The proposed "renewed" NIMR is likely to result in a building with fewer facilities and fewer staff, and most importantly will produce less science, due to budget capping and a potential lack of sufficient funding from government. In our view this very expensive option that delivers less and lacks scientific vision should be abandoned. We believe that a renewed Institute that meets national needs can be developed in partnership with UCL at Mill Hill at a cost of just £35 million, approximately one-tenth of the estimated £300-400 million cost of the move to central London.

—  Staff broadly welcomed the Task force report on the future of NIMR in 2004 noting that the group recommended a renewed institute of approximately the same size, with a move to central London conditional on the provision of facilities as good as or better than those at the current Mill Hill site. However, the unresolved position of the Mill Hill Institute as the base case for cost-benefit comparisons was a cause for concern.

—  MRC Council accepted the Task Force recommendation and used it as the basis of the NIMR Business Case for renewal of NIMR in partnership with UCL (published July 2005). The proposal, of a building on the National Temperance Hospital (NTH) site, was submitted to the OSI and the Large Facilities Capital Fund at an estimated cost of £240 million, reduced from £320 million by a contribution from UCL and the sale of the Mill Hill site. NIMR Staff contributed extensively to the accompanying Science case and welcomed the potential for further scientific collaboration with UCL. However they raised significant issues of lack of communication and concern at the lack of accurate costings.

—  In the intervening period (July 2005 to the present time) the estimated costs of the project have rocketed and the possibility of accommodating a renewed NIMR of a similar size on a single site (the Task Force recommendation) has diminished. The new Institute is intended to be built at the same time as the Olympic Games buildings; there must be a risk that this factor alone will cause the project to go further over budget.

—  We believe that the MRC has failed to carry out a proper cost-benefit analysis and has failed to recognise the limitation of the NTH site.

—  We understand the current estimates for the capital cost of the project is £367 million. MRC has indicated that it will cap the cost at £320 million. Treasury has indicated that MRC must also submit options at 20% and 40% less, representing real 30 and 50% reductions, respectively. Whatever the funding secured, we understand that MRC intends to allocate space for non-NIMR groups and that facilities such as the biological resources (animals), high containment laboratories for pathogens and nuclear magnetic resonance equipment may be distributed elsewhere. This represents a departure from the Task Force recommendation and effective dismemberment of NIMR.

—  Despite the very positive quinquennial review of the Institute's science by international experts in 2005 the MRC has provided only a two-year budget for the Institute. This sends a very negative message to the staff. Furthermore it is proposed that any future recurrent annual expenditure will be capped, representing a reduction in real terms.

—  We believe that the MRC has failed to do a proper comparison with the do-nothing option or an enhanced case at Mill Hill, and has tried to avoid doing so by stating that there is no future for NIMR at Mill Hill (MRC Council statement, 18 October 2006), again contradicting its own Task Force recommendations which it accepted. The only argument used by the MRC for the Institute not remaining at Mill Hill is that this does not meet its "vision"—but neither should a smaller and/or distributed institute, with a loss of science and the integrated research programmes for which NIMR is famous. The Step Change Option for a renewed NIMR at Mill Hill prepared by Institute management in November 2004, has never been considered by MRC but provides considerably enhanced facilities at the Mill Hill site at a cost of £35 million (2004 prices).

—  We therefore propose that the MRC should urgently consider other options such as partnership arrangements with UCL and potential users of the science at the Mill Hill site. We believe that the 19-hectare site offers considerably more potential for future expansion than the constrained 0.35-hectare NTH site.

—  The scientific output and quality of NIMR and its relevance to national priorities has not been questioned, a fact confirmed as recently as the quinquennial review a year ago. We believe that the expensive but cost-constrained Central London NIMR envisioned by MRC represents poor value for money and will result in decreased productivity. Staff remain committed to the concept of a renewed Institute as recommended by the Taskforce, which with its proven success will continue to evolve to meet new national and international priorities. Staff fear that current plans will lead to a loss of research facilities and disruption of the multidisciplinary science base on which their research programmes are designed.

December 2006