
figures to hand but I can certainly provide them if required.
Ms Clark: There was also a lecture
theatre to do more public engagement for science which is something
we are already involved in and it would allow that to be expanded.
Q334 Dr Iddon: Two of the criticisms
of the Mill Hill site are that the site is too old and the buildings
on the site are too old for modern facilities, the kind that we
need, and that the site is too remote and we are back with the
translational research angle. What do you say about the site issues?
Dr Holder: The building was built
in the 1930s; it is structurally designed such that the entire
inside can be ripped out and remodelled if necessary and I think
that independent consultants have said that the building is good
for at least 20 years and, the more refurbishment takes place,
the more its longevity would be increased. I think that the building
is not an issue. With respect to translation, as I mentioned earlier,
we are adjacent to MRC Technology, which is the technology development
arm of the MRC, and of course they would have to move, which is
not quite this particular issue but is something that should be
taken into account. With respect to communication and translation,
as we discussed, in today's world, communication is not an issue.
We collaborate with groups worldwide; we collaborate with companies;
we collaborate with the university sector. It is not something
that I see as an issue.
Q335 Chairman: There is an irony
there in what you are saying because what you are saying is, if
you move to Mill Hill without all the facilities, it then is a
problem to communicate between the different elements.
Dr Holder: If we move from Mill
Hill?
Q336 Chairman: If you move from Mill
Hill into the Euston Road and Temperance Hospital, you are saying
that it then becomes a major problem—
Dr Holder: No, no.
Q337 Chairman: You cannot have it
both ways.
Dr Holder: If we moved and the
size of the facility was as good as that which we currently enjoy,
then I do not see a problem. If the facility is going to be downsized
and the Institute is going to be dispersed across several sites,
possibly with the animals in Camden etc, etc, then we are not
talking about a direct relocation of what we currently have, we
are talking about reduced facilities.
Q338 Chairman: But are you not swapping
the opportunities for new translational science next to the UCL
in the centre of London for having facilities which are external
compared to what you have now with all your facilities on site
and doing your translational research externally?
Ms Clark: I think that those are
two different kinds of communication that you are talking about
in a way. Again, to go back to the last quinquennial review—
Q339 Chairman: I need to get it on
the record, that is all.
Ms Clark: One of the strengths
of the Institute was the inter-communication and the inter-disciplinary
collaborations, but that added value to it and actually helped
with the external and I think that that is what we are saying
we would lose if the Institute were split up and I think that
with things like biological services, with the way it is now,
which are very much part of the vision, the staff who are there
can become very involved with the scientific projects rather than
just being a service to the Institute. They would either have
to replicate a lot of the lab space for the animal work or we
would totally lose that sort of integration.
| 
