Memorandum from Dr Robin Lovell-Badge,
National Institute for Medical Research
I should stress that these are my personal views
drawn from a range of experiences, consequently most of my responses
are concerned with the first two questions posed on the website.
I am very familiar with Research Institutes, having worked before
going to University and during my summer vacations at the John
Innes (Norwich), during my second postdoc at the Institute Jacques
Monod ("embedded" in the University of Paris IV) and
at the MRC National Institute for Medical Research, where I have
been since 1988. The Select Committee will also know that I was
a member of the Task Force looking into the future of NIMR, 2003-04.
In addition I know the Roslin Institute very
well, having served on its Governing Council from 1999-2004. I
am also very familiar with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, Long
Island, New York, USA, as I have spent from one to three weeks
teaching on an advanced course there every summer for the last
19 years. I have also been involved in reviews of other Institutes
in the UK, such as the MRC Clinical Sciences Centre, and abroad,
notably the Pasteur Institute, Paris, France, and the Tata Institute
in Mumbai, India.
I of course also know the University system,
in particular UCL, which is where I did my BSc and PhD, worked
for six years in an embedded MRC Unit and where I am currently
an honorary professor. I also know Cambridge University fairly
well, having spent over three years there as a postdoc and subsequently
been involved in collaborations, reviews, etc. I have also been
involved in high-level assessments of research in Oxford University,
the Ecole Normale Superieur, Paris, etc.
RCIs, other research institutes, units and centres
based in universities, university departments and research based
companies all contribute to the UK research and skills base. Each
differs in the extent and manner of this contribution and I do
not think it fair to say that one is better than another—they
are just different. And the UK benefits greatly from having this
wide range of research activity. Each can respond in different
ways to changing needs and bring varying perspectives on issues
of research, whether basic, translational or applied. For example,
universities benefit from their broad cultural and academic role.
On the other hand, undergraduate teaching is a responsibility
that RCIs do not have, and the departmental structure necessary
for teaching often detracts from interdisciplinary working, which
are both matters that RCIs do not have to face. RCIs should (but
do not always—see below) enjoy long term stable funding,
which at the same time allows them to carry out more long term,
ambitious projects, but also to be more flexible in research direction.
But this does not mean that university-based research can't be
excellent, indeed it often is, and there are many examples where
long-term projects have been conducted in university settings.
Whichever environment, quality is determined in part by the individual
scientist, partly by funding and management structures, but critically
by the strength of the peer review mechanisms that are in place
to judge both the science and scientists.
I have definitely benefited in my own research
from being at an RCI, as I think have all who have been through
my lab at the NIMR. So, not surprisingly, I think RCIs do play
an extremely important role in the UK research and skills base.
The high quality of the research output (in terms of publications,
marks of prestige, such as international prizes, etc) of many
RCIs is evidence for this. They can, and generally do, provide
excellent environments for postgraduate training and for carrying
out research. Compared to many universities, they have fewer of
the distractions (such as undergraduate teaching), often better
facilities, and generally a more focused attitude to research.
At least in my experience at NIMR, this environment can engender
a special culture of research and excellence that stays with individuals
when they leave. It is also clearly the case with the LMB, as
Gerry Rubin has expressed a wish to recreate the culture he experienced
when he was there at the new Howard Hughes Institute at Janellia
Farm.
This last point also highlights an additional
very critical and important role for the best RCIs. At NIMR we
attract many foreign PhD students and Postdocs, who often bring
skills and expertise with them. Some remain in this country and
continue to contribute directly to UK science, others leave, but
science is an international discipline and even if they don't
continue collaborations (in my experience many do), they at least
spread the word and boost the reputation of UK science worldwide.
I do not know the figures across RCIs, but almost
all the technicians, PhD students and postdocs that have been
through my lab have actively remained in research, whether in
the UK or abroad, except for two who have pursued medicine, one
who is in research administration and two who have gone into business
(out of 36). This is a direct contribution to the research base,
to which can be added all our collaborations, passing on of skills
and expertise, etc.
Senior scientists often choose to leave RCIs
to join universities. The latter do have advantages: teaching
and students can be fun, it is possible to build larger groups,
etc. Such people also make an impression: the two most inspiring
lecturers I had when doing my degree at UCL had both come from
NIMR.
One reason why multidisciplinary institutes,
such as the NIMR, are successful is the cross-fertilisation of
ideas and techniques that occur between scientists working on
often very different topics. This requires that there be no barriers,
which is easy to achieve in an institute with one main common
source of funding and a flat management structure. In universities,
collaboration between departments—at all levels from financial
and administrative, but especially research, has traditionally
been very difficult. (This is evidenced by the frequency of encountering
locked doors between adjacent buildings and departments !) It
is because of this that many Universities, especially in the USA,
have established multidisciplinary Institutes on their campuses.
Attempts in the UK to break down these barriers perhaps work in
some places, Manchester perhaps being an example, but most will
(at least in private) admit that it is a problem.
While institutes and universities should get
along with each other, and benefit from each other, there is no
need for institutes to be embedded in Universities: physical location
is not so important. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, the European
Molecular Biology Labs, the Jackson Labs, CRUK in South Mimms
or in Lincoln's Inn, NIMR, LMB, etc, represent some of the very
best institutes in the world, and all are physically separate
from universities.
Institutes that earn a bad reputation are those
that are either not peer reviewed properly, or have split missions,
eg funding from various sources with different emphasis. The Roslin
Institute managed to keep a good reputation because of a few very
high profile pieces of work, but they certainly suffered from
the last problem. When established, the RI had about one third
of its funding from the BBSRC, one third from MAFF (now DEFRA)
and one third from industry, biotech, contracts. This was all
necessary to maintain a critical mass to support its science and
infrastructure. However, MAFF and DEFRA support declined significantly
and the industry contracts were an equally unreliable source of
funds. If a contract failed to be renewed, whjch frequently had
little to do with the science, then not only did those scientists
have to leave, but any redundancy had to be met from the BBSRC
core funding. It was always on the cards that the institute would
not be a viable entity on its own, unless the core BBSRC support
did not increase substantially. But, of course, they would only
do this if the research output of the Roslin Institute were seen
to be universally excellent. But its mixed mission made it very
difficult to both conduct and interpret peer review, with only
about 50% of the institute carrying out basic research and the
rest doing translational or applied research.
So in my view it is critical that RCIs have
majority of funding from a single source (or at least sources
that can be rolled into one), and that this must be relatively
stable, and of course sufficient. Research Institutes should represent
a very efficient use of research council funds, after all it is
simple to calculate the real costs, as opposed to somewhat vague
accounting often seen in universities (eg where animal costs can
vary more than three fold), and if they are of a sufficient size
there will be economies of scale. However, it is important that
the Research Councils protect their RCIs by adequate long term
planning and investment.
Because RCI funding is controlled largely by
the institute's director, it can be channeled flexibly according
to need. Grant support is often thought of as flexible by the
funding agency, because they can choose whether to fund or not.
But once funded, a project has to be completed (otherwise the
next grant will not be funded) and that money is tied up for three
to five years. This means it can be much slower to change the
direction of research compared to work in an RCI. Similarly, with
good peer review and management, staff turnover can be controlled
much more in an RCI than in a University, as the latter has also
to satisfy teaching requirements.
A few general comments about research institutes
versus universities and about their relative importance in three
other widely differing countries
The USA remains very keen on research institutes.
While those of the NIH have come under some criticism, this reflects
inadequate peer review or willingness to act on the results of
peer review. As mentioned above, many universities have set up
multi- or at least interdisciplinary institutes in order to overcome
departmental boundaries and there are the new institutes being
set up by Scripps in Florida and Howawd Hughes in Janellia Farm,
and other recently established institutes such as the Stower's
in Kansas City, that are doing very well.
In India almost all high quality research is
conducted in Institutes—perhaps to the detriment of Universities.
It is important to have a balance, with some people moving to
and from universities.
Japan has a similar range of research enterprises
as in the UK, but a different set of problems. The government
created the relatively new Riken Institutes, such as the one working
on Developmental Biology in Kobe, to solve some issues of hierarchy,
etc, which made Universities particularly unattractive to women
and to foreign nationals. The Riken Institutes work very well
and it is hoped they will have a positive influence on the management
of science in Universities.
June 2006
|
