Putting his Mind to the British Science Machine

Colin Blakemore Colin Blakemore has always excelled at communicating science to the public. As president and now chair of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, he has been at the forefront of scientific dialogue in the United Kingdom for years. In his 1988 BBC television series, The Mind Machine, he proved that even "the most complex piece of machinery in the universe" could be made accessible to nonscientists. He was thrust into the spotlight more reluctantly in the 1990s, when he became the target of a violent and protracted animal rights campaign. Faced with death threats to himself and his family, Blakemore became one of only a handful of UK scientists to go public about his animal research. But now, as the new chief executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC), he faces the biggest challenge of his career: communicating to the scientists themselves. Many are angry and distrustful following last year's funding shortages, which prompted the council to reject almost half of the very best alpha-A rated proposals without prior warning. Blakemore's fellow scientists will not be an easy audience to impress. "Current MRC funding priorities are distorted and are compromising UK science in biomedical research," says Nigel Scrutton, professor of biochemistry at the University of Leicester. "The lack of research funds in 2002 has had a major impact on UK science, and the grievances in the UK biomedical sector are well-founded." JOURNEYMAN RESEARCHER Blakemore is a well-respected, "eight-days-a-week" scientist. He accepted the Waynflete Chair of Physiology at the University of Oxford in 1979 and is now director of the MRC's Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience at the university. He is determined not to abandon his Oxford lab. "I love research and am loathe to walk away from it," he says, "but it will be very difficult. I won't be sleeping much." While such dedication can hardly have harmed his application, his predecessor at the MRC, George Radda, confirms that it was Blakemore's communication skills that really won him the job. "He is very good--much better than I am--before the public," relates Radda. Blakemore's ability to communicate is more crucial now than ever, as the MRC faces a tide of unrest within its research community. In March this year the House of Commons select commitee on science and technology published an unusually acerbic attack on the council,1 claiming that the MRC had seriously mismanaged its funds, failed to plan adequately, and kept researchers in the dark about its problems. Although Radda and the government's Office of Science and Technology have strongly contested much of this report, he does concede that the committee's comments about transparency were fair. "We would accept the committee's criticism that we didn't communicate well enough with the scientific community when we had funding shortages," says Radda. "We accept we could have done better. Colin will be very good at that." Ian Gibson, chair of the science and technology committee, insists that his report reflected the view of much of the MRC's scientific community. And while Blakemore is staunchly loyal in his praise for the breadth and vision of the MRC's work, he agrees. "I've already spoken to hundreds of people about their concerns, and there is a major concordance of opinion coming through," says Blakemore. "Even if the concerns are misplaced, the fact they're widely held must be of concern." It is not Blakemore's style to avoid difficult confrontations. He has scheduled 12 road show events at key UK universities before Christmas. Blakemore insists that he will really listen, but he is in for a tough time. Christopher Martyn, who has worked in the MRC's environment and epidemiology unit at Southampton University for 17 years, concurs. "There is quite a lot of discontent about the way the MRC is running things," he says. "I wouldn't want his job myself, but I want Blakemore to think about how best to fund science. I'd like more communication and less management speak." High on the list of gripes is the MRC's decision to devote a proportion of its funding to cooperative group grants. The science and technology committee report warned that this decision would distort research by forcing researchers into "marriages of convenience." Many scientists also fear that it creates a bias against the individual researcher. Scrutton says the scheme has caused widespread "dismay" in universities. "Small-project grants are no longer fundable. That has left out in the cold a lot of people who have run smaller enterprises but do cutting-edge research. Big isn't always beautiful," he argues. Another bone of contention is the new UK Biobank, billed as the world's biggest study of the role of nature and nurture in health and disease. Last year the MRC raised temperatures in the scientific community by pledging £20 million over five years to this project, matching funding from the Wellcome Trust. BLAKEMORE'S BIO Blakemore's CV to date certainly suggests a passion for communication. He is currently chair of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He sits on the Royal Society's science and society committee, and was awarded the organization's Michael Faraday award in 1989 for his efforts to engage the public in science. He has been involved in setting up the first UK Dana centre, a meeting and discussion forum for scientists and the public at the British Science Museum. And he has a string of broadcasting and public-interest book credits to his name, including, Mechanics of the Mind and The Oxford Companion to the Body, for which was the editor. FINANCIAL STRAITS Blakemore admits that coming at a time when the council had funded only 45 of 84 alpha-A rated proposals, such a decision was bound to be controversial. But, he stresses, "It is quite wrong for the community to think the responsive mode has been robbed to fund Biobank. It was extra money." This message has clearly not reached many researchers, however, and the project itself is still causing ripples of discontent. The science and technology committee denounced it as "politically motivated," and Helen Wallace, director of the advocacy group Genewatch, adds: "The decision to do this was driven by the tremendous hype surrounding genetics and not a clear analysis of the science." She warns that many scientists remain extremely skeptical about Biobank. Meanwhile, it will be up to Blakemore to resolve the public unrest at the MRC's National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR). One of his first responsibilities will be to sit on a taskforce set up to decide its future. The council announced in May that it was considering downsizing the North London institute, which receives £27 million a year from the MRC, and moving it to Cambridge. Robin Lovell-Badge, head of the developmental genetics division at the NIMR, summed up the ill feeling at the time in an article for The Guardian: "My colleagues and I are furious. No one knows who will be chosen to move. First one by one, but then in a flood, the scientists will leave and it will be impossible to replace them with such uncertainty ahead." The director of the Save British Science campaign group, Peter Cotgreave, says Blakemore will inevitably have to make some tough decisions: "Not everyone is going to like what he decides in some instances, but an ability to communicate well and to carry the respect and credibility of the community will be important factors in carrying those decisions through." He adds that much of the council's recent unpopularity resulted from the way in which it communicated its decisions, rather than from the decisions themselves. Of course, securing a large amount of extra funding from the government would keep everybody happy. Blakemore says that he will try hard, but this result looks unlikely. "As I understand it, all government departments are being told that in spending review 2004 there will not be budget increases, and some [budgets] will be cut," he explains. "However, it is extremely worrying when the MRC can't fund all alpha-A rated work. The government should be very, very worried that it is not able to service the elite of medical research," he says. Blakemore wants to ensure that all of the MRC's constituents remain informed about what is going on, but he is awed by the enormity of this task. "Maybe it simply has too many stakeholders," he says. "I'm impressed with how far the money goes; the range is just phenomenal." Defining the council's target audience more clearly could be a solution, but that would mean reducing or cutting support in some areas and leaving some researchers without their key source of funding. This is perhaps one of Blakemore's toughest dilemmas. The community has been eagerly awaiting his arrival at the MRC. It is almost impossible to find anyone with a bad word to say about him. Even Ian Gibson, chair of the select committee, who criticized the council so roundly, is enthusiastic about Blakemore's potential. He says decidedly that Blakemore is the right person to turn things around. Blakemore is uncomfortably aware that he is not a miracle worker. Though gratified by the support he is receiving from all quarters, he remains cognizant of the attendant expectations. He is keen to listen and learn and change what needs to be changed, but he adds that the finite pot of money will limit his ability to effect change. "Being the MRC chief executive designate is a great way to make friends," he concludes. "But I suspect being the MRC chief executive is the best way to make enemies." Anna Fazackerley (afazackerley@yahoo.co.uk) is a freelance writer in London. 1. "Report: The work of the Medical Research Council," House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, HC 132, March 2003. function sendData() { document.frm.pathName.value = location.pathname; result = false if (document.frm.score[0].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[1].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[2].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[3].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[4].checked) result = true; if (!result) alert("Please select") return result; } .myradio{background-color : #94bee5} Please indicate on a 1 - 5 scale how strongly you would recommend this article to your colleagues? Not recommended 1 2 3 4 5 Highly recommended Please register your vote

Putting his Mind to the British Science Machine

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Colin Blakemore