House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Written Evidence

Memorandum from Professor Guy Dodson, University of York

RESEARCH COUNCIL INSTITUTES

1. PERSONAL

My name is Guy Dodson. I have done my research in two Universities, Oxford (1962-76) and York (1976-2004) and at an institute, the NIMR (1994-2004). Since retiring in 2004 I have retained research attachment to York and the NIMR.

In this submission I will address my remarks only to the points 1, 2, 3, and 6, in the order of their listing, concentrating on point 6 and I will focus on the NIMR and the MRC perspectives.

2. SUMMARY OF MY CONCLUSIONS ON BIOMEDICAL RCIS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

(i) Institutes in the biological and biomedical sciences matter owing to the huge social importance and economic cost of human health. In this context the case for an expansion of institutes perhaps should be examined by the MRC, BBSRC, RCUK and OSI.

(ii) It has been recognised by the MRC (and by its Task Force on the NIMR) as well as other Research Councils that institutes provide a critical component in the science base. Institutes have a managed and adaptable inter-disciplinary and collaborative culture with a most effective capacity to tackle fundamental, challenging and consequential long-term projects.

(iii) Institutes are especially effective for research in biomedicine.

(iv) Four factors are essential for successful management of institutes by RCs. Three are proper representation and balance on Council, transparency and consistency; the fourth is sensitivity to the views and concerns of staff.

(v) The practicalities of major decisions need to be resolved before the decision is made.

(vi) There is no independent mechanism for deep differences on issues of strategy to be discussed and resolved. I think we need one.

3. THE ROLE OF RCIS IN MAINTAINING THE UK RESEARCH AND SKILLS BASE

3.1 The institute research environment

The RC's generally recognise that the best Institutes provides a well-researched and adaptable research environment that enables scientists to work in a wholly focussed way on challenging and long-term programmes. Institutes can attract and retain first class staff. Thus they add very significantly to the national science base, provide the government and agencies with expertise and more generally act as valuable resource in research training.

Why is this?

(i) A single core-funding source removes internal barriers and favours an inter-disciplinary and collaborative culture with effective use of advanced and expensive equipment.

(ii) Long term funding (with five-year rigorous review) leads to continuity and adaptability. (At the NIMR I have seen a number of strategic developments in the research portfolio. These were decided on, approved and implemented with remarkable efficacy. Examples are the introduction of developmental biology, of crystallography and single molecules technology.)

(iii) Multi-discipline institutes, under a single roof, can contain a wide range of disciplines through which critical synergies and collaborations can develop naturally.

(iv) In institutes, scientists generally work at all levels in their own laboratories, and they continue to do their own experiments, independently conceived and reviewed within the context of the institute's particular strategies. This is a tradition that favours effective research flexibility and is a key component in attracting and retaining outstanding staff.

(v) To my mind the NIMR has a size and combination of disciplines that match the modern requirements for biomedical research wonderfully well. It has the depth in molecular science to support and exploit new developments and apply them—rapidly and effectively—to the biological and biomedical sciences. I notice that at the NIMR the appointments at all levels have been extremely good, often outstanding, and with a healthy international mix. In spite of the present uncertainties there has been no haemorrhaging of staff. The importance of this capacity cannot be over emphasised now that the pace of change just keeps on increasing. I believe the NIMR, outstanding as it is, is actually very much on the up.

3.2 The need for biomedical institutes

The economic and social demands of maintaining health and fighting disease have assumed colossal proportions and the pressures can only increase. The biomedical institutes are key centres working on understanding biological and disease mechanisms. It follows that there are powerful reasons, not just for continuation of such institutes, but for their expansion.

3.3 Institute research contacts and collaborations

There are generally very close collaborations between the RCI's and other universities and institutions. Those at the NIMR include hospitals, medical schools, universities and MRC and other institutes. These are important to the community and I can see that these interactions will grow more and more in significance. The RCUK might want to consider whether more needs to be done.

3.4 New Institutes

It is clear to me that the case for expanding institutes in the UKI should be examined, though I realise that there will be big financial and strategic issues. In the human health context, such expansion could and should, accompany the new emphasis on biomedical science brought about by a NHS:MRC research-funding merger. Specifically the case has been made for developing translational research. I wonder however whether moving the NIMR's basic research to central London is really sufficient on its own for a major burst in the area.

These considerations of expansion of course extend to the BBSRC and NERC institutes; they are investigating animal health, plant and food science and the environment. Their programmes are relevant and also underpin the nation's welfare—and fundamental research.

It also seems to me in passing that while institutes have been established to undertake research in areas where there are particular problems such as diseases, food and so on, they can also do much to stimulate research. As a chemist I am aware that universities are facing problems of contraction, funding and recruitment. I wonder if a National Institute of Chemistry is a concept that RCUK might consider. Such a development could stimulate the community and it could focus on such areas as energy, drug design and synthesis, nano-structures and chemistry, spectroscopy and other disciplines relevant to biology, medical science and the physical sciences. Its location would be important to maximise national interactions.

4. THE BALANCE BETWEEN RESEARCH COUNCIL EXPENDITURE ON RCIS AND ON GRANT FUNDING

I will limit my remarks here to the MRC.

4.1 The MRC Research Portfolio

The MRC has long supported diversity and I agree with this. In its research portfolio at present ~40% of the MRC funds spent on research goes to intra-mural research, (institutes and units) and ~60% to extra-mural research, (Universities and medical schools). Institutes represent ~20% of the total MRC research spend.

5. THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE DIFFERENT APPROACHES ADOPTED BY THE RESEARCH COUNCILS TO SUPPORTING RCIS AND THE CASE FOR GREATER HARMONISATION OF PRACTICE

5.1 MRC and its Institute research strategy

MRC has a tradition of diversity in its research strategy that I think admirable. It has four major institutes; the LMB that addresses the molecular mechanisms of biological processes, the CSC the clinical sciences; the Mary Lyons Centre at Harwell mouse genetics and radiation damage; and the NIMR which has a broad multi-disciplinary character that includes the molecular, biological, translational and medical sciences. Its remit is to underpin medical science through basic research that addresses molecular processes in biological systems in development, neuroscience, immunology and genetics with an extra focus on the molecular mechanisms in disease. There are some overlaps in these institutes' research but these are connections and not competitions. Together they give the MRC a near ideal blend for its research responsibilities that provides a powerful complement to response mode programmes in universities.

5.2 MRC research management

There are tensions, probably inevitable, between the intra- and extra-mural funding provided by the MRC. This is in part a result of the financial pressures universities are under. In this difficult situation three inputs are essential.

(i) There should be a sensible and informed balance between intra- and extra-mural interests in the decision-making processes in the MRC (and OSI come to that). One obvious area of concern in this context is the composition of the MRC Council and the under representation of institutes.

(ii) The relative costs of university and institute research need to be known. I understand that these figures have examined by the MRC and Wellcome Trust, but, as far as I am aware, the findings have not been made public. In the present context it would be useful to have them examined independently.

(iii) When there are disagreements over major decisions the RC has to be responsive and ensure that the necessary information behind any decision is available and can be discussed appropriately with staff concerned. If the arguments presented for a course of action are not accepted and one has a serious problem of credibility it is the RC's responsibility to see that its arguments are credible.

5.3 Assessment of Institute science

These are critical. They are used by the MRC to inform its decisions and plans for its Institutes. These in my experience are regular, rigorous and exhaustive—and valuable. The process has established itself as an appropriate and effective mechanism that allows the scientific staff gets tough and independent examination of their research without destabilisation. The system has a great deal to recommend it. Given that they have been a powerful and valuable influence in the successful evolution of MRC RIs. It is vital that confidence in the independence of the procedures is given careful attention. I am aware of pressures on the system.

At the NIMR, all the Divisions and the whole Institute, are reviewed in a quinquennial cycle. The two most recent reviews of the NIMR were in 2000 and 2005. Both were highly successful and the collaborative multi-disciplinary culture commented on. In 2000 there was very favourable comment on the NIMR's integrated and collaborative culture and an increase in funding was recommended. In 2005 the reviewing subcommittee awarded 100% funding rather than the normal 95% that MRC provides on policy grounds. One can only assume that this also reflected the 2005 reviewing subcommittee's enthusiasm for the quality and character of the science and its supporting environment. This is priceless up-to-date information to have while negotiations are under way over the planned move to the new site at University College and must have helped the MRC in furthering them.

In this context the committee may remember from the enquiry about NIMR in 2004-05 that there were various reservations made in behind-the-scenes Task Force emails about NIMR research, revealed by your enquiry. These reservations were manifestly contradicted by the reviews of Divisions and the NIMR 2004 and 2005. It is disappointing that these reservations were not shared with the NIMR senior staff, or balanced against the objective reviews.

5.4 Strategic reviews of NIMR

The MRC gets other inputs on its institutes, particularly specific strategic reviews, to broaden its perspectives and there certainly is a place for these. The NIMR has had two such reviews about its future, the so-called Forward Investment Strategy (FIS), developed by MRC in 2002-03 not long after the 2000 quinquennial review. It included the NIMR, LMB, CRC and the Mary Lyon Centre at Harwell in its remit. The Task Force, established in 2004, addressed only the future strategy for the NIMR.

A variety of reasons have been given for the need to review the NIMR—the age of the building, the Director's retirement, the inadequacies of the Mill Hill site and the need to stimulate translational research. Financial pressures are also seen to be a factor. There has been no real consistency on this matter.

5.5 FIS/MRC/NIMR relations and MRC policy

The FIS review was prepared in 2002-03. It proposed to move the NIMR to Cambridge and halve it in size. Details are documented in the Select Committee's examination of the NIMR's future. Its unanimous endorsement by Council surprised me. The Select Committee will know how the lack of basis for the review and managerial mis-judgement damaged the NIMR staff's confidence in the MRC.

The FIS also contradicted the recommendations of the 2000 review that said, amongst other things, "it is of paramount importance that the integrity of the institute be preserved". In relation to RCI management, the FIS's proposals raised in spades the issue about RC assessment of science and its mechanisms for determining policy.

6. POST FIS: THE MRC TASK FORCE

6.1 The Task Force 2003-04

After the FIS debacle the MRC quickly decided on a "Task Force" to review the NIMR afresh and to recommend to the Council the best future options. There were assurances that financial arguments were not driving the process and there were no hidden agendas; this and NIMR representation on the Task force, persuaded staff to trust the MRC and sign up.

There were mistakes. To have the MRC's CEO as the Chair with, as it turned out, a casting vote, was one. Further the extensive involvement of consultants meant that there was no direct contact with the MRC and NIMR staff. Another profound mistake was to limit John Skehel to just one Task Force meeting, even though an undertaking had been given that he could attend when issues to do with the new Director were not on the agenda.

The combined affect of these decisions by MRC was damaging to decision-making and to the morale of NIMR staff.

6.2 The Task Force recommendation to move an intact NIMR to Central London

I for one took this as endorsement of my, and many others, view—that there are exceptional qualities in the research at the NIMR (which includes considerable translational research) and immense potential for its future. The Task Force, whose Chairman is the MRC's CEO, added the rider with the condition that: "it will be essential to develop a partnership agreement for this move that is more attractive than would be possible between a university and NIMR at Mill Hill. " This continues to be of crucial importance—there is no sense in spending huge sums without enhancement of the science.

The cost estimates for re-location have however apparently increased from £120 to £340 million and they will undoubtedly increase further. This certainly alters my view of the exercise. The response from university colleagues to this information is emphatic disapproval.

(ii) MRC Council unanimously endorsed the Task Force recommendations. The MRC and Council should have recognised the magnitude of the practical issues in re-locating NIMR before deciding on an inflexible go-ahead.

6.3 The concerns about MRC management post Task Force

Institutes are expensive and they are precious, their management has to be professional. FIS promised a reduction in NIMR cost, the Task Force recognised a necessary increase. Clearly the FIS proposals were found to be misconceived. This has, I consider, created a tension within MRC in their handling of the NIMR's future.

This is key. Managerially it seems to me that the MRC have failed to make proper account of the costings, from the very beginning. I now have doubts about the MRC's ability or commitment to create an intact and enhanced NIMR on the NTH site. The threats I foresee include the loss of critical expensive facilities like category 4 and animal houses, size reductions and the surrender of NIMR independence. Such decisions are in complete conflict with the Task Force's recommendations.

The decision to abandon the Mill Hill site whatever the outcome of the central London plans is extraordinary—and oddly handled. It further frustrated NIMR staff. There simply seems no need to get rid of it and I imagine the Gateway process (and taxpayers!) would want it included as an option.

There are two concerns. First, the MRC has been surprisingly reluctant to meet costings approved by the 2005 quinquennial review subcommittee. It did not help that the MRC only committed the funds for two years in spite of a successful review of all the five-year programmes. This was unexpected and sends an unfortunate signal at a time of continuing insecurity.

This undermines another Task Force recommendation: "As any move into central London would take 5-10 years to accomplish, the Task Force recommends that the MRC move with all speed to begin bolstering the NIMR's renewed vision at Mill Hill today."

7. WHAT ARE THE LESSONS ABOUT THE MRC'S MANAGEMENT OF THE NIMR'S REORGANISATION?

The MRC is sensible to have a strategy for its institutes. Now however the MRC must ensure that the conditions of enhanced investment put by the Task Force on the NIMR's move are met. If they cannot be met, the sooner this is faced the better.

(ii) Consultation. There must be improved communication between MRC and its institutes. The FIS consultation exercise was very valuable, it made MRC think again. The full costs of the NUIMR re-location are such that a community view should again be sought.

Managing this proposal for NIMR's future is possibly just too complex for the MRC. The extensive use of consultants is surely evidence of insufficient staff resources and appropriate competence. Realistic financial estimates are essential; the difficulty in getting them has not given MRC enough pause for thought.

The unconvincing basis for the FIS so soon after 2000 quinquennial review threatened the relevance of the five-year review, a critical component in the institute:MRC dynamic. A return to a clearer understanding about the role of quinquennial reviews, and the place of ad hoc reviews, must be established.

Council needs to be more critical of Head Office proposals. Its present composition should be reviewed to get better balance between intra- and extra mural representation.

It is a regrettable management failure that staff continues to have so much concern for the future of NIMR.

June 2006



© Parliamentary copyright 2007	Prepared 22 March 2007