SIR JOHN CHISHOLM

20 JUNE 2007

  Q60  Dr Harris: That is six-ish.

  Sir John Chisholm: Certainly six including the chief executive. In amongst those six you want a mixture of experience which covers the field so far as the important constituents, so far as one can. Certainly you need experience of chairing a board and you need experience from the university sector. We have not done this process of selecting that group yet so I cannot tell you what the answer is but the Council is aware of the need. Indeed, when we discussed this at the Council the points you are making were certainly made. It is important to keep a balance so the Council as a whole is well informed with the appropriate experience.

  Q61  Dr Harris: I asked you about the research councils, institutes and universities, those two stakeholders or vested interests, depending on your perspective. Would there be people on the Council from that perspective or would that be down to good fortune from that point of view?

  Sir John Chisholm: We have not selected who the Council members are going to be and no decisions have been made one way or the other. The important thing is to have a good representative group, not representative in the sense of representing a sectorial interest but representative in the sense of having experience they could bring to the Council discussions.

  Q62  Dr Harris: In proposing two new directorates, one on translation and another on strategy and evaluation, and then also the strategy advisory group, is that a streamlining of the existing system in structural terms or is it necessary, from your perspective, to add structural complexity in order to streamline and so on?

  Sir John Chisholm: I think what you are quoting from there is the recommendation in the Review. The Council, when it considered the recommendations in the review, decided that in so far as dealing with issues of translation, it would be better to wait until the appointment of the next chief executive is made for the chief executive to come forward with recommendations as to how he would like to organise the MRC.

  Q63  Dr Turner: Can I return briefly to the question of the Council. In reducing from 17 to 12 you have taken off five scientists but you still have the same number of administrators. You have changed the balance of the scientific input into Council. Will you take that into account when you appoint a new Council.

  Sir John Chisholm: I want to make sure I have understood your question.

  Q64  Dr Turner: The ratio of scientists to administrators.

  Sir John Chisholm: What we need to make sure is that we have appropriate scientific input, which means half the Council should be eminent scientists.

  Q65  Dr Turner: Input or influence? They can be quite different.

  Sir John Chisholm: The scientists clearly speak with immense authority at the Council.

  Q66  Dr Turner: The main question I want to address is the nature of the MRC future programmes. Ernst & Young's report is written in management speak so it needs a little translation. I would like to know exactly what is meant by research with a purpose and how it is conceived as relating to translational research in terms of the Ernst & Young thinking and your thinking.

  Sir John Chisholm: Of course the report by the team, which we call the Ernst & Young report, was written by them so you have to ask them exactly what they mean. I can tell you what I believe it means, which perhaps is a useful thing. I interpret that as one of the significant and important features of biomedical research is that it has an output which is of enormous importance to the world, which is health. The purpose that is related there is not the purpose of a specific piece of research but the purpose of the research as a totality, the research into an area which ultimately has an enormous benefit for mankind.

  Q67  Dr Turner: I think my problem is that the report as written seems to almost regard translational research output from a rather mechanistic point of view whereas in reality it is rather a slippery animal and is much more complicated than that. I want to be assured, and possibly others, that there is no question of downgrading the importance of basic research in the MRC's activity. That has been the feed stock for the translation process to date and if you have not got that feed stock you have not got anything to translate.

  Sir John Chisholm: I am delighted to do that, which is to assure you categorically that there is no sense in which basic research is downgraded as a consequence of this report.

  Q68  Dr Turner: That is very good to hear. Can you tell us how your translational board within the MRC is going to relate to the MRC's and the National Institute of Health Translational Research Board. Why do you need a separate one within MRC do you think?

  Sir John Chisholm: As I said a moment ago, that is part of the issues that the Council parked and said let us wait until we have a new chief executive and wait and see how the OSCHR is going to define the roles of the things for which it has responsibility.

  Dr Turner: You are not anticipating that for the moment.

  Q69  Chairman: If in fact the new chief executive of the MRC comes from a clinician background, would that not indicate a fear that Dr Turner is raising that in fact the emphasis may shift towards translational rather than basic research within the organisation? Is it a possibility that an eminent scientist who is an eminent clinician could be chief executive?

  Sir John Chisholm: First of all, I want to go back to my categorical statement that the MRC Council in all the debates that I have participated in has been absolutely clear of the fundamental importance of basic science and the role the MRC has in furthering basic science. There has never been any question about that. I cannot imagine the selection committee which I am participating on selecting anyone who was not similarly committed to basic science.

  Q70  Dr Turner: Turning to the future of the NIMR, which has been the subject of some debate, I could not help noticing that in an interview with you published in The Biochemist you took exception to the criticism in our report of the MRC's capacity for project management. Perhaps I could remind you why we said that. It was because the MRC spent £28 million on buying the NTH site to move NIMR and went through the whole process of the task force but at no point had it done a feasibility study or proper costings. When the feasibility study was finally done and when it was properly costed the whole thing turned out to be totally impossible. That was why we criticised project management. You are now looking at the British library site in concert with UCL and Cancer Research UK which is possibly an exciting prospect but can you assure the Committee that before going any further with such suggestions—and perhaps you could tell us where it has got to—the proper feasibility studies will be carried out?

  Sir John Chisholm: I am at a disadvantage in talking about the purchase of the NTH site. It preceded me and I have not researched that in immense detail. All I would say is it is useful to have it, so to speak, as a card in the game we are trying to play. Let us wait until the story is fully played out before coming to a conclusion as to whether things that were done were wise or not wise. I would also say that in so far as I have reviewed what has been done thus far, not doing studies is not one of the criticisms I would bring out. It seemed to me that this whole story has been a wealth of studies of one sort of another. I do not need to explain to this Committee how difficult this whole process has been. I do not think it is useful to go into a long debate as to why it has been so difficult. What I would say is that what is now emerging is a very exciting vision. There is a lot of difficulty in making it happen but it really is a very exciting vision. If we can pull it off I think it will be something that we will all be very proud of.

  Q71  Dr Turner: I am seeking to establish whether you have the information to tell you whether you can accommodate what is needed on the site in terms of the current research power of NIMR and whether it can be done at a cost that the Treasury will not quail at because if the Treasury did, it would be stopped in its tracks again.

  Sir John Chisholm: I do not know the answer to those questions. There are teams working on that at the moment. As I said a moment ago, there are a lot of challenges to be overcome and amongst those are exactly the points you are alluding to.

  Q72  Dr Turner: You are not going to fall into the trap that the MRC put itself into in the previous attempt?

  Sir John Chisholm: I do not know which one of the traps you are referring to; there seems to be quite a choice. The people involved were all committed and capable people. It is more complicated now because it is now working in partnership with highly independent bodies and therefore, if you forgive me, I will not say much about that because I have to take account of their views.

  Q73  Dr Turner: Can we concentrate on how you think this will improve the MRC's capacity to participate in translational research given of course that one of the problems of operating on a Central London site in any event is not just the capital costs but the inbuilt 25 per cent more higher running costs of an institution on the site in Central London as opposed to on the periphery of London.

  Sir John Chisholm: The policy of the Council, which has been its policy for some time, has been that so far as possible institutes should exist in the community, including academic and clinical facilities. That is not a policy that I have generated; it pre-dated me by some way. In so far as I scrutinise that, it looks to me entirely consistent with the policies that most major funders have. When you are not little Johnny out of step, just doing what other people say is the right policy, that does give you some confidence that you are on the right track. It is not a surprise to me that the Council has been vigorous in saying this is what we want to do with a critical new investment. The question then is where? One of the things you are trying to create is a critical mass attractor. If you get lots of good people together, other good people want to come and join it, other investors want to be part of that same scene. It is the Cambridge effect, if you like, or the Silicon Valley effect. The potency of that attractor effect is probably a lot more important than premium on the land. If you can get that effect going, the potency, the efficiency, you get out of getting that critical mass of excellent people together is so large that you can afford to pay more for the land that you stand on. That is why so many people invest in Boston or the Silicon Valley despite the fact it is a whole lot more expensive doing that than in Texas or other parts of the United States.

  Q74  Dr Turner: Are you able to tell us anything, any hint, of the timescale that you are working on in respect of the British Library site?

  Sir John Chisholm: I am a little reluctant to be too specific on that subject for the reason that if I was it might affect the viability of the project. If you do not mind, I would prefer not to be very specific.

  Q75  Dr Turner: You are aware of the potential pitfalls and difficulties.

  Sir John Chisholm: I have read some of the documents and I am more than aware of the pitfalls involved.

  Q76  Chairman: Finally on that section, have you actually got a price on the British Library site? Do you know what it is going to cost? What are DCMS asking for it?

  Sir John Chisholm: DCMS, as I understand it, are going to auction it so it will be a market price.

  Q77  Chairman: Do you know when that auction will take place?

  Sir John Chisholm: I do not have a date for it right now.

  Chairman: Is it imminent?

  Dr Turner: Do you have any back-up plans if you do not win the auction?

  Q78  Chairman: Will it be by the end of the year do you think?

  Sir John Chisholm: I believe it will be by the end of the year.

  Chris Mole: Is there a back-up plan?

  Q79  Chairman: I would not like to play poker with you.

  Sir John Chisholm: I do apologise. I am in a difficult situation.

  Chairman: We do understand that and that is perfectly fine.