New Wellcome head to be announced in New Year

It's one of the most influential positions within all of British science, controlling an average annual budget of around £600 million. So it's hardly surprising that tongues are wagging over who will succeed Michael Dexter as director of the Wellcome Trust when he steps down at the end of March.The Wellcome Trust press office says only that there have been a number of applications, from which a short-list of candidates will be drawn up and an appointment officially announced in the New Year.But scientists already have their own ideas about the kind of successor they would like to see, and the message is it must be someone with sufficient scientific kudos, whose primary commitment will be to the progress of research rather than the bureaucracy of the institution. "I'd like to see someone who can slash through the bureaucracy," said one senior cancer researcher, who asked not to be named. "It's an over-bureaucratic organization in my view. When you go to a meeting of governors, half the people there are bureaucrats."Whoever succeeds Dexter will have a tough act to follow. After 25 years at the Paterson Institute for Cancer Research in Manchester — where his work focused on the control of hematopoiesis — he then steered the Wellcome Trust through five years of great change and scientific discovery. The most important of these discoveries was the sequencing of the human genome, a project supported by the trust.But at the age of 57, Dexter has declined the opportunity to extend his tenure by a further two years — a decision the trust's governors say they accepted "with regret."So who are the hot favourites to replace him? Speculation centres around four names, all highly respected and well-known scientists with proven track records.Leading the betting seems to be Peter Goodfellow, currently director and senior vice-president of discovery at pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. But close behind are Paul Nurse, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, Kim Nasmyth, director of the Institute of Molecular Pathology in Vienna, and Nick Hastie, director of the Medical Research Council's Human Genetics Unit in Edinburgh.According to the bioscience grapevine, Goodfellow is the favourite to get the job. Indeed, some observers approached by The Scientist for their views were under the impression he had already been appointed.Goodfellow's recent experience in the commercial sector might give him the edge over the other candidates. He joined what was then SmithKline Beecham in the mid-nineties after two decades of work on human molecular genetics, in particular, the molecular genetics of mammalian sex determination.Yet because his roots lie in academia, observers say, he would probably command the respect of most scientists. "If it was a commercial appointment, people would be pretty unimpressed unless the person had an academic background," said a specialist in cell survival and proliferation, who also declined to be named. "But if it was Goodfellow, everybody would be content with his academic credentials."Paul Nurse would certainly fit the bill as well, sources say, assuming he has applied for the post. Having led the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (now merged with the Cancer Research Campaign to become Cancer Research UK) for seven years, he will have honed his skills in balancing the administrative and scientific needs of a major research organization.Famously described by a leading British tabloid newspaper as the "David Beckham of science," Nurse won the 2001 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine — along with Tim Hunt, also from Cancer Research UK and Washington University's Lee Hartwell — for work in fission yeast that has revolutionized our understanding of the cell cycle. "Nurse would be terrific for the job, assuming he does not want to stay at Cancer Research UK," commented the cell survival specialist.Another observer told The Scientist: "I know Paul Nurse and Kim Nasmyth extremely well and both are absolutely fantastic scientists who care very much about, and have excellent taste in, good science. That's the most important thing."Nasmyth quit the UK for Vienna in the late 1980s to join the newly formed Institute of Molecular Pathology, a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim. He has worked for the past 25 years on gene silencing and the cell cycle in yeast. Nasmyth was appointed director of the IMP in 1997.But some scientists think a number of potential candidates will be ruled out by the proviso that the appointee does not retain interests in a laboratory.That's a problem because it's going to eliminate a number of people who I would want to have seen applying," said one source. "But I would hope that they would consider Kim Nasmyth."Nick Hastie, meanwhile, heads up a team of around 200 scientists, support staff, postgraduate students and visiting workers, investigating the role of genetic factors in human diseases. He too is talked of as an "outstanding" scientist who would attract the support of those hoping for one of their kind to be appointed to the Wellcome job.Yet despite the intense competition, at least once cynic — a leading geneticist — sees the job as a "poisoned chalice." "The problem with that job is your hands are tied because you have the governors [of the trust] breathing down your neck every minute of every day trying to justify the tens of thousands of pounds a year they get paid."

New Wellcome head to be announced in New Year

Speculation is mounting over who will land the job of new director of the Wellcome Trust.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of