Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
SIR LESZEK
BORYSIEWICZ, DR
MARK WALPORT,
PROFESSOR MALCOLM
GRANT, AND
MRS LYNN
ROBB
17 DECEMBER 2007
Q40 Chairman: Just before I bring
Des in, Sir Leszek, can I just clarify or correct your answer
that since in fact the Temperance Hospital site proposal there
has not been any looking at other sites around the country? You
said there was and clearly that—
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: What we
were doing is we were going through, looking at what opportunities
there would be as an alternative to this site, so we were taking
into account the total consideration which included relocation.
I would probably need to go back and check to make absolutely
certain of my answer, but my recollection is that there was a
look at alternative sites.
Q41 Chairman: I am not being critical
of your decision, I am just trying to clarify.
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: I will
have to go back and check on that so that I am correct in what
I am saying. I would just ask the Committee to remember that I
am actually coming into this extremely late in the day to pick
up on some of these points.
Q42 Dr Turner: I am glad that Sir
Paul Nurse has been appointed to chair the science policy committee.
Sir Paul of course was involved in the task force which assembled
at the time of the earlier attempts to move Mill Hill to London
and I am perhaps paraphrasing but the substance of what that task
force and Sir Paul said at the time was that, yes, fine, but there
was to be no loss of science in the process. You yourself, Sir
Leszek, just said—if I heard you correctly—that there
was no question in your mind of breaking up institutes. Does that
mean that the science currently being practised and the facilities
(or the equivalent thereof) at Mill Hill will go to St Pancras?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: If I can
tackle that question in two directions, the first of these is
that we are dealing with a process which is going to be moving
on over, we would anticipate, six or seven years; therefore, the
very nature of the science currently being undertaken during that
timeframe at NIMR I would expect to evolve and change over time
so I am not going to sit here and say, therefore, that everything
has got to be as it is today. That is certainly not the case and
it is not going to be the case over this particular timeframe.
Secondly, we do have to look at the suitability of the site for
particular elements of science that will have to be looked at
by Sir Paul's committee, so we would need to look at the variety
of science that is being undertaken by NIMR, just as he will do
in relation to what is going on at the London Institute and also
UCL. Therefore, we have to make a judgment as to which of those
elements it is absolutely appropriate to bring together on this
site in order to get the best added value for the United Kingdom
in the future. From my point of view the position is that science
will change over this period of time, we are going to be responsive
to those changes and we are going to try and end up with a product
which is actually the best that is possible within the boundaries
and constraints.
Q43 Dr Gibson: Do scientists have
prejudices about the work they do, do you think; do you think
Sir Paul does, yeast as against the real cancer cells?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: I believe
that when we actually look at a committee—and the individuals
that he is actually bringing to bear there—even if Sir Paul
had particular prejudices I am sure the other ten members or so
of the committee would put him straight if he wanted to go in
other directions.
Dr Walport: He has a distinguished
track record at leading two institutions: firstly, the London
Research Institute and, secondly, the Rockefeller University.
You are not successful at leading institutes like that unless
you are able to support the breadth of science.
Q44 Dr Turner: Sir Leszek, what you
have just said strongly suggested that if an area of activity
at Mill Hill is awkward then it may not be appropriate to move
it to St Pancras, and the obvious example is the work on dangerous
pathogens, which is an important area which the MRC is tasked
with as something of a national priority. Clearly, there are potential
hazards in locating that kind of activity in a central city site,
and can you give an assurance that if, for instance—I am
just picking this as one example—that is too hot a potato
to put on St Pancras, the future of that work and of the scientists
involved will be secured elsewhere?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: What is
really important is to make sure that we maintain at NIMR currently
the high quality of excellence of the work that is going on, that
is absolutely key. I believe that this work is of the highest
calibre and highest importance. I do not know as yet what Sir
Paul's proposals are actually going to be recommending as to what
should actually be moved onto this site, but what I do know is
that if it was proposed to move pathogen-related work it would
be done to the highest security and the highest standards that
are required for such work to take place and therefore the security
and those issues will be something that will have to be considered.
That will also have to be considered in relation to planning applications,
so I am sure that there will be some debate in these areas. Were
it not to go forward and were it to be maintained at the highest
international class and level then clearly we have all sorts of
strategies within the MRC to ensure that that work continues for
the public good within the United Kingdom.
Q45 Dr Turner: You must have taken
some view on this because I find it inconceivable, if you are
managing this project properly, that you have not done some sort
of feasibility study on how and what you can put on that 3.9 acre
site and how you will deal with considerations such as security
and bio-safety?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: Is it
impossible to put it on that site because of its location, and
the answer is no, but you would have to look very hard at the
security and bio-safety aspects. All of these facilities, wherever
they are built, are built to those specifications and standards
and will have to be cleared with security agencies within the
UK. What I do not know at this point is whether Sir Paul Nurse's
committee when it actually considers in the round the science
that is going to be done is going to recommend that this actually
goes to this particular site. If it were to recommend so, then
we will look as to what needs to be put in place in order to ensure
that that work can be carried out on that site. You also asked
me what would happen were this not to be put on that site, and
I have given you the answer that, in essence, provided that work
is world class and provided it remains absolutely necessary then
MRC has all sorts of strategies to ensure that that work will
continue.
Q46 Dr Turner: Are you then giving
an assurance to current MRC staff that there will be no redundancies?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: No, I
am not giving that assurance at all. What I am saying, as I have
stated right from the outset, is that we are dealing with a flexible
situation where science is going to mature and change over a six
to seven year period. Clearly, I would see that under a new director
of NIMR during this intervening timeframe the nature of that science
is going to change; therefore it is impossible for me at this
point to give an assurance that all the staff and the work currently
undertaken are necessarily going to transfer over.
Q47 Dr Turner: We have never had
a justification from the MRC as to the clear view of the Council
that the Mill Hill site itself is a busted flush, that it is not
possible to fulfil let us say the Cooksey vision on the Mill Hill
site, despite the fact that it is far bigger than the site we
are talking about at St Pancras and you could put everything that
you have talked about into it. What is the justification, what
is the explanation, why does the MRC hate Mill Hill?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: I am sorry;
I just cannot accept that last statement. We certainly do not
hate Mill Hill, we recognise it as a hugely important part of
the MRC mission. The really important element is actually that
the site at Mill Hill is going to require considerable refurbishment
at this point; secondly, we have to ask the question whether it
is ideally located to deliver the Cooksey agenda. What we see
is that the central London site actually offers far greater opportunities
for interaction, for interface with the opportunities that the
Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK and University College bring,
and in terms of translation we know that geographical proximity
is really very important to be able to get the very best in terms
of translational research, so I am afraid that as far as I am
concerned the opportunities of this new site are far greater than
the Mill Hill site could actually provide, looking into the future.
Chairman: I am going to stop there, Des,
because I want to really bring other members of the Committee
in and you are getting into other areas at the moment.
Q48 Dr Harris: On this question of
translation, is the aim to have the best science or is the aim
to have the best translation of science on this site? Because
the two are not the same?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: The two
are not the same but, in essence, one is very dependent on the
other and I am a strong believer that the basic science component
is absolutely key, so if you have the very best science, ultimately
from that science you get the best opportunity to get the very
best translation. What is important is that wherever there is
an opportunity for translation we can actually take advantage
of it.
Q49 Dr Harris: I understand that,
but you cannot have everything, as you just explained, and there
may be bits of research going on in the component institutions
being amalgamated that will have to be lost. If you look at your
press release on 5 December I cannot find the word "basic"
anywhere in it, while there are various references to translation.
The Prime Minister says "discoveries right through to treatment",
you are quoted as saying "research findings are turned into
benefits for patients and the economy as efficiently as possible",
Cancer Research UK talk about delivering "better cancer treatments",
not a surprise, and Dr Walport is quoted as saying, "A key
focus of the centre will be to ensure that new discoveries and
technological innovations lead to health benefits". No one
is going to disagree with that, but if you think about someone
who is doing basic research without an obvious translation, but
is of the very top quality, they may feel that they are disadvantaged
when things come to the crunch in getting their lab space continued
into this new institution. Are they right to be concerned?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: No, they
are not right to be concerned, for two reasons. Firstly, you have
used the term "new discoveries" from several of those
quotations, and those new discoveries are fundamentally dependent
upon the basic science in order that we can move forward and make
those new discoveries. Yes, we will be looking at translation,
but in every statement that I have made since taking over as chief
executive of the MRC I have made absolutely clear that the building
block and the foundation on which biomedical science in Britain
is dependent is the strength of its basic science agenda, and
that is why I believe that they should be reassured that that
is going to continue to be the sort of policy we will pursue.
Q50 Dr Harris: I understand you can
get cost-free translation opportunities from co-location, we will
take that as read, but I just wanted to ask Dr Walport whether
he recognises that there is an opportunity cost in adopting the
Cooksey agenda in terms of a reduced ability to fund good, basic,
non-applied research.
Dr Walport: I do not agree actually.
If you look at what is happening in biomedical science at the
moment, where the basic research is leaping ahead in ways that
we could not have guessed—if you just look at what is happening
in genetics at the moment, look at what the Cancer Genome Project
is delivering in terms of new drug targets, For example, by sequencing
cancer genes, the BRAF gene was discovered to be mutated in malignant
melanoma, suggesting that it is important in the development of
skin cancer; that is immediately a translation programme. The
location of the institute, therefore, is absolutely crucial. We
have talked about the UC associated hospitals; just down the road
are the Imperial College Hospitals, St Mary's and Hammersmith,
to the south is the Institute of Psychiatry, Guys and St Thomas's,
with very good rail links. This is about basic science but in
proximity to environments where the translation can occur.
Q51 Chairman: Mrs Robb, can you answer
the same point, please?
Mrs Robb: Yes, and if I think
can just answer for people who do not know our institute as well
as I do, it is one of the top five basic cancer research institutes
in the world, so if we did not have a basic element we would actually
be pretty empty when we move in. For us it is fundamental that
we continue our world class basic research, but fitted into an
environment that will allow translational research to actually
accelerate and bring discoveries to our patients, cancer patients,
much quicker. It is a basic research institute that we have and
that we will continue to invest in.
Q52 Dr Harris: My last point really
is—and I will try and reduce it to what I hope is not an
absurd level of simplicity—if there are n slots for labs
and, as is always the case, there are 2n bids for those labs,
is it not going to be difficult to avoid favouring, given the
mission, those labs that already have found a target that they
can then generate a drug molecule towards and put into pre-clinical
and then clinical research, over those teams that are still looking
for very interesting leads but have not yet found either the gene
or a target? Do you see the concerns that might be out there?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: I see
where you are going, but actually I can be very clear on this:
as far as I am concerned it is the basic science that will actually
dominate, it is the quality of the science that is actually being
undertaken. What is important is that where a target is actually
identified we have other mechanisms of ensuring that appropriate
support for those areas is given and it does not depend necessarily
that particular favouritism has to be given in selection of those
areas of science into this particular institute. At its heart
what we have to ensure is that we have the world class science
in there, it is dominantly going to be basic science and then
we are going to have the opportunities around to ensure that that
science as it leads on can actually be effectively translated.
Q53 Dr Harris: There is going to
be someone from the Prime Minister's office, or from the Cooksey
team, measuring the "translational-ness" of the proposals,
because otherwise how are we going to deliver our commitment to
translation unless we measure and demonstrate that we are actually
encouraging it. But what you are saying is that there will be
no specific encouragement, it will just be the "best science".
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: Actually,
I am sure somebody will be measuring it and we will be being asked
to comment on it directly and to provide metrics to support it
or otherwise. My belief is that if you have the very best basic
science you are going to ensure the very best translation will
actually follow. That may be a credo, but it does stand up to
scrutiny.
Dr Walport: You are presenting
it as either/ors and it really is not a case of either/ors. Our
philosophy is that we fund the very best scientists. Sometimes
the very best scientists who discover things are not necessarily
the best scientists to translate them, and you need to bring in
different teams, and then we facilitate that through our technology
transfer division, but I do not think you are actually talking
about either/ors, you are talking about a mixed economy and you
are talking about an institute which is of critical mass so that
it can do better.
Q54 Chairman: Just before I bring
Des back in, Sir Leszek, everybody is really excited about Sir
Paul Nurse's appointment and the fact that he will be putting
together if you like the expert committee. Will he have total
control over that committee, or who will in fact appoint to it?
Will that be you, will it be your committee, who will it be?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: The current
constitution of the committee that is proposed by Sir Paul Nurse
is that there will be representation from the MRC, there will
be representation from the Wellcome Trust, from Cancer Research
UK and from UCL. He has been involved in discussions as to who
those representatives should be from those areas, but he does
not have total control because, for example, I feel very strongly
that NIMR must be represented on that committee so that people
are aware of what is actually going on and how that committee
will actually consider it, but he can veto an appointment.
Q55 Chairman: That was my point.
In terms of NIMR would it be represented by a scientist or would
it be the chief executive?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: Sorry,
the chief executive of?
Q56 Chairman: The director of NIMR;
would it be at that level or would it in fact be a representative
of the scientists themselves?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: There
will be more than one representative from there and it depends
very much on who Sir Paul will actually require on his committee
in order to give him the best advice that he would require.
Q57 Dr Turner: What proportion of
MRC's annual budget will in future be accounted for by the St
Pancras institute, once it is running, given that the basic costs
and running costs of anything in London are 30 per cent higher
than they are outside, so you are building in an increase in the
cost base; have you got the expansiveness in the MRC budget to
cover that?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: The current
proposals—and the Council has looked at these proposals—are
that we will be looking at a cost case which is more or less the
same level as we are currently expending on NIMR; however, I make
the point that we are dealing with a situation which is six to
seven years hence. We support science of the highest quality wherever
it is actually located. If the science at this institute, as I
would hope it would be, is going to be world class and of the
very best quality, there is no reason why through the variety
of budgetary mechanisms that we have, a higher allocation is not
actually made at the end of the day. It is entirely dependent
on the quality of the science to determine what that base will
be and, frankly, in six years time it is extremely difficult to
predict what is going to be the actual sum of money that is available
for running this centre.
Q58 Dr Turner: What would happen
if the business case and the science case which you now have to
prepare do not succeed? Do you have a fallback?
Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: At the
present time we are looking at this as the main direction forward;
if this were not to be successful we would have to look again
at alternative proposals. At the present time my focus is on trying
to ensure that the case here is made at the strongest level for
that to succeed.
Chairman: I want to return to that issue
later because Graham wants to bring that up.
Q59 Dr Iddon: Can I ask Lynn Robb
how many people are currently employed on the Lincoln's Inn Fields
site; how many are on the payroll, full-time equivalents?
Mrs Robb: The total is about 500
people.
| 
