I am writing on behalf of the NIMR Heads of Divisions with regard to the ongoing discussions on the future of the National Institute for Medical Research. We believe that the renewal of the NIMR should build upon the key features that underlie the specific strengths of Institute science (summarised below).

  MRC's policy is predicated on the desire to relocate its National Institute to University College London. We are already actively involved in numerous collaborations with UCL and are enthusiastic about the further development of this relationship. We strongly supported the Business Case 2005 for the move of NIMR to central London as it enabled further partnership with UCL, while maintaining the essential features required to maintain the outstanding success of this multidisciplinary national Institute.

  However, it now appears that, due to the escalating cost and the physical constraints of the proposed site, it is not possible to meet many of the key requirements. Specifically, neither the finance nor the planning permission for the National Temperance Hospital site will allow the development of a building suitable to house the range of scientific disciplines that we currently have, provide sufficient research animal provision or the necessary special facilities like NMR and biological pathogen containment.

  For an investment of this size, there should be a careful cost/benefit analysis of what it is possible to achieve on our current Mill Hill site compared with what can be achieved in central London. MRC needs to decide what it and the nation requires of its national Institute, how well NIMR at Mill Hill is meeting this requirement currently, and if new capacity is required, how and where this can be most efficiently achieved. After more than three years of uncertainty, we now have a clearer view of the likely costs and obstacles to rebuilding in central London. Now knowing the limited funds available, future policy should be directed by a rigorous and transparent quantitative assessment of all practical options.

SOME KEY FEATURES OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTES

  Our experience has been that the outstanding achievements of NIMR have been made possible by the interactive and multidisciplinary environment combined with outstanding facilities. Some of the key features include:

The co-location of multiple disciplines under one roof

  Formal and informal interactions occur much more frequently between researchers housed in the same building, sharing science and social facilities. In Institutes like NIMR the prioritisation of cross-disciplinary working is underpinned by a managed recruitment strategy. One of the great strengths of this internal hub of collaborations is that it helps to identify and promote external collaborations. The ethos of the Institute is very much outward looking as exemplified by our extensive collaborations with other biomedical scientists, physical scientists and clinicians at numerous universities nationally and internationally.

A single source of core funding

  The sharing of central funds and resources ensures that there are no barriers to collegial interactions and collaboration. Core funding also allows the flexibility to establish novel directions and cross-disciplinary work as well as giving full scope to a scientific director to make strategic appointments to strengthen the overall research portfolio. For all these reasons there are distinct advantages to having a single major funder, as explicitly recognised by the MRC Task Force on NIMR.

On-site facilities

  The use of animal models is central to basic and translational biomedical research, and is very likely to increase. Since much of the work requires direct access to the animals, it is essential that there are on-site facilities of sufficient size to cater for the likely needs of the institute's science, as at present. Similarly, to fulfil the National Institute's potential to carry forward its world leading role in emerging infections it is essential that the renewed institute has on-site containment 4 facilities.

December 2006