Memorandum from the Medical Research Council
NATIONAL INSTITUTE
FOR MEDICAL
RESEARCH
We have previously provided a written submission
on progress with the renewal of NIMR, but in the light of discussion
at the oral evidence session on Research Council Institutes, we
thought that the Committee might find it helpful to have some
supplementary material.
LARGE FACILITIES
CAPITAL FUND
The MRC's application to the Large Facilities
Capital Fund (LFCF), which was based on the Business Plan approved
by the Council in July 2005, was very well received. It was ranked
joint first by the RCUK's Executive Group, out of all the applications
for capital funding received from the Research Councils. On the
basis of this ranking, money has been notionally earmarked by
OSI at approximately the level that the MRC is seeking, and release
of these funds has been provisionally profiled into the future
pattern of commitment of the LFCF. A final decision on the LFCF
allocation is subject to OSI and Treasury review of the value-for-money
of the planned investment. This will be based on a fully developed
Business Case, which will include a more detailed options appraisal.
This will be completed by October 2006.
PURCHASE OF
THE NATIONAL
TEMPERANCE HOSPITAL
(NTH) SITE
We have completed the purchase of the NTH site,
which was identified as the preferred site by the Council, during
its consideration of bids for partnership with NIMR from UCL and
King's. The purchase price was £28 million, compared with
the £15 million assumed in the business case. The owners
of the site, UCLH Trust, declined to negotiate a price with the
MRC and decided to put the site on the open market. Since the
site did not have planning consent, prior valuation was extremely
difficult. In the event, UCLH Trust agreed to accept £28
million from the MRC although our professional property advisors
confirmed to us that a private developer had made an unqualified
offer in excess of this sum. Our professional design team has,
as part of the work required for the more detailed business case
that we are currently working on, re-confirmed the other cost
estimates that underpin the £320 million figure. This figure
does, of course, in include contingency allowances.
OTHER SOURCES
OF FUNDING
Although the entire £320 million estimate
for the building is now, in principle, assured (as long as approval
is given for the release of funds from the LFCF), we are still
actively pursuing a number of sources of additional funding. Indeed,
GSK has already made an unsolicited donation of £1 million
as an indication of its support for the vision of the new institute.
The LDA is actively supporting our plans: it has already provided
assistance in kind, in the form of a professional consultant to
help with the preparation of the business case, and they have
indicated that they will consider a targeted application for funding.
PLANNING PROCESS
We have had a number of informal meetings with
the planning officials of Camden council, including a very recent
meeting to review design proposals that have been worked up as
part of the business case. They are supportive of a development
of this kind on the NTH site.
CURRENT OPTION
APPRAISAL
Following consultation with HM Treasury and
OSI we are developing a business case around three main options
for the level of expenditure. Treasury accepted that all these
options should refer to development based on the NTH site, since
the MRC Council has decided that the Mill Hill site is not an
option in the long-term, in view of the essential requirement
for co-location with a university and hospital in order to realise
the new translational mission for the institute. OSI have advised
us that in order for them to assess value-for-money and to advise
the Treasury we should develop options based on the original plan,
together with reduced schemes reflecting 20% and 40% less capital
investment. We are now developing the business case on this basis.
The reduced capital investment options would,
of course, demand substantial reductions in the size of the building
and hence the number of staff that could be housed.
The decision to examine these dramatically smaller
options did cause some disquiet among NIMR staff, who were concerned
that the renewed Institute should not offer fewer facilities and
scientific opportunities than the present NIMR. However, we hope
that the staff have been reassured by the clear evidence that
the MRC had no choice in this matter and that examination of the
reduced options is an essential part of the process of demonstrating
value for money of planned capital investment on this scale.
We are keeping to the timetable set by the Treasury
for presentation of the options. We have just submitted to OSI,
and through them to the Treasury, the current draft of the business
case, meeting the deadline of the end of July.
Option 1
This option assumes a capital expenditure at
the level described in the July 2005 Business Plan. It has been
estimated by our professional Quantity Surveyors that approximately
40k m2 of research space (laboratories, offices, biomedical services
unit and support services, including plant and interstitial floor
space) can be provided on the NTH site for an estimated project
cost of circa £320 million, assuming that the building contract
starts in early 2009 or before.
A sub-option will explore a variant of this,
maximising the full potential of this and other available sites
(in their original bid to participate in the NIMR renewal scheme,
UCL indicated that space might be available on the Royal Veterinary
College site) to see whether we could re-site or develop other
MRC investments at the same time. These could include MRC Technology,
whose principal laboratory facility is adjacent to the current
NIMR building at Mill Hill, and which would benefit from continuing
its close relation to the institute. There would also potentially
be an advantage in accommodating work in, say, public health and
clinical trials, which would widen the range of collaborators
available to the new institute and which could stimulate translation
in the form of clinical trials.
Option 2
This option assumes a reduced capital investment
of 20%.
Option 3
This option assumes a reduced capital investment
of 40%.
OVERSIGHT OF
THE OPTION
APPRAISAL
The Project Board, which was set up to oversee
the development of the more detailed business case, has terms
of reference set down by the Council to develop options for different
levels of capital development on the NTH site. The Project Board
(MRC Head Office, UCL and NIMR members) are working constructively
on developing the options defined by OSI.
We have initiated a programme of communicating
directly to all staff in the Institute so that they understand
the necessity for the extensive planning work that is now in progress.
A copy of the first newsletter is attached. We will maintain this
dialogue on a regular basis.
MAINTAINING THE
MOMENTUM OF
LINKS WITH
UCL DURING THE
PLANNING PROCESS
Additional funds have already been allocated
to facilitate collaboration between NIMR and UCL over the immediate
transitional period—£1.4 million for pump-priming grants
and additional studentships. Further support for some new clinician
scientist posts is under review.
APPOINTMENT OF
A NEW
DIRECTOR
Sir John Skehel retires from the Directorship
at the end of September this year. The search for a new Director
began last autumn, with the establishment of an international
advisory group. A full search, including an open advertisement,
as well as directed enquiries, generated a long-list of 13 applicants,
most of whom are currently working overseas. This was reduced
to a short-list of six (all working abroad) and four candidates
were interviewed a few weeks ago.
As a consequence, the Directorship has been
offered to Professor Scott Fraser, who is currently Anna L Rosen
Professor of Biology and Bioengineering at Caltech. He is also
Director of Caltech's MRI Center. His own research explores the
patterning of cell lineages, cell migration and axonal connections
during vertebrate embryogenesis. An ultimate goal of his research
is to develop new imaging techniques and experimental strategies
to permit single-cell resolution of these processes in intact
developing embryos. (See http://bioimaging.caltech.edu/index—content.html
and http://www.be.caltech.edu/faculty/fraser.html).
Scott Fraser is a world leader in the development
and application of imaging techniques, and he has a formidable
track record in translation, with 40 patents to his name, a large
number of inventions in commercial development, and three start-up
companies.
We are negotiating seriously with Scott, who
visited the UK again just a week ago. He (and all the other interviewed
candidates) made it clear that acceptance of the appointment would,
in any case, be conditional on approval for the release of funds
and for work on the new building to proceed.
Scott has indicated that if he is able to accept
the appointment, he would plan to spend part of his time at Mill
Hill from late this year and to move completely by early next
summer. Since interim arrangements were needed for direction of
the institute, we, with the support of Scott, have concluded an
agreement with Sir Keith Peters, President of the Academy of Medical
Sciences, Chairman of the Council for Science and Technology and
former Regius Professor of Physic at Cambridge, to serve as Acting
Director. He will support the transition period before the new
Director is able to take up the position on a full-time basis.
August 2006
| 
