The object of the evidence session is to discuss the role and responsibilities role of the new MRC Chair, Sir John Chisholm.

  My interest in the enquiry stems from my long association with the MRC, particularly through 11 years jointly at the NIMR as Head of the Structural Biology Division and as a member of the Structural Biology Laboratory at York University. I am profoundly conscious of the outstanding role the MRC has had, and continues to have, in bio-medical research in this country and abroad.

  Following the evolution of Research Council arrangements over the last period of time, the Chair appears now to be a critically influential post in the MRC in relation to its policies, organisation and priorities.

  My comments relate how the Chair, the Council and the executive operate together; how independent scientific input comes to them, is assessed, disseminated and used.

[I]  THE ROLE OF THE MRC CHAIRPERSON

[a]   The Chair and MRC strategy and ethos

  One has had the understanding that in matters of strategies the CEO has in the past answered to the Director-General of the Research Councils. However the role of the Chair recently has been one of increased involvement in directing the MRC's activities. Indeed it seems he was responsible for a major restructuring of the MRC's administrative organisation, an exercise incidentally carried out with consultants.

  I am not aware of any discussions on this clear change in the Chair's management roles.

  This is in striking contrast to the relationship between Chair and Council seen before the late 1990s in which the Chair assumed a more advisory role—and the present office of CEO was called the Secretary. In this role the Chair could bring experience in the world outside research to inform social and political issues that were relevant to MRC and could bring a neutral and sympathetic perspective on the complex institutional and personal factors that crop up in any organisation, especially one with a medical character. It seems to me this independent interface between the CEO/executive and Council is important, and that this can be provided via the Chair. In the past I believe this disinterested nous and general interest served the MRC well.

  Is this change in culture a good thing or a bad thing? Obviously the more committed intelligence and management experience that can be brought to the MRC's deliberations the better. My worry however is that the research culture the MRC has so successfully created and maintained is based on traditions that are distinctly not corporate and require genuine insight into the nature of research practice. In particular there was the understanding that the MRC scientific staff and Head Office staff share the same beliefs about the value of fundamental research.

  There is no doubt that there are real and established difficulties in managing research with its uncertain but potentially enormous promises of advance and benefit. For biomedical research these issues are even more consequential, the funding investment, mostly public funding, is immense, the public and government sensitivity to improving and extending medical treatment and providing health care to escalating standards generated further tensions. Under these pressures it is imperative to retain the culture that produces the best and most original research. There is a genuine tension here and it is not obvious to me that the present mono-lithic corporate-like structure is best qualified to solve it.

  As a final thought it seems to me an independent interface between the CEO/executive and Council is important, and this can be provided by the Chair.

  My fundamental question is:

—  Given his active role in MRC strategies, how will the new Chair inform himself sufficiently on the scientific issues in deciding MRC strategy?

  Additional questions that need addressing are:

—  Does the Chair have a view on the roles institutes and units on the one hand and universities on the other, should play in the MRC research strategy. Does he agree with the Select Committee's recent conclusions (below):[1]

"We have received no evidence to support the view expressed by Lord Sainsbury in January 2006 that basic research should increasingly be done in universities, rather than separate research institutes. We believe that links between RCIs and universities at all levels should be actively encouraged but that each case should be judged on its merits and the form of each institute should follow the needs of the science. (Paragraph 32)".

  2. What exactly is the nature of the CEO/Chair relationship and what sort of person is being sought to replace Blakemore. Given the Chair's lack of experience in bio-medical research it is imperative the new CEO is able to inform the Chair on all the research perspectives—basic, applied and clinical.

[II]  ON THE COUNCIL STRUCTURE

[a]   MRC Council

  The MRC website site states:

"The MRC Council directs and oversees corporate policy and science strategy, ensuring that the MRC is effectively managed, and taking major policy and spending decisions. It provides guidance on ethical concerns, appoints directors and key staff in MRC research units and institutes and makes appointments to our research boards".

  Will this policy change under the new arrangements.

  Quote from MRC Statement to Stakeholders May 2007:

"We will work with Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to agree templates for a membership of 12 (including the Chair and CEO—the minimum specified in the Charter). The intention will be to retain essential input from "user" members and to observe the requirement of the Charter that at least half of the members should be appointed by reasons of their qualifications in science. The Council's advisory system will require the re-establishment of a new strategy and planning advisory group, an Interim Strategy & Planning Group (ISPG), supported by the executive. We will also take the opportunity to streamline delegation from the Council to the CEO and Executive Board so as to facilitate speedy and informed decision taking while ensuring the Council has the time and the knowledge to perform its governance role".

  This means less informed input to Council from its members about research and MRC research in particular, and its related developments. The load on the previous number of scientists was hugely demanding. A reduced number of Council scientists, I estimate from 9 (probably a voting majority) to 6 (perhaps a voting majority), will aggravate the problems they face. This reduction seems to me wholly unjustified and ill-advised and one hopes its workings will be monitored in some way.

  In spite of its apparent down-grading, Council will still, I hope, have the crucial job of examining proposals from the MRC's executive critically. With this and its other responsibilities, Council needs to have knowledge, experience and authority across the scientific and medical research being carried out internationally and nationally. It is especially important that the MRC is thoroughly informed about the research and scientific issues in its institutes, units and centres and universities. If Council is to fulfill its responsibilities it must be informed as broadly as possible, and to be able to assess Head Office and executive proposals thoroughly and critically. Six scientists may not be enough.

[b]   Composition of Council
  (i) The composition of Council should reflect the MRC's research experience and organisation. In this context the presence of all Board Chairs on Council is essential.

  (ii) The absence on Council of representatives from the MRC's directly funded research institutes and units is anomalous and leaves the Council without the benefit of the experience, informed views and perspectives on many important strategies these individuals offer. I consider that some of the serious complexities the MRC has experienced on several major issues over the last 10 years occurred partly because of this imbalance on Council.

  I understand there is a view that the presence of Directors or senior MRC scientific staff directly funded by MRC on Council is considered a conflict of interest. One might also argue however that a University representative whose Department or laboratory is in receipt of MRC funds is also in conflict. In both cases however these are the people who generally have most to offer the MRC.

  It is critically important that experienced scientists from both the University and the Institute and unit sectors contribute to Council and, particularly, help to inform the Chair.

[C]  HIGH LEVEL STRATEGY GROUPS AND CONSULTANTS
  (i) Is the appearance in the current rearranged MRC administration of new high level advisory and strategy committees, apparently acting above Council, telling us something about the capacity of previous Councils to cope with some of the major strategic questions it faced. There is no doubt that the existing Council failed to apply robust critical review of executive proposals, failures that the MRC has paid dearly for. Nonetheless, these newly inserted "strategy" groups create some confusion about the role of Council in discussing an defining the MRC's strategies. Moreover, they diminish the chances of executive-planned strategies being given healthy and essential critical analysis by Council.

  Consultants have been increasingly used by the MRC over the last 5 years. They were used for instance in developing the renewed MRC Council and Head Office structure. The time-scale of the exercise was astonishing, and maybe explains the use of consultants in this case, but not why there was a need for so much rush.

  The use of consultants worries me enormously. I am not convinced they come up with independent or improved solutions—and they are expensive. I worry that the MRC, by following this practice, appears so enfeebled and so short of confidence that it cannot, when necessary, undertake its own reviews, involving of the scientific community.

  The questions that I consider need answers are:

—  Can the Chair explain the basis for reducing the number of scientists on the new MRC Council?

—  What are his views on having MRC scientists on Council?

[III]  TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH

[a]   Translation of Research

  What exactly is translational research. The concept is driving major strategies.

  The translation of research funded by public money into wealth is an understandable and proper concern. The difficulty is that the concept of "translational" research seems to have an identity of its own. It is we are told one of the key drivers for the proposed move of NIMR to central London and it figures centrally in the MRC's recent reorganisation of its administration and research priorities (May 2007).

  The definition of translational research is elusive; indeed Professor Blakemore, refreshingly, admits confusion.

  The Scientist, May 11:

"But Blakemore admitted there is still confusion in all sectors of the science community over the precise definition of translational research. "I'm not sure that we have a complete understanding of what it is, even here at the MRC," he told The Scientist. "The science community is confused and so we'll have to do some education on what translational research really is.".

  This is a remarkable statement. It is extraordinary to me that so much has been committed to in the name of translational research: the relocation of NIMR and now the reorganisation of MRC administration and the redefinition of its priorities. One knows of the pressures to account for public investment but the translation of research into practical benefit and wealth is a complex equation with many essential factors, not least the size and diversity of the country's manufacturing capacity. It really is essential to identify the problem from a broader basis than research output and its directly generated wealth, before deciding what is responsible for the supposed deficiency.

[b]   The present status of translational research

  In my view the MRC institutes are doing considerable research that is translatable. This is partly a result of their mult- and inter-disciplinary culture, linked to the very best fundamental research. I worry that the MRC does not have a "picture" of the scale, scope and character of research translation at least in the UK. If they have they should release it and discuss it.

  Another quote below from the May statement from the MRC reveals the (perhaps belated) attempts of the MRC to define the issue. In this context the undertakings we have had to maintain present levels of support for basic research need to be watertight:

"A recent MRC workshop helped to clarify the pathways and process of research translation across the MRC portfolio. One size does not fit all. An expanded team in MRC Technology and in MRC will now work closely with the MRC research community to develop robust and effective strategies for translation in the different areas of our research portfolio, and to identify the structures and interventions that are likely to be helpful in ensuring delivery in future. Council will keep under review the need for a new translational directorate separate from MRCT (as recommended in the joint review) and will await a recommendation from the new CEO once appointed.

We will continue strengthening support for innovative clinical research and training in areas such as experimental medicine, biomarkers, imaging, and genotype/phenotype studies; and will build new links between research and users in these areas.

We also wish to expand the support available in medical research for development gap/follow on funding; for highly goal-oriented clinical research, and for academic-industry collaborations. Detailed plans will be developed in consultation with OSCHR and other Research Councils, and announced later."

  It seems to me that the Chair, like the community, needs still to find a useful definition for translational research and then to define the practicalities of why there is this failure or, perception of failing, in the process. I realise the MRC is examining some of these issues now. This leads to the question:

—  The Chair's views on translational research and where the current discussions on the translational research are taking us.

June 2007