Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
SIR JOHN
CHISHOLM
20 JUNE 2007
Q80 Chris Mole: The Joint Review
has made a number of comments about the balance between the intramural
and extramural research funding. Do any of the strategic and structural
changes at the MRC, and between the MRC and government and research
institutions, affect that balance at all?
Sir John Chisholm: I do not think
any of those things affect that balance. The issue of the balance
has been one that has been a topic of policy discussion at the
Council for decades and remains one. The Council's policy remains
that the demand role of funding should be used as the main vehicle
but when the demand role of funding is not going to achieve the
strategic purpose that it is looking for it is prepared to invest
in a specific strategic investment.
Q81 Chris Mole: Has part of that
debate included a look at the relative efficacy of the intramural
and extramural programmes? Can you expand a bit more on why the
default position therefore is to go extramural and are you planning
to identify the knowledge on the relative efficiency of the different
sorts of sources of research?
Sir John Chisholm: What I can
tell you is what I have been told and relates to the evidence
I have seen, and that is that the efficiency in terms of the bibliometric
output of the Institute is very good. What you have called the
intramural units is good. Of course, you would expect that because
that is what they are specifically for; so it is good news that
that is good, and that justifies the level of expenditure that
we put through that process. However, it is something that we
have to keep looking for because we have to make sure that the
money is being allocated in that way for good reason.
Q82 Chris Mole: The other thing in
this area is contingency funding. How do you determine that balance
between contingency and other funds, and why are you currently
planning to increase the contingency fund?
Sir John Chisholm: The Council
feels that it should be able to respond to new needs as they arise.
The new need could be that something particularly exciting has
been discovered and we should be able to increase funding in a
particular area, or some new health challenge emerges and we should
respond to it. Bird flu—that sort of thing.
Q83 Chris Mole: You did quite well
out of the bird flu, so why do you feel that you need to extend
it further?
Sir John Chisholm: Frankly, I
am not the right person to ask as to how we were able to respond
so well under bird flu. Colin Blakemore, if he was here, would
give you a very good story on that. I am embarrassed that I cannot
tell you exactly how that was done, but it was done well, I agree.
It is exactly that sort of thing which we need to be able to do
quickly, and we need to make sure that we are not so locked up
in commitments that, when an unexpected opportunity arises, we
cannot respond to it.
Q84 Chris Mole: Is it that you have
evidence that you expect there will be more unexpected incidents
of that sort? Always expect the unexpected!
Sir John Chisholm: It is hard
to answer that question, frankly. I do not know what to expect
of the unexpected.
Chairman: I expect we do not either!
Q85 Dr Iddon: Sir John, what do you
expect will be the biggest impacts on the work of the MRC of the
creation of the Office for Strategic Co-ordination of Health Research,
OSCHR?
Sir John Chisholm: Clearly OSCHR's
principal role is to advise the Government on the allocation of
resources. That is why OSCHR is so important to us, because OSCHR
will be advising and has already advised the Government in relation,
for instance, to the Comprehensive Spending Review.
Q86 Dr Iddon: Are you expecting to
work much more closely with the other part of OSCHR—the
NIHR?
Sir John Chisholm: The vision
that the Cooksey Report came up with is something which we absolutely
sign up to. There is a huge opportunity in the UK to use the power
of our absolutely world-class basic research, alongside the health
system we have in the UK, which has coherence and scale, and to
put these things closer together and to leverage that resource.
That is a huge opportunity we have. Mechanistically, it was more
difficult. The creation of the NIHR should make that easier.
Q87 Dr Iddon: Obviously, colleagues
in the National Health Service who do applied research would say
that they just cannot do enough of it because they cannot get
the funding. Do you think that the creation of OSCHR will dilute
basic research—the very question that Dr Turner asked you
earlier—because there will be an increased demand from the
National Health Service to do their applied research?
Sir John Chisholm: If you are
asking me the question, do I think basic research would be diluted
because the National Health Service want more money to do applied
research, my answer to that is no, I do not think that will happen.
Q88 Dr Iddon: I guess that if the
NHS consultants and their technicians feel that they are short
of money, there should be an increased demand on the Comprehensive
Spending Review to increase the resources of OSCHR.
Sir John Chisholm: I am not going
to be drawn into a debate upon the Department of Health's budget.
All I will say is to repeat what is said in the Cooksey Report
and which has been repeated by John Bell several times: that there
will be no dilution of the basic research and the funding of the
translational research. If it needs more funding, then the more
funding will come from a different place.
Q89 Dr Iddon: The creation of OSCHR
brings you much closer, we hope anyhow, to the NHS R&D systems
in England, but will it bring you much closer to the equivalent
systems in the devolved governments?
Sir John Chisholm: The creation
of NIHR will not do that, but we are certainly working on building
upon the very good relations we already have with the devolved
governments, particularly in Scotland. I think that we have some
very beneficial relationships in Scotland right now.
Q90 Dr Iddon: The Joint Review was
a bit critical—in fact more than a bit critical—of
your relationships with other Research Councils. Indeed, we talk
to people from the other Research Councils quite a lot in this
Committee, and I think that members of the Committee would agree
that we have picked up that criticism too, separately from the
Joint Review picking it up. Do you accept that criticism and,
if so, what are you going to do about working much closer with
the other Research Councils—who have something to offer
to you, obviously?
Sir John Chisholm: I am sorry,
of course, and I deeply regret if there is valid criticism of
the MRC. I would have to come back to you as to what the specific
answers to that are, because it is not a subject that I have been
deeply engaged in thus far. I have my first meeting collectively
with the other councils coming up in a couple of weeks' time,
so I will perhaps be better informed after that.
Q91 Dr Iddon: Do you think the time
has come to look at where the headquarters of MRC lie? You are
very London-centric, of course. There is a bit more outside London
which the other Research Councils engage with, and there is criticism
of the MRC being a bit aloof from the central Research Council
core in Swindon. Have you any comments to make on that criticism?
Sir John Chisholm: It is not one
that has been made to me particularly forcefully, I would have
to say. It is not totally unknown to me, but it has not been made
to be particularly forcefully. I am sure the new chief executive
would review that when he gets appointed, because it is an obvious
thing to review. However, there are benefits also for being in
London.
Q92 Dr Harris: Do you accept that,
in principle, if you prioritise something then, relatively speaking,
you must de-prioritise something or everything else?
Sir John Chisholm: It is not always
a zero-sum game, but I do accept the principle that prioritisation
has gains and losses.
Q93 Dr Harris: When you say in your
article in Research Fortnight, " ... there will be
an increased emphasis on research translation in future"
and "We will increase our commitment to developing research
findings for application in new therapies", do you accept
that, relatively speaking—even if it is in the context of
growing budgets—there will be a relative decreased emphasis
on non-translation and a relative non-increase in commitment to
other research, such as basic research, or at least a perception
of that?
Sir John Chisholm: I am always
reluctant to get too engaged in discussing perceptions separate
from reality.
Q94 Dr Harris: Good. Then let us
stick to the reality.
Sir John Chisholm: The reality
is that I do not expect the basic research to be negatively impacted
in any way.
Q95 Dr Harris: It would be fair to
say, therefore, that there will also be an increased emphasis
on basic research and you will increase your commitment to basic
research, in exactly the same way?
Sir John Chisholm: No, what I
have said is I do not expect the basic research to be negatively
impacted in any way. What I hope—I have now moved on from
"expect" to "hope"—is that the greater
attention that we put on to translation will be so successful
that the case for more investment in basic research will be even
stronger, and both sides will therefore benefit.
Q96 Dr Harris: Everyone wins.
Sir John Chisholm: I think that
is a real possibility because, as I said earlier on, I think this
really is the area where more good can be done than any other
area of science.
Q97 Dr Harris: My final question—and
I am grateful for the indulgence of the Chairman—is to ask
you about this issue of extramural research being the default
option. In response to the question from my colleague, you said
that, bibliometrically, the institutes do the intramural research
very well. I am curious as to why the default option should be
extramural research. In your answer, can you address this point?
"MRC's traditional ability to pick outstanding scientists
and give them long-term support through its intramural programme
has produced some of the best basic and applied medical research
in the post-war period." Professor Sir David Weatherall goes
on to say that he thinks it is "absolutely vital that intramural
programmes continue to form a major part of the work of the MRC".
If you accept those two points, is that not at risk from making
something else the default option?
Sir John Chisholm: No, because
despite the fact that we have had the default option being extramural
research, as I said earlier on, the MRC continues to invest strategically
in units in institutes where that cannot be done through the extramural
programme.
Q98 Dr Turner: Can I follow that
question up? There is this possibility outstanding that, if NIMR
cannot be successfully moved to a new site in London, the MRC's
existing policy is that the institute should be broken up—so
that there is a potential threat.
Sir John Chisholm: I do not think
the MRC's policy can be described as that the NIMR should be broken
up.
Q99 Dr Turner: But to all intents
and purposes?
Sir John Chisholm: The policy
at the moment is to have a world-class institute, based upon the
sciences of the NIMR. That is the policy. The policy is to invest
hugely in that, in renewing it for the 21st century.
| 
