NIMR inquiry looms

The UK Medical Research Council's (MRC's) determination to relocate the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) is coming under political scrutiny this week, with a parliamentary committee preparing to investigate plans that are bitterly opposed by scientific staff.The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has set November 19 as the deadline for written evidence to be submitted for its investigation, which was triggered after committee members were bombarded with complaints about the MRC's plans during a routine fact-finding mission to the NIMR. In a press statement, Committee Chairman Ian Gibson, a Labour Party Member of Parliament (MP), said: "There is a lot of unrest about this move, maybe because the scientific case for it has not been made loudly enough. We want to get to the bottom of the real reasons behind the move and to see if they stand up to scrutiny."Gibson told The Scientist this week that MPs had been largely unaware of the strength of feeling among NIMR staff until they visited the current Mill Hill site in north London. "There was a great deal of lobbying. We had never really heard their side of it, but they put over their argument and now we are going to have an open inquiry into it," he said.The probe marks the latest twist in the long-running controversy over the institute's future. Set up in 1913, the NIMR was behind some of the major achievements in 20th-century science, including the discovery of the influenza virus, the development of liquid gas chromatography, and the discovery of the sex-determining gene.But the MRC said it was not convinced about the financial benefits of keeping the institute, which has an annual budget of £27 million (USD $50.2 million) and employs more than 700 staff at its current size on its existing site.An initial plan to close the Mill Hill building and relocate the NIMR 50 miles away in Cambridge caused uproar and was abandoned after all 18 heads of division at the institute walked out of a meeting with MRC chiefs in April 2003.Instead, an alternative plan was put forward by a special task force in July this year, in which the NIMR would pair up with either King's College or University College London (UCL). But the task force stressed this could only happen if the benefits were greater than staying at Mill Hill.The MRC, however, has ruled out remaining at Mill Hill as an option. The decision has angered many senior scientists at the NIMR, who claim they have been given no logical explanation. NIMR Director John Skehel said in a statement to the MRC last month: "During contacts with the colleges [King's College and UCL], we have become aware that it is unlikely that either of them will provide facilities we already have at Mill Hill, let alone those that we'll need in the future."Senior scientists at the institute said news of the MPs' inquiry had lifted spirits among disillusioned staff. Tim Bliss, head of neurophysiology at the NIMR, told The Scientist: "We believe the inquiry may be able to extract from the MRC chief executive [Colin Blakemore] why they are not considering Mill Hill as an option. It seems common sense to many people that it should be."Another senior scientist, who did not wish to be named, said: "This inquiry is a good thing. It's an opportunity to have an independent review of what's going on. This is a chance to make our views known."But in an interview with The Scientist, Blakemore robustly defended the MRC's actions and said he was confident MPs would judge it to have been thorough and fair. "We have done everything we can to be completely transparent," he said.Blakemore denied the inquiry was an embarrassment to the MRC but did express doubts about the timing. "It might have been better to allow the MRC Council to form its views [on bids from London universities] and then to perform some kind of scrutiny," he said.Blakemore insisted there are no plans to close down the NIMR but said he was "disappointed" with the way staff at the institute had responded to the review of its future. "I would ask them to remember two things. One is that this review is about the NIMR in 20 or 30 years' time. Some of them are still thinking it's an immediate crisis for them and their work… The other is this is a requirement for the MRC—it is required to carry out these strategic reviews."On the question of the current Mill Hill site being considered as an option, Blakemore said it would "complicate" the process of moving forward. "It was not logical. If Mill Hill was the default choice, then the implication is that nothing else could be considered at any stage in the future."The MRC is finalizing its written evidence for the House of Commons Committee. Blakemore and other senior MRC members will give oral evidence in early December.

NIMR inquiry looms

Politicians decide to investigate the saga of the UK research center's relocation

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of