Supplementary memorandum from Professor
Guy Dodson, University of York
I am writing to give you my views on the NIMR's
future in connection with your next oral session on Research Council
Institutes.
My research career has been based in the university
(York) and institute (National Institute for Medical Research)
sectors. My experiences in these two research environments have
made me aware of their roles in ensuring that research in the
UK develops effectively. In my view the enquiry into the Research
Council Institutes is timely and critically relevant to maintaining,
indeed I hope to enhancing, the country's research potential.
I am particularly concerned about the future
of the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR). The decision
to move the NIMR to central London has raised for me serious questions
about the way major strategies are assessed by RC Councils and
developed in the Research Councils in general and the MRC in particular.
In the case of the MRC the essentials are simple.
Briefly the MRC's current proposal moves the Institute from 47
acres to less than one acre at the National Temperance Hospital
(NTH). The accommodation of animal housing, category four and
advanced research equipment at the NTH presents severe technical,
political and financial problems, still I understand, not resolved.
The motivation for moving the NIMR is now stated to be the policy
of housing MRC units and institutes on university/medical campuses;
a policy that is not universally supported. Given the excellent
quality of the building at Mill Hill to insist on the policy looks
inappropriate, hideously expensive and like self-inflicted damage.
With the MRC's announcements of capping and now reducing funding,
this proposed move threatens to take a great deal of public money
(£200-£320 million) for less science and a damaged NIMR.
Finally I must say that amongst those I have
spoken to on the issue there is pretty universal hostility to
spending of £300 million or so on the re-location of the
Institute. Since so much money is involved it seems to me that
it might be appropriate to get the views of the community, they
were certainly clear on the FIS exercise.
I highlight below some key issues.
1. It needs to be emphasised that the NIMR
is a uniquely powerful multi-disciplinary institute—its
quinquennial reviews of 2000 and 2005 have established that. In
terms of research strategy it is perfectly placed to carry out
its mix of molecular and biomedical science at a critical time
in the development of the medical sciences.
2. Universities are facing enormous difficulties
at the moment and I do not see this easing. In universities research
scientists too often face a crushing load of teaching (hugely
important) and administration that forces them into management
of a research team rather than working at the bench. There is
also the intractable problem of departmental separation, exacerbated
by the RAE, that can interfere with effective inter-disciplinary
research. Finally the dependence on research grants of typically
a three to five year time frame and a long lead time in getting
funds, inevitably generates problems of inflexibility and short-termism.
In spite of these pressures the Universities do a first class
job and are also critical in the future of UK science which needs
to combine the scale, diversity and quality of the best University
research with the commitment to challenging and long term research
in institutes, where there can also be direction to meet national
needs speedily.
The future of UK universities in relation to
their equivalents in the US especially is another worrying prospect.
The Research Council Institutes however offer environments that
still compete with the very best in the US. The NIMR has shown
this over and over again and its recent recruitments show that
its attraction as a uniquely structured research centre continues.
3. The NIMR's future is now a long complicated
issue. In its earlier report the Select Committee highlighted
several criticisms of the MRC plans to move the NIMR to central
London. These included haste, the lack of transparency with NIMR
staff and the apparent failure to address the financial and technical
scope of the undertaking—pace the FIS exercise.
There is a problem at present in formulating
the re-submission of the relocated NIMR business case. In developing
a scientific business case the involvement of senior scientific
staff is critical: such issues as animal houses, category four
and the siting of advanced research equipment have to have expert
judgement and input. At the moment however it appears that the
acting-Director Sir Keith Peters is the only NIMR representative
on the board assembling the re-submission. This is most unwise,
and links with the consistent lack of transparency shown by the
MRC in this whole exercise and is part of its failure to win the
confidence of the NIMR staff.
4. The October announcement that the spending
for the NIMR's move to the NTH site will be limited to £320
million and that the consumables/running costs will remain the
same as at present in Mill Hill was a major retreat from the recommendations
of the Task Force and the 2005 Business Plan. The most recent
development however is the plan for a bid by MRC based on £200
million investment. The MRC will bid to increase this to some
higher figure. This is a mockery of the Task Force, the 2005 Business
Plan and all the assurances that have been given. It is a wretched
confirmation of the long held fears of the staff and emphasises
the MRC's inconsistency that has been one of the worst features
in the exercise.
In conclusion the current MRC's plans on the
NIMR's future need to be clarified and justified. The Select Committee,
the NIMR staff and the community need to know why the MRC has
changed (and is apparently still changing) its plans for NIMR.
If it is a failure in estimating costs, then there is a question
of competence that maybe is connected with the MRC's recent experiences
with the OSI and which potentially undermines the re-submission
of the business case.
December 2006
| 
