TRANSFER OF NIMR TO UCL

1.   Is there room on the proposed new site to contain all the activities currently undertaken at the present site?

  It is unlikely that the NTH site could, within the restrictions of planning permission, provide a building sufficiently large to accommodate the whole of NIMR as it currently is, plus a significant number of UCL staff and expansion space. However, the move is aimed at changing the balance of research activities at NIMR to increase the emphasis on translational research, and to take advantage of the partnership with UCL to enhance enormously the range of interdisciplinary interactions available for the long-term future of the institute. The intention is also to maximise value for money through cooperation with UCL in the provision and use of facilities. Please see the annexed statement released after the Council meeting on 12 October. The MRC is confident that all the activities required by the renewed institute can be made available on the Bloomsbury campus.

2.   Where will the animal house facilities be based following the move?

  This has not been finally decided and is the subject of current analysis.

3.   What discussions have been held with the local planning authority on including a level 4 containment laboratory within the new building?

  The Camden Planning Authorities have been consulted three times about the move to the NTH site. In particular they have been made aware that a containment facility with performance characteristics necessary for a SAPO licence for work on defra category 4 pathogens (including avian "flu) has been proposed for the NTH site.

4.   What consideration has been given to the effect on NMR machines of siting them in a conventional tower block over a busy tube line?

  Investigations have been carried out with a view to siting the NMR machines in a basement on the opposite side of the NTH site from the tube line.

5.   What impact will co-location of the Institute with any one single university or medical school have on its ability to foster translational research with other institutions?

  Although the move will obviously enhance enormously the opportunities for collaboration with UCL/UCH, it will also make it easier for NIMR to interact with the entire wealth of basic and clinical research activity in central London. Nothing in the plans will impede NIMR's ability to foster collaborative research with other institutions, anywhere in the world. Other MRC Institutes and Units embedded in individual Universities have not found that there is any such inhibition, and UCL itself, of course, has an extensive network of external collaborations. Having a stronger collaborative and translational base by being at UCL should in fact encourage and promote a wider range of links with other institutions.

6.   What recent experience has the NIMR had in adapting its existing buildings to create new and modern laboratories? How well does the structural engineering of the building lend itself to alteration?

  The regular programme of up-dating laboratories at Mill Hill has continued recently (not least because the MRC wishes the institute's work to continue effectively during the period before the move). The structure of the building lends itself reasonably well to such renovation, within the inevitable limitations of what is now a very old building that cannot meet all the standards of convenience, servicing, efficiency and flexibility that are expected in modern laboratories.

7.   What is your latest estimate of the cost of the move and why is this different from the original estimate?

  The current estimate for the construction of a building on the NTH site large enough to accommodate the whole of NIMR and all the anticipated UCL staff is £367 million. The reasons for this increase over the working estimate of last year are the increased cost of the land (c £13 million), inflation and changed building indices between 2005 and now (c £13 million) and the impact of greater accuracy of requirements and design development (c £20 million). The Steering Committee for this project is now finalising the business case in ways that are intended to enhance the working linkages with UCL and to reduce considerably the overall cost.

  If you desire clarification of any of these answers, or responses to any other questions, please ask. Indeed, if any members of the S&T Committee wish to speak to me in person, I shall be delighted to see them.

November 2006

STATEMENT ISSUED FOLLOWING MRC COUNCIL MEETING ON 11 OCTOBER 2006

  The Council reviewed the assumptions and progress in preparation of the NIMR Renewal Business Case for Government. Council took note of very recent information both from quantity surveyors who are now forecasting increased cost estimates for the proposed new building supported by Council when it considered the original Business Plan in 2005; and from the Gateway Review Team*which had highlighted the need for an increased focus on the major business change elements of the project.

  The Council reaffirmed its publicly stated policy of co-locating and integrating intra-mural support with major research intensive universities/medical schools. As maintaining investment at Mill Hill is not consistent with this policy, the Council agreed unanimously that options involving continuation of the NIMR at Mill Hill will not be considered further.

  Council noted that key new senior figures had become engaged only recently. Sir Keith Peters was now in post as interim acting director of NIMR, and a director-designate had been identified through international search whom it was hoped would confirm acceptance of the directorship of the renewed institute once funding was agreed. Council agreed to reconfigure its Steering Group to include their vital input to developing a more detailed and up-to-date vision for the renewed institute on the Bloomsbury Campus. Input from UCL will also be crucial to the Steering Group. Within the broader context of MRC's publicly stated commitment to translational approaches in research, the new Steering Group will develop the following:

—  A more detailed vision of the unique and distinctive national translational focus and identity of the renewed institute as a world-class centre.

—  Strategies for defining the critical mass necessary to deliver that vision in terms of both research and training on the Bloomsbury Campus.

—  Cost-effective change management and governance strategies designed to build on the high-quality basic science approaches at Mill Hill and to enable them to flourish in a broader inter-disciplinary environment of research in engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics and social science as well as academic medicine.

  The Steering Group will continue to provide direction for completion of the Business Case, working within clear financial parameters. There will be no significant increase in the final total annual resource cost of the renewed institute above the current level. The total capital investment in the new facility should not require a greater resource investment than at present.

  The Council agreed that the option that eventually goes forward as its preferred one must be compared objectively and assessed formally in value for money terms with alternative options involving lower levels of investment and/or locations of all or part of NIMR outside London.

  The Council's expectation is that the Business Case will be finalised before the end of January. Council asked that, working through Keith Peters, every effort should be made to sustain communication with staff at NIMR during this period and beyond.

  *Gateway Review, operated by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC), requires independent examination of all major acquisition programmes and procurement projects in the public sector.

STATEMENT FROM COLIN BLAKEMORE, 25 OCTOBER 2006

  In response to an article in Research Fortnight, 25 October 2006:

  The Treasury has not rejected a bid for additional funding for the proposed move of NIMR into central London. The Business Case has not yet been presented to Treasury.

  At its meeting on 11 October, the Council of the MRC set out firm guidance for completion of the Business Case, which it hopes to consider at its meeting on 13 December and to present to Government in January.

  The Council reiterated its vision for a renewed national institute, enhancing NIMR's excellence in basic research and focusing it on translation into clinical benefit.

  The Council reaffirmed its general policy of co-location of its units and institutes with universities, and confirmed its previous decision that the Mill Hill site is not a suitable location for the institute.

  The Council wishes the institute to be closely integrated with University College London, so as to facilitate opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration, not only with clinicians but also with a wide range of basic researchers, especially in the physical sciences, mathematics and computing.

  The Council reviewed the progress on the preparation of the Business Case, in the light of the need to be realistic and responsible in its use of public money.

  The MRC has already purchased a site for a new building on Hampstead Road, close to University College and its Hospital. It has agreed to contribute £100 million towards the cost of the building, plus the value of the Mill Hill site, and University College has offered up to £45 million for space that its researchers will occupy. A bid to the Office of Science and Innovation's Large Facilities Capital Fund for £140 million was ranked first equal in priority, although approval from the Treasury and agreement of OSI are needed for the release of those funds.

  The estimated cost of a building large enough to house all the staff and facilities of the current NIMR, plus UCL researchers, has recently risen to £367 million. This is partly due to the cost of the site exceeding the estimate, but mainly to revised projections for building work in London. This figure exceeds all funds that are potentially available for the project and the Council has decided that this conception of the project neither provides good value for money nor fully realises the Council's desire for close integration of NIMR and UCL researchers.

  The Council wishes to seek both economies in the Business Case and enhanced opportunity for collaboration by exploring options for location of part of the institute's staff and facilities in other parts of the UCL campus.

  The Council stated that MRC's funding for staff and research at the renewed institute must not exceed the present budget (some £34 million in current value—by far the largest budget of all its units and institutes). It acknowledged that, since a greater fraction of staff will be clinical and costs will be generally higher in central London, this is likely to mean an eventual reduction in the numbers of staff employed by the MRC. However, critical mass for interdisciplinary research will be maintained, indeed increased, through the new opportunities for collaboration with researchers at UCL and elsewhere in London. Moreover, it is anticipated that the new institute will attract significant funding from other sources. Since the move to central London would not occur until 2012, any necessary reduction in staff numbers might be achieved through the natural pattern of staff turnover in the coming five years.

  The MRC is confident that its vision for the future of NIMR will provide the UK with one of the world's most exciting environments for biomedical research.

Colin Blakemore

Chief Executive, MRC