THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH (NIMR)

  Dear Sir,

  We write as the two scientific representatives on the NIMR relocation Project Group (which prepared the Business Case 2005) and on the subsequent the Project Board that was charged by MRC Council with developing the case and options for DTI and Treasury during 2006. There was extensive involvement of, and cooperation between, NIMR and University College scientists in a series of workstreams, covering science partnerships and required facilities, which provided the underpinning for the science case core of the Business Case 2005. We participated in a wide range of meetings with engineers, architects and cost consultants on the requirements for relocation of NIMR to the National Temperance Hospital site.

  The Institute supported the Business Case 2005 because it envisaged a building of sufficient size and facilities to carry forward the NIMR's work and met the Task Force's recommendation of a multidisciplinary Institute of about the current size with excellent facilities all under one roof. However, we had two significant concerns regarding the feasibility and value for money of the whole enterprise:

1.   Though the project was costed at £320 million, this ignored the necessary knock-on costs of moving MRCT (the technology transfer arm of MRC) from its Mill Hill location and also excluded VAT on large parts of the cost. We believed £320 million underestimated the true costs, and that the case was not financially sound, and wrote accordingly to MRC Council in May 2005 (see attached letter).

2.   The very restricted nature of the National Temperance Hospital site (less than 1 acre compared with 47 acres at Mill Hill) seriously compromised delivery of the required facilities, and provided no flexibility for future scientific needs.

  The Business Case 2005 was endorsed by MRC Council and rated joint-first on the RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap. In 2006, a Project Board was appointed by MRC to develop the case for OSI/Treasury. As its work progressed, we formed the view that MRC were backing-off key features of the Business Case 2005, that were necessary to re-create a properly functioning NIMR. Specifically, there was: continuous pressure to split the essential animal facilities onto a second site at the Royal Veterinary College; a determination to avoid accepting the need for on-site biological containment facilities necessary for work on emerging infections; a willingness to split NIMR's core science over different sites in University College. None of these moves were science-driven, and, importantly, all of them would lead to a less effective Institute than NIMR at Mill Hill.

  In addition, and equally troubling for us, was MRC's refusal to prepare properly constructed cases for "Do Nothing" or "Do Minimum" based on the potential of establishing a closer partnership with UCL from the existing Mill Hill site, even though this would require much smaller levels of additional capital investment. When MRC submitted drafts of the case to OSI containing options that had not been discussed at the Project Board, we recorded our concerns in letters to the chairs of the Project Board (Nick Winterton) and the MRC Steering Group (Mike Brooks). Receiving no replies we registered our concerns with OSI (see attached letter).

  More recently, MRC decided arbitrarily that the size of the renewed Institute should be such that there would be no increase in running costs associated with the move. Given that running costs in central London are higher, this would represent a reduction of about 20% in the amount of science being supported at the same cost. This position was in direct contradiction to the Task Force recommendations upon which MRC decisions regarding NIMR were stated to be based, and to the conclusion in the MRC's own Business Case 2005. These recognized that locating NIMR's science to a more expensive site in central London would need an increased (~17%) operating budget.

  We argued that failure to develop a Mill Hill option, and the insistence on capping running-costs so that less science would be delivered, would send the wrong signals to Treasury about MRC's real commitment to the Institute whilst asking for huge capital sums to relocate it. We subsequently learnt (see OSI's letter, attached) that vital information from Treasury about the required options had been selectively kept from us, undermining our ability to prepare the proper case. We also saw the OGC Gateway report which was extremely critical of MRC's case. Our concerns that OSI and Treasury had recognised the serious weaknesses in MRC's case were outlined in a letter (attached) to the MRC Steering group. In October, we were informed that MRC would revise the case for its December Council meeting, and disband the Project Board, leaving no involvement of any permanent NIMR scientific staff in developing the case.

  Last week, we learnt that that MRC have received advice from OSI that their case could not be recommended, and that MRC will have to work to a smaller budget. MRC now intends to develop options for a substantially reduced Institute, to be presented to MRC Council at the end of March 2007.

  The current situation seems to be:

—  The true cost of relocating NIMR (and MRCT), as envisaged by the Task Force, would be in excess of £400 million.

—  The National Temperance Hospital site cannot provide all the facilities required for NIMR.

—  MRC's failure to address OSI/Treasury requirements has resulted in a further delay and uncertainty for staff.

—  MRC still refuses to prepare an option to develop a partnership with UCL from the Mill Hill site ("Do Minimum").

  It seems clear now that MRC cannot deliver the Task Force vision, and that a smaller Institute with poorer facilities is all that can be afforded in central London, on site inadequate for current and future needs. To achieve this 40% reduction in science will still require an investment of public funds above £200M. MRC's earlier case was clearly found wanting. It is difficult for us to see how dismantling the current NIMR, and relocating parts of it at such a cost and detriment to current and future scientific needs will offer a more persuasive case.

  We continue to recommend:

—  MRC should prepare a proper case showing the best that could be achieved with modest investment in an NIMR/UCL partnership at Mill Hill, against which all relocation options must be assessed for value for money.

—  MRC should re-engage NIMR scientific staff directly in the development of future plans and enter into consultation with staff as recommended, at all stages of the project.

December 2006