I write concerning your forthcoming evidence session on the future of the MRC National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR). I have been following developments since my role in the MRC Task Force on NIMR. Having seen the most recent communication from the MRC to the NIMR staff I have two concerns that I would like to raise with the select committee. First you may remember that I gave evidence to a previous hearing when I explained the valuable role I felt the Task Force consultants had played in facilitating our work. The task Force with the consultants' help, looked carefully at the size necessary and appropriate for the renewed NIMR. We came to the unanimous conclusion that it was important to maintain the renewed Institute at close to its current size. If the MRC plans to employ more consultants to look at the size needed for the Institute, it implies that MRC no longer relies on the Task Force recommendations and devalues the large amount of time that I and others put into this process.

  Second it was a very clear recommendation of the Task Force that relocation of the Institute was conditional on the move being able to provide a better partnership arrangement than could be achieved by the Institute staying at Mill Hill. This condition seems to have been lost somewhere. There is no doubt in my mind that the Task Force vision was that a renewed Institute would be of a similar size to present with excellent world class facilities. Moving the Institute did not, and does not, make sense unless it can be done properly so that it can deliver more that it can achieve in Mill Hill. From what I understand MRC policy now is to build a substantially smaller Institute with poorer facilities than present. This policy makes no sense and I urge the committee to ask the MRC to think carefully about proceeding down this path. An inferior solution that ignores the potential of the Mill Hill site to deliver the Task Force vision would go against reason.

December 2006