Science & Technology Committee: Written evidence
UK Centre for Medical Research & Innovation (UKCMRI)
This volume contains the written evidence accepted by the Science & Technology Committee for the UK Centre for Medical Research & Innovation (UKCMRI) inquiry.
UKCMRI Author UKCMRI Author 00 BIS 17 Camden Green Party 01 Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine 18 Councillor Roger Robinson, St Pancras and Somers Town Ward 02 The Academy of Medical Sciences 20 John Mason 03 Director, Medical Research Council 21 T Morgan National Institute for Medical Research 04 UKCMRI Limited 22 Frankie Biney 04a Supplementary 04b Further supplementary 04c Further supplementary 05 Robert Henderson 23 Rt. Hon. Frank Dobson MP 05a Supplementary 06 Medical Research Council’s National Trade Union Side 07 Mireille Burton 08 King’s College London 09 Joint submission: Cancer Research UK, MRC, UCL, and Wellcome Trust 09a Supplementary (MRC) 09b Further supplementary (MRC) 10 Isabel Vasseur 11 St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action 11a Supplementary 12 Imperial College London 13 The Public & Commercial Services Union 14 Action for our Planet 15 GlaxoSmithKline R&D 16 Professor G G Dodson 16a Supplementary 16b Further supplementary
As at 20 April 2011 Written evidence submitted by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (UKCMRI 00)
The UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) will be a world-class centre for biomedical research, located in the London Borough of Camden. UKCMRI will be an independent institute funded by the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust and University College London. The funding partners, and separately UKCMRI, will also be submitting a memorandum to the Select Committee.
1. Review the progress on the UKCMRI since 2008 and assess the plans for the coming years.
1.1. Substantial progress has been made since 2008 on setting up the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI). The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) gave the MRC permission to sign the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) to establish UKCMRI. This decision was taken following detailed discussions with the Medical Research Council (MRC) on the content of the documents and BIS and HM Treasury scrutiny of the JVA. In view of the revised public funding arrangements for the project (detailed below), the Department of Health also gave its consent for MRC to sign the agreement. The JVA was signed by the chief executives of the four partners and Sir David Cooksey (as Chair of the UKCMRI Steering Group) in the presence of The Rt Hon David Willetts M.P. Minister for Universities and Science, and Earl Howe on 9 November 2010.
1.2. The JVA limits the maximum commitments of the founders to UKCMRI construction costs. A commitment by MRC to fund its share of construction costs requires approval by BIS and HM Treasury Ministers of the MRC’s Final Business Case. BIS expects to receive the Final Business Case in January 2011.
1.3. The UKCMRI project has been reviewed on three occasions by the Office of Government Commerce since 2008.
1.3.1. The OGC Major Projects Review Group (MPRG) reviewed the project in May 2009; the principal issues raised during this review concerned the degree of protection of the public interest in the then project arrangements and have been addressed by the JVA.
1.3.2. A second MPRG review was carried out in March and April 2010. This highlighted issues about cost and risk management. These have now been addressed.
1.3.3. The Office for Government Commerce (OGC) undertook another review as part of its Major Projects Assessment Review across government in July 2010. This review specifically examined
2 the potential for cost savings of major projects, providing information to the Spending Review process. In summary, this review gave a delivery confidence assessment of “amber-green” to UKCMRI. The review concluded that there were no viable options for significant cost savings and did not recommend cancellation or relocation.
1.4. Government approval was given for purchase of the 3.5 acre site for UKCMRI on Brill Place, adjacent to the British Library. The sale was completed on 13 June 2008. The land was purchased from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for £85m, of which £46.75m was provided by MRC. The JVA states that the Founders will remain as freeholders of the land and buildings, which will be leased to UKCMRI.
1.5. A Construction Project Board has been established (comprising three representatives of UKCMRI and one from each founder); this supports the Executive Team of UKCMRI in the day-to-day management of the construction. The board meets monthly. An observer from BIS attends this board.
2. What do the four partners hope to achieve from the project and what new technologies and innovations are being considered?
2.1. A detailed vision for research at UKCMRI has been set out in their Scientific Vision and Research Strategy document. This will be covered in more detail in submissions from UKCMRI and the founding partners.
2.2. Government provision of funding to MRC for UKCMRI is on the basis that:
2.2.1. It will be one of the most significant developments in UK biomedical science for a generation.
2.2.2. Its goal will be to understand the biology underlying human health, finding ways to prevent and treat the most significant diseases affecting people today.
2.2.3. By enabling interactions between physical, biomedical and clinical scientists, UKCMRI will play a key role in ensuring that advances in biomedical sciences are translated swiftly and effectively into benefits for patients in the NHS.
2.2.4. By fostering collaboration with other centres of excellence, UKCMRI will harness the full capacity of this country’s brightest and best researchers for the benefit of patients and the economy.
3. Is the financing of the UKCMRI robust and justified, with particular reference to the public support for the project and the knock-on effect on budgets for other research?
3
3.1. As part of the spending review in October 2010, £220m of funding was announced for the construction of UKCMRI, to come from the Department for Health. The spending review announcement represents the MRC’s expected share of capital spend on UKCMRI construction in the four years of the spending review period, with the remainder of the capital falling in the next spending review period being provided by BIS.
3.2. Government funding for the MRC contribution to UKCMRI remains subject to approval of the MRC Full Business Case. This Business Case will be subject to robust scrutiny and approval will be dependent on planning permission for UKCMRI being granted. BIS and HMT expect a submission of a draft of the Full Business Case from MRC in January, with a decision on the final Full Business Case in Spring 2011, subject to passing through the scrutiny process and a positive decision on planning.
3.3. In addition to the construction costs, MRC will need to fund the costs of the transition from NIMR to UKCMRI. These costs include moving equipment and any staff redundancies that result from the transition.
3.4. MRC expect to provide funding additional to the £220m from the Department of Health from their resource and capital budgets, from commercial income and from sale of the Mill Hill and National Temperance Hospital sites.
3.5. The MRC expects to provide ongoing funding for UKCMRI at the same level as it presently provides for NIMR (£42m p.a.).
4. What are the risk assessment arrangements to ensure the safety of the site?
4.1. As stated in the Government response to the 2008 House of Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee inquiry into Biosecurity in UK Research Laboratories, there is no reason in principle why bioscience laboratories should not be built in urban areas. It is, however, essential that whatever the location, the facilities must have robust security measures in place that are appropriate to the location.
4.2. UKCMRI will provide detail on these security measures to the select committee.
5. What are the arrangements for the closure of the existing National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill?
5.1. The MRC will provide information on arrangements for closure of NIMR.
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) 18 January 2011
4 Written evidence submitted by the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine (UKCMRI 01)
Thank you for giving the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI).
Whilst we do not have any specific comments to make on your questions, we would like it to be noted that we wholeheartedly support the establishment of the UKCMRI. We welcome the Government’s support of scientific and medical research in this challenging economic climate, and its commitment to maintaining and improving the UK’s position as a global leader in medical research.
Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine
2 December 2010
5 Written evidence submitted by The Academy of Medical Sciences (UKCMRI 02)
I am writing as President of the Academy of Medical Sciences to respond to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry into the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI).
The Academy welcomes the Government’s continued commitment to UKCMRI, alongside investment by other funders. UKCRMI aims to translate increasingly specialised scientific research into clinical applications that will benefit UK patients, and fully deserves strong and enduring Government support. By capitalising on the unprecedented recent discoveries and technological advances in the medical sciences, UKCMRI will play a vital role in rebuilding the UK economy and improving health.
UKCMRI represents a groundbreaking partnership between the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust and University College London, which showcases how public investment can be magnified through collaborations with other sectors. This unique partnership, along with the building’s location and design, will facilitate important collaborations between the ‘cluster’ of scientific, academic and healthcare institutions located in central London.
Professor Sir John Bell FRS HonFREng PMedSci President The Academy of Medical Sciences
10 January 2011
6 Written evidence submitted by the Director, Medical Research Council National Institute for Medical Research (UKCMRI 03)
1. This response by the Director of the Medical Research Council National Institute for Medical Research (MRC NIMR) complements those from UKCMRI Limited and from the four founders (MRC, Cancer Research UK, Wellcome Trust and University College London). The NIMR Director has contributed to both those responses and agrees with their contents.
2. I focus here on the second and fifth issues raised by the Science and Technology Committee. These concern what the partners hope to achieve from the project and the future of NIMR. In making my comments I emphasise the enthusiasm of NIMR scientists for UKCMRI and the contributions that members of NIMR have already made to the project. I also address the roles of NIMR scientists in the work to be carried out at UKCMRI following NIMR’s closure. The future of the existing NIMR buildings and land is addressed in the Founders’ response.
What do the four partners hope to achieve?
3. NIMR is the largest of the three MRC research institutes. Its research is dedicated to studying important questions about the life processes that are relevant to all aspects of health. The Institute moved to its Mill Hill site in 1950, since when it has been outstandingly successful in areas such as immunology, infection, structural biology, neuroscience and developmental biology.
4. Although the physical environment of the Mill Hill site is still fit for purpose, it is unlikely to remain so in the long term without substantial investment.
5. Over the last 10 years, research at NIMR, like all biomedical research, has become increasingly interdisciplinary, collaborative, and translational. The distance of NIMR from academic and clinical partners, and its poor transport links, jeopardise its position as a world-leading research centre.
6. These concerns are addressed by the establishment of UKCMRI. The new Institute will provide state-of-the-art facilities in an Institute large enough to accommodate a wide range of research disciplines, including those from the Cancer Research UK London Research Institute (LRI). The proximity of UKCMRI to University College London (UCL) and the many hospitals in the area will allow increased wide-ranging academic and clinical collaborations, and the transport links will expedite interactions with other scientists in London, in the UK, and around the world.
7. Members of NIMR are enthusiastic about the opportunity to build on the success of their current work by moving to this new state-of-the-art institute. In particular, NIMR scientists look forward to the opportunity to expand their interactions with colleagues at LRI and UCL. Close interactions with clinicians, physicists, chemists, engineers, computer scientists and mathematicians will drive future advances in biomedical sciences.
8. Members of NIMR have played major roles in the development of the new Institute. In particular, 42 members have sat on committees and workgroups addressing the design of the laboratories, design of the biological research facility, safety, containment, infrastructure, logistics, security, information technology and amenities.
7 9. Members of NIMR have also influenced UKCMRI scientific policy by serving on committees and attending workshops and meetings. These include:
9.1 The Science Planning Committee (referred to in the UKCMRI response). In this way NIMR have contributed to the published UKCMRI Scientific Vision and Research Strategy.
9.2 The Horizon Scanning Workshop (referred to in the UKCMRI response).
9.3 The joint NIMR/LRI retreat.
9.4 The UKCMRI Executive Committee, on which the Director of NIMR serves as a Scientific Director. In this role he contributes to scientific planning and other scientific activities outlined in paragraph 23 of the UKCMRI response.
10. Participation in these activities emphasises the enthusiasm with which members of NIMR regard UKCMRI and their participation in it.
Closure of the National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill
11. As stated in the response by UKCMRI Limited, the new Institute expects to have research programmes relevant to cancer; circulatory conditions such as heart disease and stroke; infectious disease (including influenza, tuberculosis and malaria); disorders of the immune system; and neurodegeneration and regeneration. NIMR research includes all these areas of science and medicine, and the majority of NIMR staff are therefore expected to transfer to the new Institute. There will also be the opportunity to transfer the Institute’s existing state-of-the-art support facilities.
12. UKCMRI is now appointing heads of transition and of HR, and these people will work with NIMR, LRI, MRC and CRUK to develop the mechanisms and conditions under which scientists will transfer.
13. As part of the transition, UKCMRI is planning to establish a ‘virtual’ UKCMRI that will come into being before the UKCMRI building is built.
Conclusion
14. Like all the partners, NIMR is very enthusiastic about the UKCMRI project, which it sees as a hugely exciting development in UK biomedical science. As NIMR Director I welcome the Select Committee’s interest in the project. I hope this submission is helpful and would be happy to answer any further questions.
Jim Smith Director, MRC National Institute for Medical Research
January 2011
2 8 Written evidence submitted by UKCMRI Limited (UKCMRI 04)
1. UKCMRI Limited is the legal entity which will own and operate UKCMRI. Subject to Charity Commission approval, which is anticipated shortly, it will be a charitable company limited by shares. At present, UKCMRI is in project management mode, but over the next few years, it will evolve into operational mode.
2. UKCMRI was founded by the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK (CR-UK), the Wellcome Trust, and UCL (University College London). Its vision is to create a world-leading centre for medical science and innovation in London. It will be based initially on the world-class research currently being carried out at the MRC’s National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), CR-UK’s London Research Institute (LRI), and in UCL research laboratories.
3. The scientific vision and research strategy of UKCMRI can be summarised as follows:
3.1 Our principal focus will be to research the fundamental biological processes underlying human health and disease. 3.2 Our research will be both broad and deep – capable of covering all areas of disease and all levels from the molecule to the whole organism. 3.3 We will take interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches to biomedical research, drawing input from chemists, physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers and others, as well as biomedical scientists. 3.4 We will promote a dynamic working environment with constant refreshment of ideas and research scientists. 3.5 We will drive the development and roll-out of innovative new technologies, to open new avenues of research. 3.6 We will nurture a culture in which clinical and commercial translation is valued as highly as discovery research. 3.7 We will build extensive networks locally, nationally and internationally, with academia, industry and the public sector. 3.8 We will play a national role in developing technologies and training scientists and technical staff for the benefit of the wider UK biomedical science base. 3.9 We will engage with the public to build strong relationships both locally and nationally.
4. UKCMRI’s goal will be to understand the basic biology underlying human health, driving forward better treatment and prevention of the most significant diseases affecting people today. We expect to have research programmes relevant to cancer; circulatory conditions such as heart disease and stroke; infectious disease (including influenza, tuberculosis and malaria); disorders of the immune system; and neurodegeneration and regeneration.
Progress on UKCMRI since 2008
5. There follows a brief summary of the principal achievements of UKCMRI since 2008.
6. Science Planning. In January 2008, we set up a Science Planning Committee, chaired by Nobel Laureate, Sir Paul Nurse, President of Rockefeller University, New York, and now President of the Royal Society. The membership of the Committee included many of the world’s leading figures in biomedical science, as well as representatives of the founding partners. In March 2009, the Science Planning Committee held a Horizon Scanning Workshop attended by some 50 eminent scientists from around the world and from NIMR, LRI, UCL and the Wellcome Trust. The Science Planning Committee concluded its work in April 2010, publishing a report to UKCMRI’s founders, which was enthusiastically endorsed. In June 2010, UKCMRI published a summary of the Science Planning Committee’s discussions and recommendations in the form of the “Scientific Vision and Research Strategy”.1 This summary report has been widely circulated within the UK and international biomedical science communities.
1 http://www.ukcmri.ac.uk/scientific-vision
9 7. Land purchase. In June 2008, the Wellcome Trust completed the purchase of Brill Place site, and is holding the site in trust on behalf of the consortium (under a Warehouse Agreement) until the freehold can be transferred to the four consortium members as tenants in common.
8. Professional team. During 2008 and 2009, a full professional team was appointed. Leading members include the architect (HOK), cost manager (Turner & Townsend), project manager (Arup), mechanical and electrical engineers (Arup), structural engineers (AKT), town planning (CBRE), legal (Herbert Smith and CMS Cameron McKenna), and security (Horus). HOK later invited PLP Architecture and BMJ to join their team to offer advice on, respectively, exterior design and the biological research facility.
9. Project reviews. In September / October 2008 a Gateway O review of the project was carried out. This was followed by Major Project Review Group reviews in February - March 2009, February - April 2010 and July 2010, all with satisfactory outcomes.
10. Project Management. In March 2009 the consortium decided to set up an Executive team to take responsibility for the delivery and operation of UKCMRI. John Cooper, formerly Director of Resources of the Wellcome Trust, was appointed as Chief Operating Officer and Interim Chief Executive of UKCMRI from June 2009. The Executive team includes a Construction Director, General Counsel, Finance Director, two Scientific Directors and a Medical Director. Arrangements are in hand to appoint suitably experienced people to lead Transition Management and Human Resources.
11. Construction procurement. In May 2009, UKCMRI decided to adopt the two-stage main contractor approach to the procurement of the construction project. This was considered to offer the best combination of the design flexibility required for such a complex project and the cost certainty that is offered by fixed-price contracts.
12. In December 2010, tenders were received for stage 1 of the two-stage construction contract. This work covers approximately 20% of the total construction cost (excluding fees). Evaluation of the tenders is still underway and a recommendation will be made to the consortium partners in mid-January 2011. However, current indications are that the final price will be within budget. Any gains on this stage of the contract will be transferred to reserves in view of the continuing risks of inflation and business instability in the construction industry. These tender prices confirm that the construction project can be delivered within the agreed budget of £541 million.
13. Design of the proposed building continued to evolve during 2009 and 2010 including regular consultation with the London Borough of Camden (LBC), the Greater London Authority (GLA), and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). The success of this process can be judged from the LBC officers’ report to the Development Control Committee, which comments very favourably on the design of the building, as do the consultation responses from the GLA and CABE. For instance, the GLA said: “The building design has evolved after pre- application discussion to respond appropriately to its context and delivers a world-class building to a challenging brief”.
14. Throughout the design process appropriate staff from the four consortium partners have been closely involved. Almost 200 staff from MRC and CR-UK, UCL and the Wellcome Trust have played a significant role. This joint activity augurs well for the future of UKCMRI.
15. Community Engagement. There has been a very active programme of community involvement throughout 2009 and 2010. We organised or attended more than 90 events attended by more than 700 people. Our programme included an on-site exhibition and a community gardening project, as well as various meetings and written communications.
16. As a result of this programme we made 12 significant changes to the proposed design of the building. We also received many suggestions for how our development might benefit the local area, almost all of which are reflected in the section 106 agreement that has been negotiated with LBC.
10 17. Governance. In January 2010, our four partners and UKCMRI agreed heads of terms for the legally-binding joint venture agreement (JVA) that will govern UKCMRI both in its project mode and once it is operational. Following detailed negotiations, the JVA was concluded in September 2010, and was signed by all parties in November 2010 in the presence of David Willetts, Science Minister, and Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health.
18. The JVA will be completed as soon as practicable after receipt of Charity Commission approval for UKCMRI to be registered as a charitable company limited by shares. Key governance features include:
18.1 The UKCMRI Board will comprise one director nominated by each of the four partners plus three independent directors, one of whom will be the Chair. We are delighted that Sir David Cooksey has agreed to be the first Chairman of UKCMRI.
18.2 UKCMRI will operate as a single institute with a unified research strategy under the leadership of the Chief Executive Officer and board of UKCMRI.
18.3 The Construction project is supervised by a joint Construction Project Board (CPB) chaired by the Chief Operating Officer of UKCMRI (John Cooper). A BIS representative attends the CPB meetings as an observer.
19. Appointment of Chief Executive. In July 2010, it was announced that Nobel Laureate Sir Paul Nurse, had been appointed Director and Chief Executive Officer of UKCMRI from January 2011. The appointment of an individual of this standing will be a tremendous asset to UKCMRI.
20. Town Planning. In September 2010 a planning application was lodged with LBC, and negotiation of the heads of terms for a section 106 agreement was concluded in early December. The application was approved by LBC on 16 December 2010.
Plans for the coming years
21. Construction. It is intended to commence work on site in early May 2011. In broad terms, there is a two year build programme followed by two years’ fit-out and commissioning. UKCMRI will therefore be able to commence operations at Brill Place in late Spring 2015. The detailed construction, fit-out and commissioning programme will be agreed with the appointed main contractor in the first quarter of 2011.
22. Science. Now that Sir Paul Nurse has joined us we shall be able also to make progress on various important scientific-related issues. The priorities for 2011 will include further work on:
22.1 the development of an effective innovation and translation strategy;
22.2 the research programme to be pursued by UKCMRI, including consideration of the research activities at MRC’s NIMR and CR-UK’s LRI;
22.3 development of UKCMRI’s national role. This is a vital part of UKCMRI’s mission;
22.4 UKCMRI’s role in public engagement with science;
22.5 our graduate training programmes and career structures for investigators.
23. We also intend to create a “virtual” institute prior to 2015 so that the move to the Brill Place site in 2015 will represent the culmination not the commencement of a “coming-together” process.
24. Transition. With the appointment of people to lead HR and Transition, 2011 will see more detailed development of these aspects of the project.
What do the four partners hope to achieve?
11 25. UKCMRI understands that MRC, CR-UK, Wellcome Trust and UCL will make a separate submission. Therefore our observations on this question are brief:
25.1 All partners have enthusiastically embraced the science vision summarised in paragraphs 3 and 4 above and described in more detail in the attached “Scientific Vision and Research Strategy”.
25.2 In addition, MRC and CR-UK see the opportunity to build on the success of their current research institutes, NIMR and LRI, whilst securing their future in a state-of-the-art, world leading new institute which is exceptionally well located for clinical partnerships and national and international collaborations.
25.3 The Wellcome Trust has always been and remains convinced that its contribution to the project will enable the creation of an institute which offers the potential for the UK to compete and collaborate with other global hubs of scientific and medical excellence.
25.4 UCL’s contribution to the long term success of the project will come from clinical collaborations through its Academic Health Science Centre, UCL Partners and three Biomedical Research Centres and from its strength both in breadth and depth in the biomedical sciences, life sciences, population sciences, chemistry, physics, engineering and computing.
26. It should be noted that in the various Gateway and MPRG reviews of the project, it has always been noted that the four partners’ commitment to and shared vision for the project is outstanding, and has led to a very positive attitude to collaboration on the project at all levels.
What new technologies and innovations are being considered?
27. The emphasis to-date has been on cultural and structural approaches to ensure that the institute is continually alert to the opportunities that arise during the course of its research. In this respect, our plans for a dynamic career structure for researchers and a highly collaborative approach (both nationally, internationally, and with industry as well as clinical schools and academia) are particularly important.
28. The UKCMRI Science Planning Committee devoted a significant portion of its work to potential programmes. Discussions were held with leaders from the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors; with clinicians; and with other experts in the field of technology transfer and the exploitation of intellectual property. A crucial point is the need to nurture a culture in which clinical and commercial translation is valued as highly as discovery research.
29. Technologies as facilitators. The Science Planning Committee also recognised the importance of technologies as facilitators of discovery, and this, together with the appointment of excellent scientists, will be key to our success.
30. Programmatic areas discussed include:
30.1 Model organisms: The ability to engineer precise genetic changes into well-characterised models is generating a wealth of data on the functions of molecules in cells and the living body. Particularly exciting is the growing ability to explore aspects of human biology.
30.2 Stem cell manipulation: Reprogramming of adult cells to create induced pluripotent stem cells is generating cells for study, including cell lines derived from patients with particular medical conditions. UCL’s strengths in regenerative medicine will provide an effective translational route for such research.
30.3 Imaging: The ability to follow biological processes continuously in real time is transforming our understanding of living systems. The interdisciplinary nature of UKCMRI and UCL’s strengths will allow chemistry, computing, physics and engineering input into the development of imaging technologies.
12 30.4 Chemical biology: As well as genetic manipulation, chemical probes can be used to interfere with biochemical pathways, to assess their role in biological processes. UKCMRI’s interdisciplinary links will allow increasingly sophisticated probes to be developed, thereby expediting the development of new drugs.
30.5 Systems biology and mathematical modelling: While ‘wet’ biology will underlie much of UKCMRI research, computer-based and theoretical approaches will draw upon advances in systems biology and mathematical modelling.
30.6 Synthetic biology: The application of engineering principles is opening up increasingly sophisticated forms of genetic engineering, in which different cellular components can be put together in precise combinations to build biological systems with specified characteristics.
31. Innovation opportunities are likely to arise from UKCMRI research in many areas, including:
31.1 Novel therapeutic drug opportunities arising from basic science discoveries in specified disease areas, or against specific pathways. UKCMRI will work with appropriate partners to translate novel targets into small molecule or antibody tools for drug discovery projects carried out in partnership with industry, aided by UCL’s new Institute of Translational and Experimental Medicine and strong clinical links.
31.2 Diagnostic opportunities arising from basic science discoveries, such as the identification of markers of pre-disposition that could be useful in identifying people at increased risk of disease.
31.3 Improved understanding of the potential of existing therapeutic products. This is an area of potential for UKCMRI to develop novel insights into why treatments work or do not work in different patient groups.
31.4 Discoveries that have the potential for translation into new prevention or screening strategies. Exploitation could be through the NHS or a commercial partner.
31.5 Development of new technological platforms with applicability across a spectrum of human health. Historical examples within the partners include monoclonal antibodies and novel transgenic mouse models. UKCMRI will develop this capability and work with appropriate partners to exploit the opportunities.
31.6 Development of novel instrumentation or research platforms. As well as our own facilities, we will develop relationships with major instrumentation and equipment suppliers to establish ourselves as a first point of call for work on novel equipment and technologies.
32. UKCMRI will play to its existing strengths in innovation and translation. Although the Select Committee will appreciate the provisional nature of these areas, it is more important to develop a culture of seeking and exploiting the opportunities for innovation than specific targets or technologies.
Is the funding of UKCMRI robust and justified, with particular reference to the public support for the project?
33. We believe the budget for the project to be robust and realistic. See para 12 above.
33.1 The project has been subject to a Gateway O and three MPRG reviews in the last two years, the results being very satisfactory given the project’s complexity. Another project review will take place in January 2011.
33.2 MRC has so far submitted three business cases, all of which have been approved.
33.3 Funding for the MRC’s share of the project was announced by the former Government in March 2010. The new government confirmed its support in the May 2010 pre-Budget
13 speech. Funding was specifically confirmed in the Chancellor’s Spending Review speech in October 2010, and the project was again referred to in the Prime Minister’s speech to the CBI on the National Infrastructure Plan. This high-level, cross-party political support for the project is extremely important.
33.4 The non-governmental partners have all confirmed their funding commitment in the JVA.
33.5 The leverage of public funds with almost £300 million of charitable funds is particularly helpful in the current financial circumstances.
What is the knock-on effect on budgets for other research?
34. This is primarily a matter for the funders. MRC has always stated that UKCMRI is and will remain its top priority capital funding project because of its potential long-term impact on the strength of UK biomedical science. For UKCMRI’s part, we are confident that we will play an important national role, building extensive links throughout the UK medical science base, and preparing our people for leadership roles in other biomedical research institutions within the UK. We will enhance, not detract from, the research of others.
Risk Assessment Arrangements
35. Risk assessment and risk management is integral to the entire project. Comprehensive risk registers are maintained and reviewed monthly by the UKCMRI Executive team and by the Construction Project Board. Once the UKCMRI Board is operational it will take full responsibility for risk management.
36. Site safety risks have received special attention both in building design and in operational planning. A specialist Security consultant was appointed to the project team, as was a specialist in the design of security systems.
37. A Security Management Plan was produced for the planning application. The plan considers potential security risks; the biological research facilities; the containment facilities; regulatory compliance and licensing requirements; site deliveries and collections; public safety and security; police and community liaison; counter-terrorism response; domestic extremism response; security during construction; the adoption of “Secured by Design” principles; the mitigation of potential security risks; crisis management; and business continuity planning.
38. There has been extensive consultation with the Metropolitan Police (MPS) and others. The MPS has confirmed that there are adequate resources in place to manage any protests and that the safety and security of the institute have been the subject of considerable scrutiny by the relevant services. The MPS Crime Prevention Officer is satisfied that the building has taken into account the principles of designing out crime.
39. Safety of operations within the building is governed by very stringent regulations with which UKCMRI will fully comply. NIMR and LRI have exemplary track records in ensuring the safety of their research for staff, visitors and the general public. It should be noted too that the level of containment facility to be provided in UKCMRI is similar to that already operating very safely in several other research and medical institutions in central London.
What are the arrangements for closure of NIMR?
40. This is a matter for MRC, on which UKCMRI has no comment, except that we look forward to working with MRC to ensure continuation of the excellent work of NIMR, of which both MRC and NIMR can be justly proud. The same applies to CR-UK and LRI.
Conclusion
41. UKCMRI regards this project as the most exciting development in UK biomedical science for a generation. It is being watched with great interest, and some envy, by scientists around the
14 world. We welcome the Select Committee’s interest in the project; hope that our submission meets the Committee’s needs; and would be happy to explore the issues further.
UKCMRI Limited
10 January 2011
15 Supplementary written evidence submitted by UKCMRI Limited (UKCMRI 04a)
Attached is the letter UKCMRI Construction Ltd sent to London Borough of Camden in October to explain the nature of the work at UKCMRI and the containment levels we would be using.
Letter from John Cooper, Interim Chief Executive and Chief Operating Officer, UKCMRI Construction Ltd, to Councillor Angela Mason, London Borough of Camden, 26 October 2010
I am writing in response to your request for more information about the work on infectious disease that we plan to carry out at UKCMRI; in particular the nature of the work, the need for it, and its safety.
Research on infection will represent a small but important part of the work of UKCMRI, which also includes study of cancers, heart and circulatory disease, immunity, development and regeneration, and diseases of the brain and nervous system.
Organisms that can cause human or animal disease are placed into one of four groups according to the hazard they present. The work is governed by legislation and regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. The viruses and bacteria are defined within Hazard Groups; the measures adopted by laboratories to work with these organisms safely are called Containment Levels, so malaria is a Hazard Group 3 parasite studied in a Containment Level 3 laboratory. The group to which the organism is assigned determines the precautions required.
The UKCMRI research programme will continue the work carried out at the MRC National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) and Cancer Research UK’s London Research Institute (LRI). The infectious agents that require high levels of containment are currently studied at NIMR and include influenza, malaria, tuberculosis and HIV. In all these areas the institute’s research is world‐leading.
In the area of influenza, NIMR has been the home of the World Health Organization Influenza Centre (WIC) since 1948. The WIC receives samples of flu viruses from hospitals around the world and analyses them to make recommendations on the composition of influenza vaccines. Structural analyses of components of the flu virus help understand and predict the susceptibilities of new strains of virus (such as swine flu) to medicines such as Tamiflu and Relenza. This work helps save thousands of lives a year.
Seasonal flu, to which many people are exposed each year, is assigned to Hazard Group 2. The more hazardous H5N1 strain (‘bird flu’) requires precautions above those required for members of Hazard Group 3, and we refer to these precautions as Containment Level 3+.
It has proved very difficult to develop a vaccine against malaria, but work at NIMR has recently shed light on the mechanism by which the malaria parasite bursts out of infected red
16 blood cells. This provides new opportunities to stop or slow down the progress of malaria in an infected person. Malaria is assigned to Hazard Group 3.
Work at NIMR has identified a unique pattern of gene activity in the blood of patients with Tuberculosis (TB) that will help in diagnosis and in developing new vaccines to prevent the disease. Mycobacterium tuberculosis is assigned to Hazard Group 3.
The importance of research on HIV needs no introduction. At present this represents only a small component of NIMR’s efforts, although a promising line of research comes from the observation in 2005 that a modified version of a human protein called Trim5α can block infection by HIV‐1. HIV is assigned to Hazard Group 3.
Samples used in our research are transported securely and safely according to strict criteria defined by the United Nations. These transport arrangements are no less stringent than those followed daily by hospitals throughout London and are regarded as extremely robust.
All work on viruses and bacteria will be carried out at the appropriate level of containment in state‐of‐the‐art custom‐designed laboratories.
For Containment Level 2, the laboratories have restricted access, require a dedicated basin for hand‐washing at the exit and a safety cabinet may be required for some working.
For Containment Level 3, the following conditions apply. The laboratories and working practices are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive and are checked with rigorous and regular inspections:
▪ Laboratories are secure and accessible only through an airlock ▪ Flooring and benches are impervious to water and resistant to chemicals ▪ Laboratories are under negative pressure such that air flows in from clean areas and is extracted to the atmosphere through special high efficiency particulate air filters ▪ Work is carried out in safety cabinets to protect workers and the environment ▪ All waste is treated before it leaves the area either by heat or a suitable disinfectant ▪ Written management procedures are required ▪ Staff must be properly trained ▪ Procedures are required to deal with any foreseeable emergency
Containment Level 3+ requires that walls as well as floor and benching should be impervious, that the laboratories are under higher negative pressure, and that heat treatment is applied to all liquid and solid waste including shower water. Certain work is required to be carried out in closed safety cabinets, and workers are subject to higher standards of training and more frequent assessments.
Central London and the borough of Camden already accommodate many secure laboratories in hospitals and university buildings. Such laboratories are common and essential facilities in modern medical research, and are very safe.
17 You may know that an unknown group is wrongly alleging in a leaflet that UKCMRI will study diseases such as Ebola virus, Smallpox, Anthrax or the Plague. We have repeatedly stated we do not work on these diseases and we will not in the future. Only two samples of Smallpox exist in the world—one in the United States and one in Russia, both only for reference. No work is permitted on this virus anywhere in the world.
NIMR has worked at its Mill Hill site for 60 years, and has an exemplary safety record as has LRI, which has been based at Lincoln’s Inn Fields for many years. I am confident that this record will be maintained in the modern containment laboratories at UKCMRI.
I hope this is helpful. Do let me know if you require any more information.
John Cooper Interim Chief Executive and Chief Operating Officer UKCMRI Construction Ltd
26 October 2010
18 Further supplementary written evidence submitted by UKCMRI Limited (UKCMRI 04b)
Letter from John Cooper, Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Chief Executive, UKCMRI Ltd, to the Chair of the Committee, 23 February 2011
I am writing to you following the Science and Technology Committee’s evidence session which we attended as part of your inquiry into the progress of the project to create the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to give evidence. I felt I should put right some significant errors of fact contained in the oral evidence given by members of the Somers Town and St Pancras Planning Action Group on 9 February.
In response to Question 65, Natalie Bennett said that we had agreed with London Borough of Camden in the Section 106 Agreement to provide 20 apprenticeships during the construction period; the correct figure is 40 apprenticeships.
In response to David Morris (Question 71), Ms Bennett stated that 57.5% of the space in the building was allocated to plant. The accurate figure is 31%.
Rob Inglis (Question 77) stated that the travel time to Mill Hill was 10-15 minutes by train. In fact, the travel time from University College London Hospital (a key component in the clinical cluster in which UKCMRI will be based) to the National Institute for Medical Research varies from 53 to 82 minutes (figures taken from the Transport for London Journey Planner).
In response to Stephen Metcalfe (Question 73) Ms Bennett stated that the Living Centre was a “little room tacked onto the back end of the actual lab”. The space set aside for the Living Centre is 450m² (around 5,000ft²) set over two floors. Its objective will be to create sustainable health-related projects for the benefit of local people. The activities and services to be provided will be developed in partnership with the community and the London Borough of Camden.
John Cooper Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Chief Executive UKCMRI Ltd February 2011
19 Further supplementary written evidence submitted by UKCMRI Limited (UKCMRI 04c)
Additional evidence to the Commons Science and Technology Committee on security arrangements at the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation
1.0 Introduction
The UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation aims to save and improve lives by understanding the basic biology underlying human health, driving forward better treatment and prevention of the most significant diseases affecting people today.
Security and risk management have been and will continue to be a fundamental influence on all aspects of the institute’s design, construction and operation.
As requested by the Committee, this additional evidence focuses on the management of risks arising from terrorism. It also gives more information about the work on infectious disease to be carried out at the institute.
UKCMRI’s founding partners bring a wealth of knowledge and experience in the planning, construction and operation of similar facilities. Tried and tested security working practices and procedures developed and operated by the founders have informed the development of UKCMRI.
2.0 Background
A UKCMRI Security Policy is in operation and all security activity is led by the UKCMRI Executive. An experienced security team supports all aspects of UKCMRI‘s development.
A Security Management Plan was produced and submitted in support of the planning application. The plan considers potential security risks; the biological research facilities; the containment facilities; regulatory compliance and licensing requirements; site deliveries and collections; public safety and security; police and community liaison; counter-terrorism response; domestic extremism response; security during construction; the adoption of "Secured by Design" principles; the mitigation of potential security risks; crisis management; and business continuity planning.
3.0 Police advice
There has been extensive consultation with the Metropolitan Police (MPS) and other security services. The MPS has confirmed there are adequate resources in place to manage any public order issues and their Crime Prevention Officer is satisfied that the building has taken into account the principles of designing out crime. The safety and security of the containment facilities has been the subject of considerable scrutiny by the relevant services which is described in greater detail below.
4.0 Containment Facilities
The MRC’s National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) and Cancer Research UK’s London Research Institute (LRI) have exemplary track records in ensuring the safety of their research for staff, visitors and the general public. It should be noted too that the level of containment facility to be provided in UKCMRI is similar to that already operating very safely in many other research and medical institutions in central London. Work on organisms that can cause human disease is governed by legislation and regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. Each pathogen is placed into one of four groups according to the hazard it presents, and this classification determines the level of containment that is required.
Specific facilities at UKCMRI are being designed to continue the existing work on different strains of influenza currently being undertaken by NIMR at Mill Hill. These viruses need to be studied in secure containment laboratories. UKCMRI will have three such facilities classified at Containment Level 3 and 3+.
UKCMRI will not work on any Human Hazard Group 4 pathogen, such as Lassa fever virus, Crimean/Congo Haemorrhagic Fever virus, Ebola virus, Marburg virus and smallpox.
All work on viruses and bacteria will be carried out at the appropriate level of containment in state-of- the-art custom-designed laboratories.
4.1 Requirements for higher levels of containment For Containment Level 3, the laboratories and working practices are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive and are subject to rigorous and regular inspections. The following conditions apply:
• Laboratories are secure and accessible only through an airlock; • Flooring and benches are impervious to water and resistant to chemicals; • Laboratories are under negative pressure such that air flows in from clean areas and is extracted to the atmosphere through special high efficiency particulate air filters; • Work is carried out in safety cabinets to protect workers and the environment; • All waste is treated before it leaves the area either by heat or a suitable disinfectant; • Written management procedures are required; • Staff must be properly trained; • Procedures are required to deal with any foreseeable emergency.
In addition to the requirements for Level 3 facilities, Containment Level 3+ requires that walls as well as floor and benching should be impervious, that the laboratories are under higher negative pressure and that heat treatment is applied to all liquid and solid waste including shower water. Certain work is required to be carried out in closed safety cabinets, and workers are subject to higher standards of training and more frequent assessments. [XXX redacted sentence XXX].
4.2 Security regulations for containment facilities Part 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001(ATCSA) is the legislation that covers the secure storage and use of dangerous pathogens and toxins listed within Schedule 5 of the Act. Standards that are to be imposed under the act were first published in 2003. This was amended in January 2007, to accommodate a wider list of pathogens and toxins (including animal pathogens) and the amended regulations came into force as of 20 May 2007.
Professor Nigel Lightfoot, Head of the Health Protection Agency, published results of a further review of the pathogens and toxins contained within Schedule 5 in July 2010.
Compliance is coordinated by the National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO), supported by regional Counter Terrorism Security Advisors (CTSAs) and for high level containment facilities and critical infrastructure the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI).
Security standards outlined in ATCSA were prepared with the cooperation of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Department of Health, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Home Office, Government Security Advisers, Biological Safety Officers and other practitioners and stakeholders in the microbiological community.
4.3 Security consultation NaCTSO and CPNI have been engaged from the concept stage of the UKCMRI project. Since the formation of the UKCMRI Security Planning Group (SPG) in July 2009, meetings have been and continue to be held on a monthly basis.
The SPG is also attended by representatives from the British Transport Police, the MPS ie CTSA, Security Coordinator (SECCO), Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA). As the design has developed CPNI stood down and was represented by NaCTSO.
In addition to the regular SPG meetings, numerous supplementary meetings have been held between members of the group to address specific security design issues as the building plans have developed.
It should be noted that CTSAs normally work with laboratories holding those pathogens up to and including those in HG3, ie held in CL3 facilities. Those laboratories of a higher CL status normally work directly with NaCTSO. All new facilities such as UKCMRI are usually overseen ‘jointly’ by NaCTSO & CTSA.
CTSA and NaCTSO already have a long term close liaison with NIMR.
4.4 Containment design and liaison The basis of design for the High Containment areas is described below:
• Full compliance with the requirements of current safety legislation (specifically those within Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002 as amended in 2004, the measures required under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order (SAPO) and Genetic Modifications (Contained Use) Regulations).
• Full compliance with the requirements of the proposed new Contained Use Regulations 2011 implementing the Single Regulatory Framework for work with human and animal pathogens.
Detailed Risk Assessments on the design have been and continue to be carried out by the UKCMRI Health and Safety team led by Chartered Safety Professionals.
Liaison with the Hazardous Installations Group of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has been on-going from an early stage in the development of the project. Additionally, a Hazard and Operability Assessment, facilitated by an independent consultant not associated with the project, has been carried out on the High Containment suites. The results have formed the basis for the development of the detailed design and operational procedures. They will be presented to the Health and Safety Executive and reviewed in the normal way before construction and operation.
5.0 Counter-terrorism
Although the MPS has advised that the risk to the institute is no less or greater than for any other building in London, UKCMRI takes very seriously the collateral risks arising from our proximity to St Pancras International and the British Library.
5.1 Security measures The following measures have been adopted within the building’s design to mitigate potential security threats:
External UKCMRI will deploy Hostile Vehicle Measures (HVM) at its eastern end. This Areas is to create maximum stand-off in the event of a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device being detonated in Midland Road against St Pancras International. Note: UKCMRI is not considered to be an attractive target for a terrorist attack. Further HVM measures such as bollards will be deployed on the northern flank of the building opposite Purchese Street.
Building The building will be constructed with a robust category B concrete frame to Fabric resist blast damage and collapse. The facade systems will be provided with blast resistance.
Key building assets, including the containment facilities, will be further protected by enhanced enclosures.
CCTV A high specification CCTV system providing comprehensive coverage will be deployed within the institute and along its perimeter to ensure the safety and security of the public and UKCMRI staff. The footprint of this coverage will be co-ordinated with Camden Borough Police, British Transport Police and London Borough of Camden.
Manned UKCMRI will have an appropriate security team presence 24 hours a day. Guarding There will be security control rooms which will be constantly manned and from where all CCTV can be monitored and incidents and events managed.
Vehicles The majority of vehicles that will enter the institute will come from the UKCMRI off-site consolidation centre. Other vehicles that enter the building e.g. fresh food deliveries will be from known and screened sources. These vehicles will be searched before being allowed to enter the main loading bay area.
Personnel All staff will be security screened. Visitors to the institute will only be granted access to non-public areas of the building if escorted by a member of staff. Proportionate security measures will be taken for members of the public using the auditorium, exhibition space or teaching laboratory.
Building Access will be controlled (24 hours a day 365 days a year) through three Access layers of physical security located at the building perimeter, on staff access routes and on entry to specific facilities including the containment laboratories.
Each layer of security will be controlled by a high grade access control system.
5.2 Counter terrorism preparations The operational security protocol for the construction site and institute will be developed based on those already employed by NIMR and LRI.
UKCMRI and the Wellcome Trust are members of the Euston Road Security Zone (ERSZ). All contingency plans will be co-ordinated with those of the British Library and St Pancras International. The plan will be shared with the ERSZ to ensure the best possible use of resources, space and public areas.
A series of security scenario training exercises which have included Metropolitan and British Transport Police participation have been conducted by UKCMRI. These will continue at regular intervals.
6.0 Security during Construction
The contractor appointed to construct the UKCMRI facility is responsible for the security of the construction site. They are preparing a Security Management Plan in consultation with UKCMRI. The main elements of construction security planning are:
• A clear UKCMRI construction security policy to be followed by the contractor; • Secure perimeter hoarding to the construction site which can be enhanced in response to increases in threat; • Controlled (turnstile) pedestrian access to the site; • Strictly controlled delivery and vehicular movement – main vehicular entrances will use air- lock principles and be manned by security staff; • Provision of SIA licensed security guards 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; • 24 hour monitored CCTV to cover whole perimeter and in particular all pedestrian and vehicle entrances; • Security screening of all construction personnel; • Escalation process and contingent security responses - already established; and • Ongoing scenario planning and training in conjunction with the police.
7.0 Conclusion
UKCMRI has carried out extensive consultation with the relevant authorities to ensure its operations are secure and safe. It has drawn on the wealth of experience and expertise of the founding organisations and incorporated robust security into the building designs to protect against possible terrorist threats, domestic extremism and to ensure the research it carries out from day-to-day is safe.
John Cooper 31 March 2011 Written evidence submitted by Robert Henderson (UKCMRI 05)
Objections to the proposed UKCRMI Medical Research Centre
Context
I write as someone who would be one of those most directly affected by the development for I live the width of a narrow road (Ossulton Street) from the proposed research centre site. Ossulton Street forms the side of the site which is facing St Pancras Station. The street is entirely residential, consisting of a large hotel at the Euston Road end and a mixture of Housing Association and Council Housing property beyond that. There are plenty of children and several schools nearby. On the other side of the site lies the Eurostar terminal. On the south side lies the British Library. To the east of the Eurostar terminal lies Kings Cross station; to the west Euston Station.
Security
Security issues alone should prevent the research centre being built. The centre would be a prime terrorist target because (1) there are three iconic sites in the closest proximity – the Eurostar terminal, the British Library and the Medical Research Centre itself and (2) the nature of the work to be undertaken at the Centre - the public information released to date suggests that it will be handling dangerous.
Whether as a result of a terrorist attack or a failure of bio-security the consequences of an escape of dangerous biological agents would be severe, both in terms of any contamination of people and by the economic effects on London (and by extension the country) which the fear generated by the escape of toxins would bring.
I have been attempting without success to get answers from UKCMRI about the security arrangements for the proposed research centre since 2007. My requests have been turned down on the grounds that this would breach security. This is a bogus ground for refusal because I deliberately did not ask for detailed operational accounts of their security, which would compromise security, but general issues such as whether the security staff will be employed directly by the centre; whether the staff will have been raised in Britain (vetting foreigners is in practise impossible); how cleaners (notoriously a weak point in security because they work at night when security is minimal); how toxic materials will be transported in and out of the centre and whether the security staff would be armed, something absolutely necessary if there is a threat of terrorist attacks especially if they involved suicide bombers. The real reason why the consortium will not comment is they do not have a clue about how their security will work. The UKCMRI CEO John Cooper gave the game away at a meeting convened by St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action and held on 4 10 2010 in the Somers Town Community Centre when he said that their security arrangements would not be decided for three years. It is absurd to allow people who have not considered in detail the security issues involved before submitting a planning application, not least because the design and situation of the building should be taking these issues into account as one of the primary drivers of the design.
20 The security, both bio and anti-terrorist, is particularly compromised by the intention of the consortium to allow scientists who are not employed by the consortium to carry out research. These people could be either from non-profit organisations or private firms:
"There will be dedicated space for technology transfer and additional lab space to enable the findings of the research teams within the centre to be developed and translated into clinical applications by scientists from pharmaceutical companies and partners." The Bliss Project Concept and Vision (see appendix 1)
This raises two security problems: the vetting of such people and the lack of a single authority responsible for the security of the centre. This is precisely what happened at Pirbright which was split between government and private business with no one in overall control. Come the foot and mouth outbreak of 2007 no one would take responsibility with both sides blaming the other.
Thorough vetting of those who come from abroad would be impracticable and vetting of anyone born and raised in Britain but who has spent substantial periods of time abroad problematic. These considerations would be relevant to both scientists and other staff, many of whom would be foreign or have spent long periods out of the country.
I would also draw the committee’s attention to the fact that Islamic extremism is seen by the government as a growing problem in British universities and that one of the consortium’s members – UCL – has been recently had a student- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - who went on to try to commit a terrorist act.
The limited access proposed for the public would also be a weak link in the security.
If contract labour is used UKCRMI will have no meaningful control over either the vetting of the people or their working practices, because in a sub-contracting situation the employees of the contractor obey the contractor not the employer of the contractor. There are also legal implications in the event of a security lapse. Who do you sue or prosecute, the contractor or the employer of the contractor. A good example of this problem in a security sensitive environment is provided by Heathrow. This has had a number of highly embarrassing incidents where contract staff in sensitive areas have been shown to either not have been vetted or have been vetted without discovering facts which should disqualify them from working.
There are also the inherent problems with security staff. Those providing general physical security are normally lowly paid and consequently poorly motivated. The low pay also makes them vulnerable to bribes. There is also the problem of what might be best termed sociological drag, the process by which any system involving human beings deteriorates in efficiency the longer it operates. It is also true that no security system ever devised is anything like 100% efficient, vide the couple who recently gatecrashed the White House party and got close to Obama.
Nor would it be a case of vetting only the security staff. Anyone working there would need to be checked. That would include everyone from
21 research scientists to cleaners. Just in case you think research scientists or other professional staff would be safe to employ by definition, think of the NHS doctors who attempted to bomb Glasgow airport.
But even if all your staff, security and otherwise, were directly employed, I doubt whether UKCMRI would have the expertise to vet them adequately. I suppose you might get the security services to do the vetting, but anyone coming from abroad would be beyond meaningful vetting unless inordinate amounts of money were spent - you see this type of problem with CRB checks which tell you nothing about a person's life in foreign parts. That is an important consideration for your project because you will, I would imagine, have quite a few people coming from abroad.
Cleaners pose a particular security problem. To begin with they are low paid and hence subject to the problems of poor morale and vulnerability to bribery. The other general problems with cleaners are they go everywhere and work at night, generally with little supervision because they work when security is at its lightest.
If UKCRMI employ contract cleaners, they will bring with them a high turnover of staff and, this being London, many of those employed will be from abroad and thus effectively beyond vetting. If you employ contract cleaners you will leave yourself wide open to infiltration. Do you intend to employ them?
Then there is the problem of waste. I dare say UKCRMI will have wonderful written procedures detailing how to dispose of dangerous material, but I wonder who will doing the final disposing? Is it going to be more lowly paid contract staff? I rather suspect it might be. If so, the problems of motivation and vetting will again apply.
Finally, UKCRMI say there will be no armed guards. In those circumstances how would an armed terrorist attack be resisted? That would not necessarily be terrorists armed with guns. It could, for example, be a suicide bomber whom you can only stop by shooting them.
Things are no more promising on the bio-security side. At the meeting of 4 10m 2010, John Cooper promised that nothing more dangerous than influenza viruses would be in the centre. However, this was meaningless because, as he very grudgingly admitted, there would be legal bar to this policy being changed at some point in the future. Moreover, 'flu viruses can be extremely toxic, vide the 1918 epidemic which swept Europe and caused more deaths than had occurred in military action during the Great War.
There is good reason to believe that toxins officially classified as more dangerous than influenza will be used. The MRC site in Mill Hill – the site Brill Place is meant to replace - has 11 laboratories licenced for level 3 biohazards and one licensed for level 4 biohazards (see http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/research-facilities/level-4-high-containment- virus-laboratory/).
The license for level 3 work allows the following to be used for research:
22 Biohazard Level 3: Bacteria and viruses that can cause severe to fatal disease in humans, but for which vaccines or other treatments exist, such as anthrax, West Nile virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, SARS virus, variola virus (smallpox), tuberculosis, typhus, Rift Valley fever, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, yellow fever, and malaria. Among parasites Plasmodium falciparum, which causes Malaria, and Trypanosoma cruzi, which causes trypanosomiasis, also come under this level.
The consortium is applying for level 3 licenses for the proposed medical centre. Once they have these they can work on any of the viruses and bacteria listed above regardless of what is promised now.
Presumably whatever work the MRC has been conducting under the level 4 licence will continue. If it comes to the new centre work on these toxins would be covered:
Biohazard Level 4: Viruses and bacteria that cause severe to fatal disease in humans, and for which vaccines or other treatments are not available, such as Bolivian and Argentine hemorrhagic fevers, H5N1(bird flu), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, Marburg virus, Ebola virus, hantaviruses, Lassa fever, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, and other hemorrhagic diseases. When dealing with biological hazards at this level the use of a Hazmat suit and a self-contained oxygen supply is mandatory. The entrance and exit of a Level Four biolab will contain multiple showers, a vacuum room, an ultraviolet light room, autonomous detection system, and other safety precautions designed to destroy all traces of the biohazard. Multiple airlocks are employed and are electronically secured to prevent both doors opening at the same time. All air and water service going to and coming from a Biosafety Level 4 (P4) lab will undergo similar decontamination procedures to eliminate the possibility of an accidental release.
If the level 4 work is not to come to the proposed research centre the consortium’s claim that their work has to be done at the Brill Place site is discredited. If it does come to the site then risk is raised considerably. As to whether it will come to the site, answers given by John Davidson at a meeting held 11 10 2010 in the Ossulton Street Tenants and Residents Hall provide a strong pointer. Questioned by myself, he stated that the Mill Hill facility would definitely be closed if and when the centre was built and he could not rule out all the Mill Hill work being moved to the Brill Place site including the level 4 risk work.
The DCMS were certainly led to believe that the centre would deal with viruses other than influenza, viz.:
“4. MRC anticipates that some £205 m of additional investment will be secured from consortium partners for the development of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation. This is investment which would otherwise be Lost to the public purse. This additional investment in the work of the National Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) will support the delivery of high quality research on:
“ The origins of the AIDS epidemic, detecting tuberculosis (TB) infection, variations in the structure of the bird flu virus H5N1 all of which could Lead to more effective breakthroughs in drug development. Scientists at NIMR have also:- (With the University of Hong Kong) isolated the gene responsible for sensory development in the inner ear,
23 which may lead to significant advances in the development of treatments for the deaf and those with severely impaired hearing; and determined the structure of the enzyme that regulates cellular energy levels which could lead to new drugs for type II diabetes, an illness that affects more than two million people in the UK. Taken together, these important results emerging from the UKCMRI could substantially improve the quality of life and allow those who benefit from the findings to continue to make their important contribution to the economy.” (See DCMS Q and A – appendix 2)
Every large organisation which has security issues always says their security is very tight and time and again the security fails. Pirbright said exactly this before they had to admit that they were at fault. The members of the consortium say this. The MRC recently were involved in lax procedures which resulted in the death of a patient, viz.:
“Daily telegraph
Man dies in government cancer drug trial A man about to get married has died in a government-funded medical trial after receiving seven overdoses of drugs.
By Jon Swaine Last Updated: 7:50PM BST 21 Sep 2008
Gary Foster, 27, was repeatedly given twice the amount of chemotherapy drugs he should have been prescribed. He was due to be married this month. Reports have said his death was caused by an error in the setting up of the trial on the computer system at University College London Hospital (UCLH). A second patient was affected by the same mistake, but survived. When the MRC suspected patients had been given overdoses, instead of calling the hospital immediately it wrote a letter - which a nurse at UCLH failed to open until two days after Mr Foster had died…”
UKCMRI have introduced the idea of a biohazard rating of 3+. This would appear to be a concept unknown to regulatory man or beast. The suspicion must be that it is level 4 in disguise.
Final thoughts
If this project goes ahead those responsible for granting planning permission will have to shoulder the responsibility for any terrorist act on the centre or any bio-security leak. The dangers of both are blindingly obvious. There will be no excuse for saying we did not know.
If the committee wishes to have copies of the documents I have cited but not supplied with this submission, I shall be happy to supply them. I am also willing to appear in person before the committee to give evidence.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
11 January 2011
------
24 Appendix 1
The BLISS Project Concept and Vision
The BLISS Centre for Medical Research responds to the vision, outlined in Sir David Cooksey’s review of UK health research presented to Treasury in 2006, of better integration and translation of research into patient and public benefit. BLISS will create a new centre for UK biomedical research, with 1.500 scientists, creating a new European centre for biomedical research in Europe at a level commensurate with the very best institutions in the world. The Centre will benefit from economies of scale, enhanced infrastructure, the critical mass to optimise collaboration1, and the capacity to take scientific discoveries from the lab bench to the hospital bed. The potential, ri terms of understanding disease, and developing new drugs, treatments and cures, is huge. The vision for the BLISS Centre has six themes:
Research innovation and excellence • Bring together outstanding scientists from two world-class research institutes (MRC NIMR and the Cancer Research UK London Research Institute), collaborating with UCL, to address fundamental questions of human health and disease. • Through Wellcome Trust funding, development of tools for integrative biology, with an emphasis on the development of advanced microscopy imaging and on the mathematical and computational needs in this field. • Increase scientific innovation through new links with the physical sciences, life sciences, mathematics, engineering and the social sciences at UCL. • Develop close links between the Centre and the outstanding hospitals nearby (including the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases at Queens Square, Great Ormond Street, Moorfields and University College Hospital) and other major hospitals in London (including Hammersmith Hospital and the MRC Clinical Sciences Centre at Hammersmith, and the Maudsley Hospital and the Institute of Psychiatry).
State-of-the-art research facilities
• Develop a multidisciplinary research complex operating in state-of-the- art facilities, with the size and diversity to be internationally competitive with the worlds top research institutes. • Establish a new centre for development of advanced imaging technologies and analysis.
A national focus for biomedical science
• Interact with other local centres of excellence to foster and facilitate collaboration between basic, translational and clinical scientists. • Host national and international research meetings and conferences, facilitated by its proximity to national and international transport links and the conference facilities of the British Library.
An effective interface with technology transfer and development
International research commissioned by the MRC suggests that the optimum capacity of a modern biomedical facility is around 1,000 people, which would he achieved by the BLISS Centre
• Facilitate the effective development of therapeutic and diagnostic devices and drugs, by allowing the technology transfer arms of MRC and
25 Cancer Research UK to work closely together. • Drive innovation in developing tests and technologies through interaction between researchers and development laboratories.
Finding and developing the scientists of the future
• Provide an attractive environment to secure and retain world-class scientists by providing an outstanding setting for research and collaboration. • Boost the recruitment and training of scientists and doctors of the future by providing an excellent environment for postgraduate and postdoctoral training, and for training outstanding clinical scientists committed to medical research.
Engaging with the public • Educate the public on important issues in health and disease. • Bring together and enhance partners’ public information and education programmes, with a particular focus on engaging younger people.
The proposed facility
This location and the capacity for collaboration that it offers have a number of advantages:
I. The site is close to a number of leading UK research institutes, universities and teaching hospitals, and is located at the edge of the Bloomsbury cluster, identified in the Mayor of London’s London Plan as ‘mixed use with a predominantly academic character’2. 2. London is a global centre for life sciences: the city has more than 6,000 people working within the pharmaceutical sector, 1,350 academic staff working in top-rated biological sciences and clinical departments, attracts 70 per cent of NHS research funding and has 121 hospitals3. The benefits of this concentration of expertise include access to the best quality expertise, and a wide range of potential collaborations, with other research scientists, with clinicians and with industry. 3. London is hugely varied in terms of its population and offers major advantages in terms of its population size, patients, clinicians and clinical facilities. NHS London Strategic l-lealth Authority (SI-IA) has a greater diversity of population than any other strategic health authority in the UK in terms of ethnicity and wealth. 4. The proximity of the site to an international rail transport hub, with high-speed rail links to Paris and other continental cities, will enable better collaboration with institutions from across Europe, and access to a wider labour pool (around two thirds of the institutes’ staff are from outside the UK), as well as providing easy rail access to biotechnology and bioscience firms located in the London-Stansted-Cambridge growth corridor.
If the Partners bid for the British Library site is successful, the BLISS Centre will accommodate a new landmark laboratory complex, which will reflect the partners’ commitment to excellence in the quality of its architecture. The partners will achieve economies of scale through the provision of shared infrastructure and scientific services and equipment. There will be dedicated space for technology transfer and additional lab space to enable the findings of the research teams within the Centre to be developed and translated into clinical applications by scientists from pharmaceutical companies and other partners.
26 BLISS funding
The planned investment by the MRC which would be of the order of [43](to provide facilities for the National Institute for Medical Research, MRC Technology and for additional laboratory space for collaborations with industry) is likely to he matched by investment of a similar order by CRUK and the Wellcome Trust. The funding from UCL is £46m. If the project does not go ahead there is no guarantee that all of the funding from the two research charities would be spent in the UK
BLISS benefits
The location of the BLISS Centre at the British Library site in London offers clear benefits to scientific practice, to the economy and to local communities. Its research programme will make a tangible difference to the lives of people across the UK and the world, while providing a boost to the UK economy.
A boost for scientific research and medicine
Biomedical research drives improvements to public health by establishing the processes and mechanisms involved in normal development (from the level of cellular physics to whole organisms>, and identifying how these mechanisms are undermined by disease states like cancer and infection. These discoveries can be used as the basis of new diagnostic methods, new treatments and new preventative approaches.
The BLISS Medical Research Centre will strengthen research in critical areas of research, from systems biology (which uses large data sets to research how different pails of a cell or organism interact), to structural biology (which develops understanding of biological processes at an atomic level of detail), to research on how disease genes function and interact with environmental factors to CSUSC illness.
The BLISS partners have complementary expertise in a range of areas. By bringing their research capacity together they will he able to advance understanding and treatment of many of the biggest health challenges that we face today, including: • The identification, prevention and treatment of cancers • New multiple-drug-resistant strains of common pathogens (e.g., MRSA) • Previously unknown pathogens (e.g., SARS) • Pathogens with pandemic potential, (e.g., influenza, malaria, tuberculosis and HIV).
A boost for the economy
The UK is a global leader in biotechnology and pharmaceutical research: its biotechnology sector is second only to the USA4, and the UK leads the G8 countries in the productivity of
4. Think London 2005 publicly performed R&D5. The location of the BLISS Centre for Medical Research in London offers benefits to the London and UK economy: • The strengthening of London’s biomedical science base will help to attract and retain investment by multinational pharmaceutical and medical equipment firms; • The provision of incubator space within BLISS will help to meet the needs for 20- 30,000 square feet of such space
27 identified in the London Development Agency's Life Sciences Strategy6 • The enhancement of the academic/scientific Bloomsbury cluster of research institutes will boost the ability of London, and the south east of England, to attract and retain inward investment and the highly skilled scientists that are critical to such investment; • An assessment of different potential locations for the Centre found that a London location would have a higher net impact on job numbers than alternative cities7 and • The focus on training within the BLISS Centre will help to bring forward the next generation of scientists who can maintain the UK’s competitive position in life sciences and biotechnology.
A boost for the community
The site chosen for the BLISS Centre sits in one of central London's most important growth hubs, and alongside some of central London's most marginalised communities. While many of the scientists working at the partner institutions are drawn from a labour pool that is international in nature, there will be tangible economic and social benefits for the surrounding area: • More than 200 support staff jobs will require different skill levels than research staff jobs, many of them offering great opportunities for career development within a vibrant, growing and nationally important industry sector; • In addition to these jobs, the construction of BLISS will lead to spin off development, in terms of suppliers, development partners and pharmaceutical companies; • BLISS will work actively with local schools and communities to develop public understanding of and interest in science, and to promote the study of science among local children building on existing programmes run by the partners; and
The BLISS partners
Medical Research Council (MRC) - www.rnrc.ac.uk
The MRC is dedicated to improving human health through excellent science. It invests on behalf of the UK taxpayer. Its work ranges from molecular level science to public health research, carried out in universities, hospitals and a network of its own units and institutes. The MRC liaises with the Health Departments, the National Health Service and industry to take account of the public's needs. The MRC was set up in 1913 to administer public funds for medical research. The MRC receives an annual grant-in-aid from Parliament through the Department for Innovation Universities and Skills (formerly from the Office of Science and Innovation (OSl)), arid funds from other sources including government departments,
PSA target mellics lot- the UK research base, Department of Trade and Industry/Office or Science and Innovation, March 2007 l3ioLondon: London life sciences strategy and action plan, LDA, 2003 DTZ/NIMR, 2006 international agencies, industry and medical research charities. In 2006/07, the MRC spent £477m.
The Wellcome Trust - www.wellcome.ac.uk
The Wellcome Trust is the largest charity in the UK. It was set up in 1935 with a bequest from Sir Henry Wellcome. It now has an endowment of £1 3b. The Trusts mission is to foster and promote research with the aim of improving human and animal health, Its constitution and mission allows
28 us to respond flexibly to medical needs and scientific opportunities. As well as tackling immediate priorities, its independence and long-term perspective enable it to support research that will benefit future generations, It also seeks to improve understanding of the ways science and medicine have developed, and how research affects people and society today. In 2005/06, the Trust spent £484m.
Cancer Research UK (CRIJK) - www.cancerresearchuk.org
CRUK was formed in 2002 when the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign merged. It is one of the UK’s largest charities, currently funding 4250 scientists, doctors and nurses in its own institutes, universities and hospitals. Its main role is to carry out world-class_research to improve the understanding of cancer and find out how to prevent, diagnose and treat different kinds of cancer. CRUK takes proactive approaches to educate the public about cancer risks, and provide authoritative information to improve the understanding of cancer and its complexity amongst the general public. CRUK works with other research funders, the NHS and with industry, including its technology transfer company CRT, to ensure that its research is translated to patient benefit. It raises funds directly from the public, through donations shops and legacies. In 2006/07, CRUK spent £315m.
University College London (UCL) - www.ucl.ac.uk
UCL is the oldest multi-faculty constituent college of the University of London. It is one of Europe’s largest and most productive centres for biomedical science. Biomedical research is enhanced by extensive collaborations with those in the physical sciences, engineering and the humanities. The School of Life & Medical Sciences links the Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, which covers UCL medical institutes and departments, with the Faculty of Life Sciences, which comprises UCL's biomedical science departments. The Royal Free and University College Medical School provides an outstanding clinical research environment, A General Biomedical Research Centre at University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and two Specialist Biomedical Research Centres, at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust and at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust, funded in national competition by the Dot-I, provide exceptional facilities for translational medical research. UCL consistently ranks among the top five university institutions in the UK league tables and in the top 25 universities across the world, with an annual turnover of over £550 million. October 2007
Appendix 2
SALE OF THE LAND TO THE NORTH OF THE BRITISH LIBARY TO THE UK CENTRE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION - Q&A (DCMS document)
Q1. Who is in the Consortium?
Al. The consortium includes the Medical Research Council (MRC), The Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK and University College London.
29
Q2. What have the Consortium paid for the site?
A2. The Consortium have paid £85 million for the site.
Q3. Was the Consortium’s bid the highest received by the Department?
A3. No. We made an allowance for the value to the public of creating a world- class centre for inter-disciplinary medical research in the heart of London.
Q4. What assessment was made of the Public value?
A4. MRC anticipates that some £205 m of additional investment will be secured from consortium partners for the development of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation. This is investment which would otherwise be Lost to the public purse. This additional investment in the work of the National Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) will support the delivery of high quality research on:
The origins of the AIDS epidemic, detecting tuberculosis (TB) infection, variations in the structure of the bird flu virus H5N1 all of which could Lead to more effective breakthroughs in drug development. Scientists at NIMR have also:- (With the University of Hong Kong) isolated the gene responsible for sensory development in the inner ear, which may lead to significant advances in the development of treatments for the deaf and those with severely impaired hearing; and determined the structure of the enzyme that regulates cellular energy levels which could lead to new drugs for type II diabetes, an illness that affects more than two million people in the UK. Taken together, these important results emerging from the UKCMRI could substantially improve the quality of life and allow those who benefit from the findings to continue to make their important contribution to the economy.
Q5. Does the selling of the land mean that the Centre will go ahead?
A5. No. The Consortium will need to obtain planning permission from the appropriate authorities for their proposal.
Q6. Have the views of Local residents been taken into account? A6. We have listened to the case made by them. This has been considered against the public value case of creating a world class centre for medical research is
Q7. What happens if MRC sell the land on?
A7. The profit from any future sale would be passed back to the Department.
Q8. Was the decision made to sell the land to the MRC from the start of the process?
A8. No. There has been a competitive sales process to which MRC submitted an expression of interest. Their bid has been considered against the other bids received.
30 Q9. What was the highest bid?
A9. This is a commercial matter for the other bidders: subject to their views, we can release a figure in due course.
Q9. What is the position on the and swap with the British Library?
A9. An agreement has been reached with the British Library on the land swap. Heads of term have been agreed.
31 Supplementary written evidence submitted by Robert Henderson (UKCMRI 05a)
My name is Robert Henderson. I asked to give evidence to the committee at the UKCMRI hearing of 9 February. This request was refused. Hence, this email.
Although most of the important points were covered, there were one or two that were either not touched upon or failed to be debated in sufficient depth. The first is the extreme proximity of the site to the Eurostar Terminal, The British Library and residential housing. To give you an idea of how close, the site is 50 feet from my front window. It is also a surprising small site, a fact which was tacitly acknowledged when the representatives of UKCMRI admitted they would have to be putting work out to other sites, including that obvious component of the London “cluster”, Edinburgh University. I really do think the committee should visit the site. Actually seeing how close it will be to prime terrorist targets, residents and passengers is a real eye‐opener. I should be delighted to act as your guide.
On the subject of terrorist attacks, while it is true that other laboratories exist in central London with Level 3 licences , there are two prime differences between them and this site: (1) the scale of the project and (2) the vast amount of publicity given to it, not least by Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Boris Johnson. That, together with its proximity to Eurostar and the British Library, makes it a much more attractive and likely target for terrorists.
It was noticeable that when challenged over terrorist security issues, the UKCMRI representatives descended into waffle. This did not surprise me because I have spent the past few years attempting unsuccessfully to get them to answer such simple questions as are the security staff and cleaners to be employed directly by the consortium or employed through sub‐contractors. That is an important question because any lowly paid staff are a prime security risk, especially cleaners who work outside normal hours with little supervision.
The other issue I would draw you attention to is the biohazard level. The UKCMRI representatives were decidedly shifty when the question of the Level 4 licence held by the Mill Hill site. Despite the most diligent use of search engines, I cannot find any official listing for their claimed biohazard 3+ level of security. The suspicion must be that it is Level 4 in disguise. Just to remind you , Level 4 covers this type of toxin:
“Biohazard Level 4: Viruses and bacteria that cause severe to fatal disease in humans, and for which vaccines or other treatments are not available, such as Bolivian and Argentine hemorrhagic fevers, H5N1(bird flu), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, Marburg virus, Ebola virus, hantaviruses, Lassa fever, Crimean‐Congo hemorrhagic fever, and other hemorrhagic diseases. When dealing with biological hazards at this level the use of a Hazmat suit and a self‐contained oxygen supply is mandatory. The entrance and exit of a Level Four biolab will contain multiple showers, a vacuum room, an ultraviolet light room, autonomous detection system, and other safety precautions designed to destroy all traces of the biohazard. Multiple airlocks are employed and are electronically secured to prevent both doors opening at the same time. All air and water service going to and coming from a Biosafety Level 4 (P4) lab will undergo similar decontamination procedures to eliminate the possibility of an accidental release.”
Robert Henderson February 2011
32 Written evidence submitted by the Medical Research Council’s National Trade Union Side (UKCMRI 06)
“The National Trade Union Side (NTUS) represents all MRC employees through a joint negotiation and consultative committee. The MRC recognises the following unions: Unite, PCS, UCU, BMA, FDA.
The Individual unions and the Trade Union Side are aware of the intention to close NIMR but are not aware, at this stage, of any arrangements for the closure of NIMR, have not been consulted or involved in any discussions about the closure. We consider this to be a cause of concern.”
David Poor Secretary NTUS National Institute for Medical Research
12 January 2011
33 Written evidence submitted by Mireille Burton (UKCMRI 07)
I wish to voice my concerns regarding the proposed building of the Bioresearch Laboratory on the site behind the British Library.
Terms of reference: no.4 Risk Assessment
The most obvious objection to me is the threat of Terrorist and Anti-Vivisection action in an area containing three main line train stations, Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross and six underground lines; the Camden Council offices; housing; schools; businesses etc.
The possibility of dangerous pathogens escaping by accident or intent which could cause horrendous diseases is a danger too great to risk in such an area. The site is too small to build such an important Research Laboratory. What is the real reason for moving from the existing 37 acre to a 3.6 acre site?
In these days of austerity it appears both unseemly and egoistical to spend such a large sum when we are all asked to 'tighten our belts'. The ongoing costs also seem to be disproportionate for the next 10-20 years or so.
With Broadband contact with the consortium can be made in seconds at little cost.
It has been brought to my notice that certain authorities such as MI5, MI6 and the Police have also raised objections. I think these should be looked into.
Scientists from all over the world have said the Mill Hill Laboratory is one of the greatest research facilities in the world .What is the need to move it?
Mireille Burton
12 January 2011
34 Written evidence submitted by Professor Sir Richard Trainor, Principal, King’s College London (UKCMRI 08)
King’s College London is a multi-faculty research-led university institution which, awarding its own degrees, is a member college of the University of London. King’s has 23,000 students of whom 8,600 are graduate students and 5,500 employees. It has particular strengths in health-related research and has been in the top four recipients of MRC awards by volume in each of the last five years.
King’s would like to make the following observations on items 1 and 2 of the terms of reference of the enquiry.
1. It has long been the ambition of MRC to relocate the National Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) from Mill Hill to a site closer to central London and its translational and clinical research facilities. Following a competition in 2005, MRC Council determined that NIMR should move to a site close to Euston Station, thereby continuing and extending the historical close relationship between NIMR and UCL. This plan has subsequently evolved into a bold and imaginative proposal to co-locate both NIMR and the London Research Institute of Cancer Research UK to a single new build site at St Pancras, to create UKCMRI.
2. King’s strongly supports the creation of UKCMRI, which has the potential to create a world class centre for biomedical research in the heart of London. UKCMRI is supported by the government and the three major funders of medical research in the UK.
3. The proposed location at St Pancras is one of the few central London sites which would be capable of accommodating such a building. It is not located on a university or clinical campus, although the historic links with UCL continue with UCL as a founding partner in UKCMRI.
4. In our view, close academic links with all three major biomedical academic institutions in London (UCL, Imperial and King’s) would be of great benefit to UKCMRI. Specifically:
• It would facilitate access by UKCMRI researchers to the translational and clinical research facilities and resources which all three institutions possess in abundance. • UKCMRI could provide a fulcrum through which the three London academic institutions can forge London-wide collaborations with UKCMRI and with each other, following decades of unproductive competition. This would allow London to compete effectively with major international centres of biomedical research such as Boston, Singapore and Shanghai.
5. With these objectives in mind, both Imperial and King’s are currently in discussion with the UKCMRI directorate with a view to joining the consortium as additional academic partners.
6. In summary, UKCMRI has the potential to create not only an exceptionally strong intramural biomedical research programme but also within London a consortium of medical researchers and facilities and resources which is equal to the best in the world. This is an opportunity for the UK which must not be missed.
Conflict of Interest statement: As will be clear from Paragraph 5 above King’s is in discussion with UKCMRI about potential membership.
35 Professor Sir Richard Trainor Principal King’s College London
12 January 2011
36 Written evidence submitted by Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, University College London, and the Wellcome Trust (UKCMRI 09)
Introduction
1. The UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) will be outstanding in scale and multi-disciplinarity, with the breadth of scientific and technical innovation vital for future advances in discovery research and clinical and commercial translation. Bringing together scientific teams from Cancer Research UK (CR-UK), the Medical Research Council (MRC) and University College London (UCL) and research funding from the Wellcome Trust, UKCMRI will be a unique international centre for scientific excellence in the heart of London.
2. The UKCMRI partners welcome the interest of the Select Committee in this major national resource which we believe will play a major role in sustaining the position of the UK as a world leader in biomedical research and deliver future commercial and health benefits. The national importance of the vision for UKCMRI is supported by continued Government commitment, including £220 million of capital investment and the central role of UKCMRI in the UK's first ever National Infrastructure Plan.
3. This Inquiry provides the opportunity to discuss the significant progress that has been made since the Inquiry of the IUSS Select Committee in 2008, including the UKCMRI building, development of the scientific vision, establishment of governance structures and the appointment of the Senior Management Team to deliver the vision.
4. This submission is made on behalf of the four UKCMRI partners and addresses the questions identified by the Select Committee as they relate to the vision, objectives and realisation of UKCMRI. Some issues are addressed more effectively by UKCMRI Limited, the charitable company being established by the partners to build, own and operate the institute: these include detailed information on planning, public engagement and security and have been addressed in a separate memorandum from UKCMRI Ltd.
Main submission
Review the progress on the UKCMRI since 2008 and assess the plans for the coming years.
5. The MRC has provided regular reports to this Committee and its predecessor in line with the recommendations of the 2008 Inquiry. We understand that these progress reports, which have been provided every six months1 and report across the project, have been made available in the House Libraries.
6. As the Committee will have noted, significant progress has been made on the UKCMRI project since 2008 - the scientific vision for UKCMRI has been developed and administrative and governance structures established, including the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), the establishment of UKCMRI Ltd and the appointment of the Senior Management Team to deliver the vision. The recent approval of planning permission by the London Borough of Camden is a major milestone in work towards the new institute. A summary of progress is outlined below; a number of these issues are addressed in further detail in the submission from UKCMRI Ltd.
6.1. Land purchase: In 2008, Government approval was granted for purchase of the 3.5 acre site for UKCMRI on Brill Place, behind the British Library. This site presented opportunities
1 Reports were provided in July 2008, January 2009, July 2009, January 2010 and August 2010.
37 to support collaborative research on a size and scale not previously envisaged. The sale was completed in June 2008. The land was purchased from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for £85m, of which £46.75m was provided by the MRC. The partners will remain as freeholders of the land and buildings, which will be leased to UKCMRI Ltd.
6.2. Project Management and Leadership: During 2009, UKCMRI recruited a number of key people to form the UKCMRI Executive Team. These included a Chief Operating Officer and acting Chief Executive Officer; Construction Project Director; Finance Director; and General Counsel. Sir Paul Nurse became the first Director and Chief Executive of UKCMRI in January 2011; Sir Paul has chaired the UKCMRI Scientific Planning Committee for the past two years. In addition the Executive Team also involves the directors of the CR-UK London Research Institute and the MRC National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) at Mill Hill, and representation from UCL.
6.3. Governance: Heads of Terms for the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) were agreed early in 2010 and negotiations continued throughout the year to complete negotiations of the Agreement and to establish the charitable company. Negotiations included detailed discussions between the MRC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), and were also subject to scrutiny by HM Treasury. In view of the revised public funding arrangements for the project, which include the commitment of £220m of capital from the Department of Health (DH), the Agreement was also subject to DH approval. The JVA was signed by the chief executives of the four partners and Sir David Cooksey on behalf of the company (as Chair of the UKCMRI Steering Group) in November 2010.
6.4. The Agreement outlines the maximum commitments of the four founding partners to UKCMRI’s construction cost and states funding conditions for the operation and maintenance of the institute. In line with Government requirements, the MRC’s final business case includes all funding aspects to cover construction, land, operations, building life cycle costs and transition costs and is subject to approval by BIS and HM Treasury Ministers.
6.5. Following the signing of the JVA, the company and the founding partners entered into discussions with two additional London universities that wish to be involved with UKCMRI. This would expand opportunities for collaboration significantly. Discussions are ongoing and are expected to conclude in spring 2011.
6.6. Government Commitment and scrutiny: In October 2010 the Government announced its commitment to UKCMRI, confirming funding of £220m from the Department of Health as part of the Spending Review.
6.7. The UKCMRI project has been reviewed by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) on three occasions since 2008:
The OGC Major Projects Review Group (MPRG) reviewed the project in May 2009. The principal issues raised during this review concerned the degree of protection of the public interest in the then project arrangements and have been addressed by the JVA.
A second MPRG review was carried out in March and April 2010. This highlighted issues about cost and risk management which have now been mitigated.
The OGC also undertook a Project Assessment Review as part of its Major Projects Assessment Review across government in July 2010, specifically examining the potential for cost savings in major projects and providing information to the Spending Review process. This review gave UKCMRI a delivery confidence assessment of “amber-green”. The review concluded that there were no viable options for significant cost savings and did not recommend cancellation or relocation.
38 6.8. Construction and Procurement: A Construction Project Board was established (comprising three representatives of UKCMRI and one from each founder partner) to support the Executive Team of UKCMRI, which is responsible for the day-to-day management of the construction. The Construction Project Board meets monthly. Since August 2010 an observer from BIS has been invited to attend the meetings.
6.9. UKCMRI Ltd is currently managing the tender exercise for stage one of a two-stage construction contract. A recommendation on the preferred contractor will be made to the Construction Project Board with a view to signing a Pre-Construction Agreement by the end of March 2011.
6.10. Town Planning: The Planning Application for UKCMRI was approved by Camden Council (acting through its Development Control Committee) on 16 December 2010.
6.11. Building Design Status: The design is currently in RIBA Stage D, which is due to be completed in February 2011.
7. Key milestones for future plans are outlined below. A number of these are discussed in greater detail in the submission from UKCMRI Ltd.
Milestone Expected date MRC submits full business case to BIS January 2011 Appoint Pre-Construction Contractor by March 2011 Outcome of Government consideration of by March 2011 MRC business case Commence Early Construction Works April 2011 Execute Main Construction Contract June 2012 Determine Research Programmes By December 2012 Construction completed Second quarter 2015 Building handover Third quarter 2015 Full transition complete 2017/18
8. Critical success factors for UKCMRI partners include: sufficient space and scale of operations to house effectively a critical mass of research staff to deliver the full breadth of world class science in a multi-disciplinary institute; the development and training of a critical mass of basic and clinical researchers; the ability to attract and retain talent; the completion of the project within the capital budget (of £540m) and the efficiency of the new facility.
What do the four partners hope to achieve from the project and what new technologies and innovations are being considered?
9. The UK is a world leader in biomedical research and it is essential for UK competitiveness to ensure this position can be sustained in the face of increasing international competition. UK clinicians and scientists must be able to engage with the most challenging research questions which will lead to discoveries that improve the treatment and care of patients with common but tragically intractable diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease. That is the shared vision that underlies the development of UKCMRI.
10. UKCMRI will bring together scientific teams from CR-UK, the MRC and UCL and research funding from the Wellcome Trust at a unique international centre for scientific excellence. It will be one of the most significant developments in UK biomedical science in a generation. UKCMRI will play a key role in addressing concerns identified by Sir David Cooksey’s 2006 review of publicly funded health research in the UK, specifically around the risk of failing to reap the full economic, health and social benefits of public investment in UK health research.
39 11. The partners already attract world-class scientists from the UK and around the world. In the coming years, the research required to address major healthcare problems will be multi-disciplinary, requiring day-to-day collaboration between scientists from not only the medical and biological sciences, but also the physical, social and engineering sciences. In order to remain at the global forefront of research, scientists from different disciplines will have to work together to take advantage of the revolutions in genetics, imaging and computing. UKCMRI will create a visionary, multi-disciplinary environment with the size and scale to enable a world-leading, interactive critical mass to be created and sustained for the future. It will provide the ideal training environment to develop young scientists as future scientific leaders. Innovative appointment policies will support the UK-wide remit and the spread of expertise. Research group leaders will be supported in building their reputations at UKCMRI, laying the foundations of future scientific achievements and later in their career transitions to other major institutes.
12. The primary goal of UKCMRI will be to understand the basic biology underlying human health and disease, driving forward better treatment and prevention of the most significant diseases affecting people today. The objectives and aspirations for UKCMRI are outlined in the Scientific Vision and Research Strategy2. The vision was developed by the Scientific Planning Committee, chaired by Sir Paul Nurse, and discussions included many of the world’s leading biomedical scientists, as well as representatives from the founding partners. Alongside discussions around research programmes, the vision also addressed the use, development and roll-out of innovative new technologies in order to open new avenues of research. UKCMRI will nurture a culture in which clinical and commercial translation is valued as highly as discovery research.
13. For CR-UK and the MRC, the institute presents an opportunity to build on the success of some of their current research institutes, specifically the CR-UK London Research Institute and the MRC National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) at Mill Hill. It will secure their future in a state-of-the-art, world-leading new institute which is exceptionally well located for clinical partnerships and national and international collaborations.
14. The MRC’s strategy is to undertake research that is most likely to deliver a step change in the potential for improved health outcomes, to bring the benefits of research to all sections of society, to secure progress in international medical research and to support and sustain a robust environment for world-class medical research. UKCMRI provides the opportunity for the MRC to optimise its contribution to translational research and to build upon the work of NIMR, moving to a new environment and location which offers greater opportunities for collaboration and delivers more from the equivalent level of resource funding for the current institute, currently capped at £42m. These issues are addressed in more detail in a separate memorandum submitted by the Director of NIMR, which also describes the contribution NIMR staff have made to the development of UKCMRI. Research programmes and activities transferring to UKCMRI will be subject to peer review and will be agreed by December 2012 under terms yet to be negotiated.
15. The London Research Institute (LRI) is the largest of CR-UK’s five research institutes. Its research programme focuses on the basic biology of cancer development and spread, and has been at the forefront of research in cancer biology for many years.
The LRI is currently located across a split site, with laboratories at Lincoln’s Inn Fields in Holborn and Clare Hall at South Mimms, Hertfordshire. The LRI’s split site, and its distance from appropriate academic and clinical partners, threatens to endanger its position as a world-leading cancer research institute.
The LRI's current buildings date from 1965 (LIF) and 1985 (CH). The 2006 LRI Quinquennial Review considered that "... the physical environment of the [Lincoln's
2 http://www.ukcmri.ac.uk/scientific-vision
40 Inn Fields building] was sub-optimal and will not sustain the continued success of the Institute in the long term."
With the move to multi-disciplinarity in biomedical science, the biologically-oriented LRI research groups are becoming increasingly collaborative and increasingly reliant on input from mathematicians, engineers and physicists to keep their research at the international cutting edge.
UKCMRI will create an outstanding multi-disciplinary environment for CR-UK's basic cancer biology programmes. Its researchers will at last be consolidated at a single site and their work will be enhanced through UKCMRI interests in imaging, physics, maths and other disciplines, integration into the broader medical and scientific environment of UCL and UCLH, and the complementary expertise coming to UKCMRI from the relocation of the MRC National Institute for Medical Research.
CR-UK’s expectation is that moving LRI research activity into the UKCMRI environment will help to significantly accelerate progress in the fight against cancer.
16. As a funding partner in the initiative, the Wellcome Trust is dedicated to the goal of establishing a new world class research institute for the UK. Its contribution aims to ensure that UKCMRI will provide an environment in which outstanding researchers from around the world can pursue big research questions, generating breakthroughs in knowledge and innovations that will enable major advances in health. The Trust's long term commitment to UKCMRI forms a key component of its activities to deliver its ten year Strategic Plan for 2010-20, and further its overarching vision to achieve extraordinary improvements in human and animal health.
17. UCL’s contribution to the long term success of the project will come from clinical collaborations and from the breadth and depth of its activities in the life sciences, chemistry, physics, engineering and computing. UCL’s key strengths include its commitment to interdisciplinary endeavour involving the physical and social sciences and the humanities; its commitment to research training and developing the next generation of life and clinical scientists; and extensive clinical collaboration. Interdisciplinary links of particular relevance to UKCMRI involve chemical biology, biomedical engineering, nanotechnology and computational science, all of which contribute to collective expertise in biomedical imaging. UCL is the academic partner in UCL Partners, involving four elite hospital trusts and the wider health community making it the largest Academic Health Science System in Europe. The reach of the partnership extends to a population of 6 million through the Joint Health Innovation and Education Cluster involving East London and Thames Gateway, providing a diffusion mechanism for health science advances. Population impact at scale is further enhanced through UCL’s strengths in population sciences and public and global health.
18. UKCMRI will provide all four partners with the opportunity to build and develop extensive networks locally, nationally and internationally with academia, industry and the public sector. It will support public engagement to build strong relationships with local communities and support public involvement and participation in research. As the project moves forward, opportunities are being explored to extend the partnership to include a number of other universities to expand the potential for collaboration and multi- disciplinarity.
Is the financing of the UKCMRI robust and justified, with particular reference to the public support for the project and the knock-on effect on budgets for other research?
19. In the current economic situation it is vital for the partners to drive forward this joint vision to build for the future and to support recovery in a sector where the UK has a lead position. This lead must be sustained in order to reap future commercial and health benefits.
41
20. In view of the level of public funding available to UKCMRI, effective scrutiny of financing and project management is essential. To ensure value for money and sustainability, the investment of public and charity funding in UKCMRI has been robustly scrutinised. Public funding, via the MRC, has been scrutinised by BIS and HM Treasury and the MRC’s economic case developed in line with the Capital Investment Manual and HM Treasury Green Book. Sensitivity analysis has been prepared around capital and operating costs to determine the viability of the MRC investment. The project has also been reviewed three times against Office for Government Commerce (OGC) criteria (see paragraph 6.6).
21. UKCMRI’s estimated operating costs of approximately £100m a year will be borne by the partners in line with the agreed governance arrangements. Operating costs will be determined to support the scientific agenda and will be subject to the outcome of the quinquennial peer review process. The quality of research at UKCMRI is also expected to support the institute in securing external funding from other UK, the European Union and other international bodies beyond that currently realised by NIMR and LRI.
22. All partners have factored the costs of UKCMRI into future investment plans; contributions to UKCMRI are regarded to be among the highest priorities for all partners. UKCMRI has also been earmarked as a high priority by Research Councils UK (RCUK) following a recent prioritisation exercise for proposals for large facilities projects across all of the research councils on the basis of high research merit.
23. The positive settlement for the MRC in the 2010 Spending Review will enable its overall research spend to be maintained. The £220m contribution to UKCMRI construction costs by the Department of Health will further protect continued funding of MRC research activities. Funding contributions from potential new partners will be directed into accelerating the establishment of the institute, and it is anticipated that returns from the sale of the site of the former National Temperance Hospital in Camden and the existing NIMR site at Mill Hill will be available to the MRC to support transitional costs. In the current economic climate, there is some risk that the anticipated return is not fully realised however the MRC is working to mitigate this risk as outlined below.
What are the risk assessment arrangements to ensure the safety of the site?
24. The JVA is the main vehicle for addressing risk assessment and management. Under the Agreement, UKCMRI Ltd has primary responsibility for maintaining the risk register and management systems and the assessment of security and safety: these issues are addressed in the UKCMRI Ltd memorandum, which outlines work with local and police authorities and security specialists engaged by the project to advise on threats relating to animal rights extremism, terrorism and the impact of public demonstrations. A security annex is included in the MRC business case.
25. Investment risk has also been addressed and mitigating action has been identified to manage financial and operational risks relating to procurement, changing requirements, financial constraints and third parties and the impact of potential delays on delivery and budgets.
What are the arrangements for the closure of the existing National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill?
26. CR-UK and MRC research programmes transferring to UKCMRI will form part of the new institute, subject to peer review. Research activities for CR-UK and MRC that are to be transferred will be agreed by December 2012 under terms yet to be negotiated.
42 27. The impact of the UKCMRI investment is reflected in the additions in both land and buildings and equipment lines in the MRC’s full business case. There is some uncertainty around the valuation of the site of the former National Temperance Hospital, which is wholly owned by the MRC. However, the MRC is taking steps to maximise the value of the property at National Temperance Hospital and Mill Hill to counter reduced property values. Current projections assume that the valuation will recover in line with any general recovery in property prices, leading to a return to the pre-2008/09 valuation by 2011/12. Disposal of the site is anticipated in 2012/13. MRC capital assets associated with UKCMRI remain on the balance sheet as assets under construction until the facility becomes operational in 2015/16, at which point they will be transferred to become an Investment in Associate as per the agreed accounting treatment. The MRC will retain only a proportion of the value of existing equipment transferred to UKCMRI in line with an agreement on ownership of assets. The proportion of the value of equipment transferred to UKCMRI is treated as a disposal in MRC financial statements which will be shown as a loss on disposal within the Income and Expenditure account in 2014/15.
This submission is made on behalf of the four UKCMRI partners:
Sir John Savill Chief Executive, Medical Research Council
Harpal Kumar Chief Executive, Cancer Research UK
Sir Mark Walport Director, Wellcome Trust
Professor Malcolm Grant, President and Provost of UCL
12 January 2011
43 Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Medical Research Council (UKCMRI 09a)
Inquiry into the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation
I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity for the MRC and the other founding partners of the UKCMRI to present evidence to your Inquiry into UKCMRI and to address the questions resulting from the written submissions. As you will recall, I agreed to write with further information on a number of issues. These included any conditions relating to the approval of the MRC Business Case, arrangements for the delivery and management of UKCMRI outlined in the Joint Venture Agreement for the partnership, the clarification of facilities for containment and the reference for the paper I referred to when discussing evidence around co-location and collaboration.
1. Government approval of the MRC Final Business Case for UKCMRI As I informed the Committee on 9 February, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) had just granted approval of the MRC’s business case for UKCMRI before the evidence session. This approval related to MRC participation in the UKCMRI project, the approval of MRC expenditure up to defined limits on construction and transition costs, and within an agreed annual profile. Approval was also granted for the MRC to gift assets from NIMR to UKCMRI. BIS’ approval of the business case was granted on the basis that:
o UKCMRI is one of the most significant developments in biomedical science for a generation. o The goal of UKCMRI is to understand the biology underlying human health, finding ways to prevent and treat the most significant diseases affecting people today. o UKCMRI will enable interactions between physical, biomedical and clinical scientists, playing a key role in ensuring that advances in biomedical sciences are translated swiftly and effectively into benefits for patients in the NHS. o UKCMRI will foster collaboration with other centres of excellence to harness the full capacity of this country’s brightest and best researchers for the benefit of patients and the economy.
Approval was granted on the following conditions:
o There is no successful challenge to the Planning Consent granted by the London Borough of Camden on 16 December 2010 o Any increase in costs to the MRC is at the MRC’s risk; the MRC must seek prior approval for any increase in its expenditure on construction or transition. o The project provides for at least the minimum number of researchers within the agreed financial envelope of the project as set out in the business case o UKCMRI provides a certificate to the MRC that VAT is not payable in respect to the building o The MRC remains a party to the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) signed in November 2010 and must clear any changes to this JVA with the department. o The MRC obtains the department’s agreement to the schedule of transition costs. o The MRC continues to ensure provision for a BIS representative to attend the UKCMRI Construction Project Board as an observer.
44
2. Joint Venture Agreement The Committee asked a number of questions around the governance arrangements for UKCMRI that have been agreed by the four founding partners. As we discussed, these terms are outlined in the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) concluded in November 2010 and which describes mechanisms for taking decisions, operating voting rights and the responsibilities and appointment mechanisms for key positions. UKCMRI has been established as a charitable company and has provided a redacted version of the JVA to the Charity Commission, this redacted JVA will be accessible via the public register and I enclose a copy for the Committee’s information. Only a small amount of commercially sensitive information has been redacted.
3. Containment Level Facilities There was significant interest in containment level facilities. As discussed, I can confirm that UKCMRI will have appropriate containment facilities to work on Human Hazard Group 3 agents and will not work on Human Hazard Group 4 agents. The planned containment facilities for UKCMRI are required to carry out research into important diseases such as influenza, HIV and tuberculosis.
Research into prevention and treatment of these types of diseases will make an important contribution to the Coalition Government's commitment to improvements in Public Health.
Containment level 3+ is not a formal classification but has been used to indicate enhanced control measures in level 3 containment facilities, if risk assessments indicate that these are desirable. An example of where this might be required is to handle particular strains of influenza.
These facilities will allow UKCMRI to continue all the present activities of NIMR on infectious disease, including the Influenza Centre.
4. Evidence for co-location I also agreed to provide the reference for the paper I referred to – ‘Does Collocation Inform the Impact of Collaboration’ - published in PLoS One. The details are as follows:
Lee K, Brownstein JS, Mills RG, Kohane IS (2010) Does Collocation Inform the Impact of Collaboration? PLoS ONE 5(12): e14279. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014279
Professor Sir John Savill, Chief Executive Medical Research Council March 2011
45 Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Medical Research Council (UKCMRI 09b)
I understand that the Committee has received a paper from Mr Frank Dobson MP in which he refers, among other matters, to the former National Temperance Hospital on Hampstead Road, and that the Committee would like further information from the MRC on the future of this site.
The site of the former National Temperance Hospital is wholly owned by the MRC. It was purchased in 2006, at a time when the MRC first had plans to relocate the National Institute for Medical Research to central London to locate it near UCL, UCLH and other clinical facilities. As you know, these plans then changed with the proposals for UKCMRI.
As the Committee is aware, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) approved the MRC’s final business case for UKCMRI in February 2011. The business case confirmed that the return from the sale of the land would be used to support the MRC’s funding for UKCMRI. In line with government guidance, the MRC is required to maximise the financial return on its land and property when it is sold, and we are now working with the Government Property Unit and others within BIS to achieve this. Disposal of the site is currently anticipated in 2012/13 and will take into account planning conditions and the quality of offers received.
Professor Sir John Savill Chief Executive Medical Research Council
22 March 2011 Written evidence submitted by Isabel Vasseur (UKCMRI 10)
An objection to the Creation of UKCMRI at St Pancras in London
1. I understand from contact with members of NIMR staff that there is absolutely nothing they can achieve from the UKCMRI project. Mill Hill already has a world wide reputation as being at the ‘forefront of global medical research’. By virtue of the scale and setting of the site Mill Hill provides resources which can never be duplicated at St Pancras. It not only provides all the essential practical, physical support for research of this particular sensitive nature, with plenty of room to expand, it also provides an unequalled social environment for the exchange of ideas.
2. As a tax payer I am appalled that such an unnecessary expense on an unnecessary building as the UKCMRI is being incurred when the sums mentioned would surely be better spent on research in existing labs. Equally, the fact that the colossal global sum for the erection of this inadequate behemoth will afford a much needed contribution to the Camden Section 106 fund, is not a reason to ignore the understandable disquiet of local St. Pancras residents at one end of the spectrum and scientists from all over the world at the other.
3. It appears that the closure of the NIMR started from the earliest discussion of its move to another location. Ever since the debate commenced Mill Hill has endured a type of blight typical of institutions whose future is unsure. Major figures have not quite known how to ally their future to that of the NIMR and one may imagine that research could suffer from a continuation of this state of affairs. What ever the decision it should be made as soon as possible, confident that if the UKCMRI is built, all the problems that will be incurred from the likely extreme behaviour of the antivivisectionists to the inevitable over run of the budget, can be dealt with without arresting the progress of medical research in the UK.
Isabel Vasseur. Wife of the retired head of Neurophysiology at the National Institute of Medical Research, MIll Hill, Professor Tim Bliss FRS.
12 January 2011
46 Written evidence submitted by St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action (UKCMRI 11)
Please find attached submission from SPA (St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action) to the Select Committee Enquiry into the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation
SPA, as a representative of the residents of St Pancras and Somers Town, (and as UK citizens, residents and taxpayers) has two primary areas of concern about the UKCMRI plan: safety and cost.
Safety Europe’s biggest such laboratory researching ‘killer diseases’ should not be sited in Brill Place, Somers Town, near to St Pancras Station, Europe’s biggest transport terminal, and at the heart of a crowded residential community, in light of the risk of a) an escape of pathogens into the atmosphere, or of infectious material via the water table into adjacent railway tunnels, or of b) the laboratory attracting international terrorists or animal rights activists that cause an escape through their actions.
Cost At a time of severe budget restrictions, with the science community fearing a 25% reduction in funding for research, spending £600m (£220m directly from public funds) on a building (with a further estimated £100m annual running costs) is not a sensible allocation of resources. No evidence has been presented for claims of the benefits of such a building.
Natalie Bennett, chair, St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action 12 January 2011
1 47
Written submission from SPA (St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action)
Background:
Like the Science and Technology Committee report of 2008, we at St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action (as local residents, and UK citizens, residents and taxpayers) welcome and support the concept of the creation of a leading medical research centre based in the UK. But we are opposed to the UKCMRI – Europe’s biggest biomedical laboratory researching ‘killer diseases’- being located beside Europe’s biggest rail terminal at St Pancras, and in close proximity to densely populated Somers Town. We believe that such ambitious medical research should further evolve on the 47 acre site at MRC Mill Hill, instead of the 3.6 acres at St Pancras. We are a group of residents who have long been opposed as individuals to the UKCMRI proposals and other encroachments in our ward, and formed our organisation in June 2010 (following years of earlier community meetings).
Terms of reference:
1. We acknowledge that UKCMRI have improved their proposal since 2008 in the appearance of the ‘superlab’ but we maintain that it is unsightly and unsympathetic and dominates its surroundings, as it is the equivalent of a massive factory structure in an urban and domestic setting, having to accommodate 1500 scientists and others in a small space. 2. In assessing the plans for the coming years, we would draw the Committee’s attention first to
a) The excavation. UKCMRI will descend four floors below ground level, and in so doing face the same challenges as The British Library did on the adjoining site, where it was necessary to drive foundations down more deeply than at most other sites in London, and where flooding of the basement delayed construction considerably. The descent will be through the water table, which will continue to flow around the foundations, and be a potential carrier of contagious matter into railway tunnels should such escape at any time in the future (as with Pirbright). Construction delays and competition for competent workers during the development of Olympic sites will raise costs. Noise and pollution from the massive excavation and from the haulage of spoil will oppress the local community and irritate drivers for years to come. These will be costs to the community and to London.
b) Operation. The Northern tube line will run beneath UKCMRI. Its vibrations (at present felt in the basement of The British Library) will disturb the functioning of sensitive instruments necessary for research. The cost of shielding them from such vibrations will be a high one.
c) The need for expansion. Clustering 1500 scientists and staff into one building will be a challenge if they are to work effectively. Having contracted the working site from 47 acres at Mill Hill to 3.6 acres at Brill Place, what will happen if some of the staff of 1500 instigate projects which need more space? Research teams, including those representing pharmaceutical companies, will be invited to bid for space and facilities. As these
2 48 become scarce, one assumes that priority will go to the bids that pay the highest, and these will be from pharmaceuticals, over whom UKCMRI and other authorities will have less chance of effective supervision (as with Pirbright). Pure scientific research will be less frequent, increasingly so as translational projects are given priority.
The advantage of space in relation to animal use at the Mill Hill site (only 25% occupied) is highlighted in a written Annexe to your committee of 8 February 2005 (attached) The memorandum of Steven Ley of NIMR on the advantages of Mill Hill and the inexplicable preference for central London are in Appendix 70 to your committee on 22 November 2004 (attached)
2. Hoped for achievements. a) We respect UKCMRI’s aims to have ‘a world leading research centre that will tackle diseases that affect us all’ (John Cooper, Interim Chief Executive, Camden New Journal 16 September 2010). UKCMRI will involve numerous hospitals and research centres in the Bloomsbury/Euston area. b) However we believe those aims could be achieved much more safely, economically and ambitiously by expanding the existing facilities at the National Medical Research Institute on its 47 acres site at Mill Hill, rather than by being confined to 3.6 acres at Brill Place. MRC Mill Hill enjoys relationships in translational science with laboratories all over the world, and works in collaboration with Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust and University College London. Why should not that configuration be renowned as Europe’s leading research institute sharing several sites, and maintain Britain’s position at the forefront of global medical research, strengthening the UK economy and through links with the NHS, change patients’ lives? Are these aims not being pursued at present? Why leave Mill Hill where space exists for truly ambitious expansion for decades to come? Why confine Europe’s leading research centre to 3.6 acres? Plan for the future, rather than succumb to the short term attraction of ‘a cathedral for science’ in a prime, but cramped and unsafe location. It is assumed that UKCMRI wish to be established for many decades, long after the individuals at present leading it, and their particular priorities, have been replaced by successors with their own priorities. c) Statements from UKCMRI suggest that the St Pancras site, within walking distance for the partners, and a convenient address for visiting scientists, will uniquely facilitate research because face to face communication will speed the research process significantly. We have asked them to produce a peer reviewed paper saying that this must be so, to no avail. We implore them to endure the sacrifice of less frequent meetings and the journey to Mill Hill, and assisted by e-mail, post and telephone, undertake research without the risk of a contagious spillage or errant pathogens infecting a community and an international transport hub. d) In Science 23 July 2010 , VOL 329 NO 5990, pp 380-381, Sir Paul Nurse described his vision for UKCMRI “One reason size is important is to have a multidisciplinary approach. Because it’s large, it doesn’t actually have to have a particular focus….About two-thirds of the 120 research groups will be at the junior end, in their 30s to early 40s..It won’t be divided into academic departments and divisions…Individuals can belong to several interest groups, they can withdraw from one to join another’.
3 49 e) Asked about the push for more translational research, Sir Paul said :”I’m beginning to think nobody has got on top of this properly. It’s worth looking at freshly. We have basic scientists, we have clinicians, we have the pharmaceutical industry.” This suggests that the principles and modus vivendi of translational research have yet to be ascertained. Surely then it’s safer to do this where there’s more space.
f) UKCMRI has stated that the Centre will accept bids for facilities by outside bodies including pharmaceutical companies, in order to successfully exploit innovations in Britain, rather than the USA profiting from them.. UKCMRI anticipate their activities will attract further capital to their laboratories. All these factors – ‘translational’ science, blurring of disciplines, financial exploitation of discoveries and outside bids will add to exciting, volatile, unpredictable activity. Wouldn’t there be more and safer scope for this at Mill Hill? Wouldn’t that be a safer long term investment?
g) According to Sir Paul Nurse, ‘the UKCMRI will provide the critical mass, support and unique location to tackle difficult research questions’. Does not ‘critical mass’ imply that researchers could get in each other’s way? Does not a ‘critical mass’ of 1500 staff on 3.6 acres imply a uniquely cramped location?
3. The financing of UKCMRI : - a) Who can be sure that it’s robust, given the possibility of cost overruns? £660 million in construction costs, of which government gives £220 million. We hear that running costs will be £100 million a year. What additional costs will accrue from dealing with the water table and potential flooding? What additional costs from protecting sensitive scientific instruments from interference from train vibration? What other costs from endeavouring to ensure that no pathogens escape? What costs from safety measures (4 below)?
b) The financing of UKCMRI is not justified, because £660 million (£220m from government) plus cost overruns will be spent on the construction of an exotic building taking several years, before any scientific research is carried out there. The £220 million should go not on a building, but immediately to scientific research and to education. The proportion of the £660 million which Cancer Research UK will contribute should go directly to research and not be spent on a building. The thousands of contributors donating to cancer charities would surely prefer an immediate application of those funds to research, rather than to a pretentious building taller than St Pancras Station that dwarfs and cuts off sunlight from nearby dwellings in an already disadvantaged community with many health problems.
c) There is little public support for the project in the St Pancras/Somers Town Area. Camden Council recently posted 700 letters to dwellings in the area close to the proposed ‘superlab’, seeking their responses. Ossulston Tenants and Residents Association, comprising 456 dwellings replied filing their objection and took part in a deputation. Others local groups which objected were Winston Tenants’ Association, St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action, King’s Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee, Camden Town Urban Design Improvement Society, RMT (offices locally) PCS Trade Union British Library Branch, Camden Friends of the Earth. Other objectors included the 20th Century Society, Action for Our Planet and The Animal Protection Party. Opposition was generally regarding safety and the architectural inappropriateness of the
4 50 building to those around it. Savage cuts to important services, including centres for the young and for the elderly, dispose local residents to resent and despise the propose ‘superlab’ despite the enticement of ‘sweeteners’ to the value of £10 million. Most of our neighbours prefer long term safety rather than a ‘cathedral for science’ which might cause disaster while claiming to be for the good of their health.
4. a) The risk assessment arrangements to ensure the safety of the site must acknowledge the possibility of a dangerous leakage at some time in the future, no matter what care is taken in construction. We published a long list of British laboratories fined in recent years for leakages (attached), to which UKCMRI replied: “Our scientists have an exemplary safety record”. They could not claim “a perfect safety record”, which would be preferable before siting UKCMRI where they intend. As their scientists do not have a perfect safety record, yet they wish to ensure there is no spillage, their construction and supervision and waste disposal costs must be far higher than at Mill Hill – and there will still be no absolute guarantee of safety. This leaves the possibility of an infection spreading through the local close, dense population, and through the railway tunnels at St Pancras International.
b) On October 4 2010 in a public meeting called by SPA, John Cooper acknowledged that the level of virulence with which UKCMRI would be experimenting could vary over time. We understand that MRC Mill Hill experiments up to level 4. Camden Council’s planning department recently acknowledged that UKCMRI envisaged experiments up to level 3+. What is the point of spending £660 million on a biomedical research centre if you are not equipped and prepared to experiment on all known viruses? We would be grateful if the Committee could address this question.
c) Risk assessment must also take into account the difficulty of effectively vetting all security staff and laboratory workers – in fact everyone in the building – if a possible internal terrorist threat is to be safely avoided. This will be expensive and painstaking for as long as UKCMRI is in operation. UKCMRI’s security management plan envisages elaborate safety measures, including maximising the stand-off if a vehicle carrying explosives is driven towards the laboratory, Such measures aren’t foolproof, e.g. in Iraq. A demonstration by animal rights activists could damage the building and result in a spillage. d) Though UKCMRI are negotiating a financial payment to the police for extra security, this is a further expense that will be greater because of siting UKCMRI in such a prominent and sensitive position. If any of the above hazards occur during the next 50 years, the results could be calamitous, as UKCMRI evacuates 1500 people, The British Library evacuates 1000 staff and readers (as has happened before) and St Pancras station has to be evacuated (as has happened frequently). If the railway system becomes infected, how far will this spread? How long before decontamination can be guaranteed and public confidence returns? Can the cost be born? It must be contemplated.
5. Whatever existing arrangements exist for the closing of NMRI at Mill Hill, these should be put on hold until the implications of cost and safety for UKCMRI are re- considered, in relation to cheaper and endless options of expansion at Mill Hill, and the critical need for funding of science and general education in Britain today.
5 51
Recommendations for action by Government
a) UKCMRI should be encouraged to seek alternative locations and configuration including Mill Hill, by which UKCMRI could achieve its aims with less risk, less cost, less impact on the landscape and on the local community. It should be encouraged to put money into actual scientific research, and ensure that government funds are so directed, rather than a fancy building.
Brill Place should be used for mixed development including housing as originally intended by Camden Council, with a children’s playground providing space into which passengers at St Pancras or staff and readers at The British Library could go during the evacuations which occur there.
b) Though there have been architectural costs relating to UKCMRI at Brill Place, it would be safer and more cost effective for the laboratories to be sited in safer, more spacious alternative locations.
APPENDICES
Written statement by NIMR employees 2005
Whilst the Division of Biological Services remains optimistic about the future of MRC's NIMR in partnership with UCL or KCL we foresee a number of major disadvantages to moving away from the Mill Hill site. These are principally: Loss of potential for expansion. The current Mill Hill site is located on a 47 acre site, only a fraction of which has been built upon. There is more than adequate space for expanding the animal facilities within the current buildings as well as constructing new units/buildings on the site within the secure perimeter fence. Future changes in legislation are likely to require larger rodent cages—therefore the space required to house our current numbers of animals is likely to increase, this can easily be accommodated at Mill Hill and must form part of the considerations of a site elsewhere. Loss of flexibility. The animal facilities occupy six buildings on the current site, all within a short distance from the main building. This provides unequalled flexibility to house different species, meet the needs of changing science and changes in legislation. The health status of the different units can be managed individually within central control minimising any disruption to the science in the event of a microbiological breakdown and the flexibility to treat, contain or rederive stocks quickly and efficiently. Reduced access to research models. All the current animal facilities are within easy reach of the main building and therefore scientists and support staff have access and a hands-on approach to the use of animals in their research. This is extremely important to ensure best use of animals and a responsible attitude to using animals in research with easy communication with animal care staff and experienced animal technicians. This ensures work is done promptly whilst ensuring the highest standards of care & welfare. We firmly believe that an animal unit remote from the science cannot encourage or meet best practice or ensure minimum numbers are used. Difficulties in staff recruitment. Many of the animal facilities within central London are experiencing problems with recruitment and retention of animal technicians. This is not a problem at NIMR. Currently, 70 out of 71 posts within Biological Services are filled. Experience from the Mary Lyon Centre should demonstrate the importance of having enough trained and committed technicians to stock a new unit. Experience from many animal units across the UK demonstrates that difficulties arise when there is a mix of MRC & University employees in 6 52 animal units. Waste. Apart from a waste of money and resources (a new SPF facility was opened at NIMR less than two years ago) the likely increased waste of animals is of concern to many within the Division and Institute as a whole. Currently our operations can provide models to a number of different research groups and sharing tissues and organs is commonplace. Inability to recreate containment facilities. This poses a real problem. Our Containment II to IV facilities have been carefully designed and managed to be able to meet the needs of the current work carried out in them, but also with adaptability and flexibility to be used for new models or potentially emerging diseases. Loss of training resources. Our facilities, especially those for Containment of pathogen infected animals, Aquatics and Transgenic species are of importance for training both scientific staff and animal technicians without impinging on the "day-to-day" work of the units. This would be hard to recreate elsewhere. Potential loss of SPF facilities. Our SPF facilities are unique and keep cost of animal supply at a very low level. There is a long list of practical advantages for retaining an MRC SPF supply unit: refinement and reduction of numbers due to critical mass/scale of the operations is a good example. It would be very difficult to recreate new SPF facilities and the time involved would impede progress of science. Reduced cost-effectiveness. Alongside our SPF facilities, the scale of the animal work at NIMR ensures a cost-effective practice—commonly as units decrease in size they become more expensive to run and maintain. Likely animal rights protests. Experience from Oxford and Cambridge indicates a likely problem from animal rights activists during the construction of new animal facilities. Additional security problems. It is unlikely that the protests that are observed on a Wednesday at Mill Hill will go away. The experience in dealing with this, and the safety of the site should not be ignored. Time involved in moving animal models. Duplication of models. Even if the SPF units could be moved as they stand, the remaining models at Mill Hill will need to be recreated elsewhere. This is a mammoth undertaking, as well as likely to increase the numbers of animals used (surgical rederivation of strains) and a huge and needless cull of animals at Mill Hill. There would be a significant time involved to recreate lines (see Mary Lyon centre) and therefore a delay in productive science. Accessibility of site for deliveries etc. The Mill Hill site is easily accessible for the continual need for deliveries of animal food, bedding and other essential supplies. Central London will have reduced access and is therefore a huge disadvantage. MRC-T's reliance on animal units. MRC-T currently requires the facilities of NIMR for translational research requiring animal models—loss of the Mill Hill facilities would be a huge blow to their work.
Kathleen Mathers Steve Clements Pete Dawson David Key RoseMary Murphy Paul Lynch Sarah Johnson Marie Caulfield Clare Brazill Alec Gallagher Alison Collyer Treena Carter
Select Committee on Science and Technology Appendix 70
7 53 Excerpts from Memorandum from Steven Ley, National Institute for Medical Research
3. …the Mill Hill site offers enormous advantages over the proposed central London sites. We have extensive research animal facilities (9,000 square metres; housing mice, rats, frogs and fish) which are unique in the UK in terms of their size and "state of the art" capabilities. These animal facilities form an essential part of our research infrastructure. Replicating this on a central London site would be very expensive and also difficult to achieve in view of the likely response from animal rights groups.
5…The Mill Hill site covers 47 acres, of which NIMR currently occupies about 25%. This provides the possibility of considerable expansion in the future, which could be funded by the MRC and also by inward investment from other stakeholders
7. The major rationale for relocation of NIMR to central London appears to be co- location with a research medical school in order to enhance clinical collaborations and translational research. However, the current NIMR already has extensive collaborations with clinical groups in London, in the rest of the UK and internationally, as demonstrated in submissions to the Task Force. …At present, we enjoy clinical collaborations with all of the major London research hospitals and their associated academic centres. …We believe that the MRC proposal to relocate NIMR from Mill Hill is associated with considerable risk and uncertainty. …We question whether this is prudent use of public funds.
9. … It is clear from the reports of the Task Force …that the option of NIMR remaining at Mill Hill was not properly discussed at its fifth and final meeting. We consider this a clear failure of management of the Task Force by the MRC. The subsequent decision to exclude the Mill Hill option was reached by e-mail and telephone conversations and agreed by a 5-4 vote. The five member majority was achieved by the casting vote of the Chairman.
22 November 2004
Letter printed in Camden New Journal page 19 , 9/9/10 Leak at Brill Place superlab would be catastrophic MANY unsafe laboratories fined - - so how safe is a superlab? As Somers Town residents learn of British research laboratories being fined for lax safety measures, they are amazed that the site proposed for UKCMRI – Europe’s biggest biomedical research centre - is right beside Europe’s biggest transport terminal. Plans for the ’superlab’ were submitted to Camden Council on September 1. The proposed site had been zoned by Camden Council for housing and community facilities. St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action (SPA) oppose the construction of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation at Brill Place, opposite St Pancras Station. 1500 scientists and staff would work on ‘killer diseases’ on a site of 3.6 acres. The Medical Research Centre is on a site ten times larger - 36 acres at Mill Hill. But UKCMRI told a parliamentary select committee in 2007 that Mill Hill would be sold – along with the National Temperance Hospital – to help pay for the new centre costing £600 million. This would leave UKCMRI with no large safe sites for experiments. SPA have learned of several laboratories being fined for lax safety, and wonder how many such cases have been unreported. The Press (north London) of July 10, 2010,
8 54 reported that the Health Protection Agency was fined £25,000 after exposing staff at its Colindale laboratory to a spillage of E.coli in October 2007. “Workers were exposed to a potentially deadly 0157 strain of E.coli when more than a million doses of the bug were leaked onto the floor from a trolley of hazardous waste…Judge Martin Stephens QC (at the Old Bailey) said it was only by “good fortune” that staff were not harmed by the spill. The HPA was also ordered to pay £20,166 in costs.” The Guardian of Tuesday April 22, 2008 said it had found “over 70 dangerous incidents in labs and breaches of health and safety regulations aimed at controlling dangerous pathogens over the past 10 years”. The Health and Safety Executive brought five prosecutions at universities, research institutes and labs attached to hospitals. Imperial College London was prosecuted twice in 1996 and fined £45,000. It was since issued with an improvement notice in 2003 for faulty disposal of genetically modified micro-organisms. Other cases involved The University of Edinburgh (fined £3,500) and the University of Birmingham (£10,000). The HSE has instigated three crown censures in the past 10 years, allowing it to act against government establishments that are immune from prosecution under health and safety law, such as Porton Down and the Central Science Laboratory in York. In the past five years, HSE issued at least 23 notices for laboratory breaches of regulations re substances hazardous to health, genetically modified organisms and health and safety; 42 investigations relating to diseases and dangerous occurrences in labs. Dr Ellen Nisbett, a malaria researcher at Cambridge University said: “We are extremely well trained in what we do…But if an accident does happen, it could be catastrophic. You just have to make sure it does not happen or locate the lab in an area where it is not so catastrophic if it does happen.”
St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action January 2011
9 55 Supplementary written evidence submitted by St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action (UKCMRI 11a)
Please accept the following responses to the hearing of 9th February 2011
Clustering Professor Savill said he could produce a peer reviewed paper on the efficacy of scientific clustering for scientific research (something SPA has sought for months from UKCMRI) Does the paper that Professor Savill cites specify as essential that clustering should be all in one building?
Space UKMRI acknowledge it will be impossible to expand on the 3.6 acres site. They might then expand into ‘satellites’ scattered around London and the UK (Edinburgh cited by Professor Savill). What is the point of getting everything and everybody into one building from surrounding sites, and then ricocheting research back to where it came from?
Funding Interested parties are entitled to have a more detailed financial estimate for building and extras than was provided on Wednesday 9th February by UKCMRI
Time Harpal Kumar stressed that UKCMRI would enable scientific advances to be speeded up. Even if this is so (we query that it is essential) scientific research will not commences at UKCMRI for many years. Their estimates range from six to eight years, by the time they get building completed, staff in place and research started. Despite Sir Mark Walport’s assurance that the partners’ track record would deliver this project on time, there could be delays. Assuming that all goes to plan – say seven years – then research will have to go quickly to make up for that lapsed time in which scientific research could have conducted throughout the period.
Safety On the subject of safety Sir Mark Walport says: “In terms of health and safety, health and safety is the responsibility of everyone working in a building”.
Rob Inglis wishes to cite his experience as a temporary clerk at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. When asked why he took so long to return with copies from the photocopier, he explained the only available route took a long time. His workmates described to him the shorter route that they all took. “But that’s through a room with skull and crossbones on the doors”. He was told yes, that was the route to take.
Human frailty cannot be eradicated, even by UKCMRI, in which there will be innumerable choices to make, and safety rules to be broken - near to a built up area and a large train terminus.
St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action February 2011
56 Written evidence submitted by Imperial College London (UKCMRI 12)
Key points
1. Imperial College London believes that UKCMRI presents an unparalleled opportunity for UK science, and will provide a cornerstone of the UK’s effort to retain its position as one of the global leaders in life and biomedical sciences. Bringing together the three leading funders of biomedical sciences in the UK will ensure maximisation of effort, capitalisation of opportunities and efficiency of research spend.
2. Particularly important for UKCMRI is the opportunity, through engagement with the University sector, to harness academic expertise in the physical and engineering sciences and provide breakthrough technologies for tomorrow’s societal and global challenges. Currently University College London (UCL) is the single academic partner in UKCMRI, but we believe that, looking to the future, engagement with other academic Institutions is crucial to its success. Bringing the complementary capabilities of additional academic Institutions with those that will transfer from the MRC National Institute of Medical Research (NIMR), the CRUK London Research Institute (LRI) and UCL would create a centre of excellence in the life and biomedical sciences unrivalled elsewhere in Europe and convincingly competitive on the global stage.
3. The inclusion of all three major Universities in London – University College London (a founder member of UKCMRI), Imperial College London and King’s College London (the latter two currently negotiating their accession to UKCMRI) – as equal partners in UKCMRI, would create an academic alignment of an unprecedented nature in the UK.
4. UKCMRI will provide the training ground for future leaders in biosciences who will increasingly have a multidisciplinary skill set and who will seed our Universities, biotechs and pharma of the future thereby playing a central role in wealth creation.
5. Alignment with the Academic Health Sciences Centres (AHSCs) and Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) of partner organisations will allow UKCMRI to fast track basic science discoveries directly into the clinic, thereby benefitting patients in a tailored and timely fashion.
6. UKCMRI will act as a magnet for talent from around the world, not only into the Institute itself but also to those partners with a stake in the organisation and more broadly to the UK. The location of UKCMRI will allow ready access via fast rail links to partner and collaborating centres in Europe.
7. UKCMRI will allow the UK to develop, as well as invest in, novel technologies and scientific equipment and allow access to state-of-the-art facilities to all academic as well as industrial partners in the UK.
8. Imperial College is committed to becoming an equal academic partner in UKCMRI with negotiations ongoing. Partnering with UKCMRI would provide mutually beneficial opportunities across all of our activities, from educating, training and nurturing the next generation of scientists through world-leading research partnerships and to translation of our ideas into solutions for healthcare challenges. In particular, the partnership would benefit from our strong ethos of multi-disciplinary working which is underpinned by our excellence in the cognate disciplines. We
57 would further bring to the partnership our established network of national and international collaborations as well as our recognised ethos of working with industry.
Review the progress on the UKCMRI since 2008 and assess the plans for the coming years.
9. Progress on UKCMRI since 2008 is well documented. Given the financial and political uncertainties of the last few years, the project has remained well on-track and this is underscored by the signature of the Joint Venture Agreement by the four founding partners, together with planning consent agreement in late 2010. Sir Paul Nurse, PRS, is an outstanding choice as founding Director and CEO of UKCMRI, taking up his post from Jan 2011 and this adds significantly to the confidence we have that the Centre will be delivered on time and to a high standard.
10. Imperial College recognises the enormous contribution made by the four UKCMRI founding members but considers for the future, that partnering with additional Universities will substantially strengthen the Centre and will be crucial for maximising the benefits that it can bring to the UK. The initial focus should, we believe be on London but we would wish to encourage collaboration with additional research organisations throughout the UK and beyond, although for primarily geographical reasons these are likely to be of a different flavour to those with the London-based Universities.
11. Discussions are currently at an advanced stage to enable accession of both Imperial College London and King’s College London to the Centre. As well as educational and training opportunities, Imperial’s physical sciences and engineering strengths would underpin the pre-competitive research programme of the centre. Imperial’s ability to work effectively and successfully in ‘big science’ multi-partner projects is exemplified by our strong presence at CERN. The academic partner’s AHSCs and BRCs will foster and enable the translational output from UKCMRI. Imperial College would also bring its industrial connections to the partnership, although we recognise that handling of IP could become a challenge for UKCMRI as multiple partners join from different sectors and this will need to be well understood and managed.
12. UKCMRI plans to open in 2015 and this presents a tight timeline for construction, fitting out of the building and its occupation. Although the scientific vision for the Centre is now published, plans on how this will accommodate current groups from both NIMR and LRI have not yet been published. In the period leading up to the centre’s opening there is an opportunity for collaborative work between the partners to be developed and commence and this is, we believe, to be encouraged. This will be facilitated by an early agreement on the accession of additional academic partners to UKCMRI.
What do the four partners hope to achieve from the project and what new technologies and innovations are being considered?
13. UKCMRI will “use interdisciplinary and innovative approaches to reveal the basic biology underlying the understanding of human health that is necessary to attack the causes of disease and death”. It has four key goals, to: create a world leading medical research institute with sufficient critical mass to enable cutting-edge, multi disciplinary, basic biomedical scientific research that will be translated into patient benefit; offer a unique training ground to deliver future generations of UK basic biomedical and clinical researchers;
58 support the nation’s biomedical research endeavour by acting as a catalyst to promote better networking, collaboration and fluidity; foster innovation and translation by setting a high priority to ensure that its scientific advances will be speedily exploited.
14. There is an understanding amongst the founding partners with which we most certainly agree that, in order to remain competitive internationally, the UK will need increasingly to work collaboratively as the scale of biomedical science demands and investment in this area by emergent economies increases. The partner organisations expect the collaboration to lead to raised productivity and expertise for all participants and the creation of a powerful tool to attract world-leading researchers in biomedical science to the UK. There is an expectation of a two-way exchange between participating institutions and UKCMRI, for instance between University partner(s) and UKCMRI and other Wellcome Trust, MRC and CRUK Institutes and UKCMRI. This will have important implications for future wealth creation, training of talented researchers for the 21st century, and novel approaches to patient care.
15. Imperial College believes that a critical mass of research and training in basic biomedicine of the breadth and depth outlined in the UKCMRI vision can be delivered most effectively with the involvement of appropriate university partners. The potential opportunities for novel, multidisciplinary research, the development of new technologies as well as educational and training opportunities will be maximised by interconnecting the strong physical and engineering sciences of other Universities, such as Imperial College, with the UKCMRI basic biomedical research base. We envisage a two-way flow of researchers between Imperial College, UKCMRI and its other partners to create and maximise a culture of opportunities, shared expertise and infrastructure.
16. UKCMRI will, we believe, create a culture and infrastructure for innovation and translation. Assuming that the negotiations to enable Imperial College to join UKCMRI are successful, then the outstanding track record that the College enjoys of translating its basic biomedical research into commercial and clinical successes, through Imperial Innovations plc and through its AHSC, may be a model for UKCMRI. For instance Thiakis Ltd., built on many years of research demonstrating that a specific peptide suppresses appetite and reduces food intake, has recently been acquired, in a deal worth up to £99.4m, by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals 4.5 years after the launch of the company by Imperial College. Imperial Innovations combines the activities of technology transfer, company incubation and investment. Its goal is to bring valuable ideas to market, either by building businesses or licensing to industry. Imperial Innovations was listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange in 2006 and has raised £66 million over three years. It has equity holdings in 80 companies spun out of Imperial’s research and has recently announced to the stock exchange a fundraising worth £140 million which will enhance support for inventions arising from research not only at Imperial College but also the universities of Cambridge, Oxford and University College London.
17. UKCMRI will build on technologies and innovations currently being developed at NIMR, LRI and UCL. New technologies that will be developed and employed are outlined in the UKCMRI science vision and include:
Model organisms Stem Cells Imaging Chemical Biology Systems Biology
59 Synthetic Biology
18. Imperial College has strength in all of these areas. In addition, our expertise in a variety of novel tools, technologies and approaches to biomedical science would complement UKCMRI enormously. Exemplars of our potential contributions include:
Neurotechnology: the fusion of neuroscience and one or more of electronics, mathematics, computing and genetics. High-throughput morphological and functional measurements: in support of basic science applications, including novel hardware, methods, instrumentation and robotics. Bionanotechnology: the development of nanostructured hybrid scaffolds for tissue regeneration and diagnostic and therapeutic nanoparticles. Developmental bioengineering and mechanobiology: the fundamental biophysics of organised tissue formation during embryogenesis and organogenesis; how cell/tissue function is modulated by mechanical stimuli. Miniaturization of analytical techniques and microfluidics: the investigation of systems, which manipulate, process and control small volumes of fluids, driven by a need for rapid, on-line measurements at low concentrations within fields such as DNA sequencing, protein analysis, DNA amplification, drug discovery, synthetic biology, high-throughput screening, medical diagnostics etc. Mathematical modelling, computation and systems approaches: the identification of underlying principles in noisy, complex systems and generation of novel, testable hypotheses. Bioinformatics: central to our ability to harness the explosion of genome and other information. Structural Biology: the study of molecular structures to allow biological understanding and rationale drug design. Synthetic Biology: Our approach combines Imperial’s robust engineering framework for the design and optimisation of new synthetic biology parts, devices and systems. Chemical Biology: Our approach focuses on quantitative experimental and theoretical topics in physics, chemistry and mathematics that are relevant to the understanding of biological macromolecules and their interactions. Imaging sciences: Our approach to ‘seeing’ biological processes in context and in real-time ranges from atomic level to whole body levels of resolution and draws on expertise particularly in chemistry, physics and engineering to provide novel solutions and technologies.
Is the financing of the UKCMRI robust and justified, with particular reference to the public support for the project and the knock-on effect on budgets for other research?
19. The facility is undoubtedly costly, but justifiably so if we expect UKCMRI to be a magnet for the world’s most talented researchers and to deliver internationally leading research excellence, state-of-the art facilities, a unique training ground and the maximisation of translation of scientific discoveries for patient and commercial benefit. In order for the UK to remain globally competitive in these areas a facility such as will be delivered by UKCMRI is, we believe, essential.
20. We view the development of UKCMRI as complementary to the existing investment in the research base and an opportunity to enhance collaborative and multi- disciplinary working. Our expectation is that funding from MRC and CRUK to UKCMRI will replace that currently invested in NIMR and LRI. The Wellcome Trust anticipates no diversion of resource from other facilities or funding streams in the future.
60
21. The inclusion of the National Institute of Health Research funding of ~£220m towards the building project underscores the commitment of government to this project and to the translation of novel basic findings to the clinic. It is essential, however, that the primary goals of UKCMRI remain founded in fundamental understanding of the behaviour of biological systems – which is the only basis on which we will retain a vibrant pipeline for translation into the future.
22. It is not anticipated that the UKCMRI will become a primary recipient of HEFCE QR funding. Secondees from the partner University(s) would be expected to be recipients of QR funding through their ‘home’ Institutions, but it would not be anticipated that this would perturb the distribution of HEFCE QR and Charity QR funding. It is essential that University partners retain the ability to access this funding for their secondees into UKCMRI whilst paying their fair share of UKCMRI’s costs.
Declaration of Interests Imperial College London is interested in becoming an academic partner in UKCMRI with equal academic status to UCL. If successful, Imperial’s financial commitment to UKCMRI will be equivalent to that of UCL.
Professor Maggie Dallman Professor of Immunology Imperial College London
11 January 2011
5 61 Written evidence submitted by The Public & Commercial Services Union (UKCMRI 13)
This submission is presented on behalf of the members of The Public & Commercial Services Union working in the British Library adjacent to the proposed site of the medical research laboratory
1. We are opposed to a plan which is using land initially intended as an integral part of the new British Library complex. 2. Personally, I have been a trade union representative for 30 years. I was involved with the talks concerning the planning and construction of the new British Library building in St Pancras. 3. It was a mammoth project with building ongoing for 15 years. 4. The complete British Library site was originally owned by the Department of the Environment. In the initial plans the land to the north was designated for additional book storage and conservation. Unfortunately insufficient government funding scuppered these plans. However the remains of a linking tunnel between the Piazza and the back of the building still exist as an offshoot from our Basement 2. 5. The present BL building at St Pancras was handed over to the BL board and the leftover land was given to the Department of Culture, Media & Sport. It is some of this leftover land that has been sold off for the medical research lab. 6. The British Library building took so long to complete because there were many technical problems to overcome. 7. For instance attention had to be given to flood prevention techniques following flooding in the basements prior to occupation. 8. In 2007 "The Times" broke the news that DCMS were selling the land to accommodate the largest medical research laboratory in Europe. At the earliest opportunity PCS in the British Library confronted the BL management team. Our management said they had no involvement in the decision to sell the land. The issues of concern to staff were nothing to do with the British Library. 9. Other attempts have been made to raise the issues but all to no avail. It seems the health, safety & welfare of staff is not a major concern to our management. 10. Our building's close proximity to the lab & its danger of suffering water contamination together with the heightened threat of terrorist/eco warrior attack gives cause for concern about dangers for the staff. 11. If there are evacuations from the St Pancras/BL complex another 500 individuals from the have to be dispersed somewhere. 12. It is inappropriate for a large medical lab to be built in areas of dense population. Not only is it adjacent to 1,000 staff in the British Library it is close to a well populated residential area & a major London transport complex.
The Public & Commercial Services Union
12 January 2011
62 Written evidence submitted by Action for our Planet (UKCMRI 14)
Action for our Planet (AFOP) is a UK based website and organisation which helps contribute to a better planet. Below is our contribution to the Science and Technology Committees inquiry.
Declaration of interests: We have no financial interests in the project. We only seek to express our concerns over the research facility.
Term of reference 3- Is the financing of the UKCMRI robust and justified, with particular reference to the public support for the project and the knock-on effect on budgets for other research?
1: While the four founding organisations involved in creating the UK Centre for Medical Research & Innovation plan to invest £600 million in the new project, the government plans to invest a large financial sum of £220 million over four years. Investments by the four founding organisations; the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust and the University College London come from non-governmental sources including donations and patrons. In contrast, the coalition government’s investments into the project uses public money which could be invested elsewhere.
2: While welfare funding will be cut by a projected £11 billion by 2014/2015 and unemployment is to peak at around 8.1 % in 2011, this large investment seeks to contradict the rest of the government’s spending. While many departments such as education and defence are faced with making billions in spending cuts, the UK cannot afford to invest £220 million into a project that may produce less than desired results. While creating new medical facilities is important, this particular facility aims to conduct tests on animals. Animals have been used in experiments for years and often yield unreliable results. This unreliability of using animals for experimentation is exemplified by the fact that many animals have completely different reactions to drugs in comparison with humans. For example, rats have different gene repair systems to humans which makes them highly susceptible to cancer. In other cases the use of certain drugs like penicillin has killed animals whereas it has the opposite effect on humans. The use of animal experimentation, is just one example of misapplying investments as the research itself has a chance of producing unreliable results.
3: The planned UKCMRI will be located by St Pancreas station in amongst public places including shops and housing. There is a chronic shortage of housing in Camden with overcrowding becoming a more serious problem every day. With this overcrowding comes poverty and people become susceptible to bad health and may suffer from a downgraded quality of life. Before the building plot for the new research facility was purchased for an undisclosed sum, Camden City Council had plans to use the plot of land for community facilities. These facilities included community spaces like parks and housing (both private and rented housing). If these plans were adopted originally then Camden’s overcrowding problem could have been resolved.
4: This project could also cause a knock-on effect as there would be more focus on this
63
particular research facility and less focus on others. This could lead to a lack of funding for other vital research programmes. With all government investments, money has to be taken from one project, institution or facility and applied to another project. This means the money could have been taken from the education or welfare where the money would have been so vitally needed.
5: While the facility plans to offer 1250 scientific jobs, 250 supporting role jobs as well as employment for hundreds of construction workers, the government investment of £220 million could easily be applied to more cost effective projects. For example, the £220 million could be invested in dozens of different programmes including creating new businesses, community facilities and expanding existing business sectors including the energy sector thereby, creating thousands of jobs. Alternatively the money could be used to help stop thousands of individuals from becoming unemployed. Whether by providing additional funding to hospitals and schools or by supporting workplaces and encouraging them to keep their staff.
We hope you will consider our concerns over the UKCMRI.
Oli Dillon Squire Action for our Planet
12 January 2011
64 Written evidence submitted by GlaxoSmithKline R&D (UKCMRI 15)
1. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) would like to offer some comments to the House of Commons Science and Technology on its inquiry into the establishment of the UK Centre for Medical research and Innovation (UKCMRI), the proposed biomedical research centre being founded by the Medical Research Council (MRC),Cancer Research UK (CR-UK), University College London (UCL) and the Wellcome Trust.
2. It would not be appropriate for GSK to comment on a number of issues identified in the terms of reference that relate, for example, to the financing of UKCMRI, to proposals for risk assessment arrangements for the safety of the site or to the aspirations of the individual partners in the project. However, we do welcome this opportunity to put on record our support for UKCMRI’s vision, and believe that it will become a fundamental driver for the UK biomedical research base, which continues to support the UK’s ongoing success in the biopharmaceutical industry sectors. Without a doubt the research and biomedical training environment that will be created through UKCMRI will lead ultimately to improved patient and economic benefit for the UK.
3. GSK, headquartered in London, employs almost 100,000 people and is one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical and healthcare companies developing innovative medicines and products that help millions of people around the world. GSK produces medicines that treat major disease areas such as asthma, virus control, infections, mental health, diabetes and digestive conditions. In addition, we are a leader in the important area of vaccines and are developing new treatments for cancer. Almost 40% of GSK’s R&D is carried out in the UK with one of our major global research centres based at Stevenage – just 28 miles north of London.
4. GSK’s continued investment in the UK is based firmly on our ability to work closely with world-class collaborative partners in biomedical research in the UK’s academic research base and our access to high quality scientifically trained staff - including those likely to be trained and employed by UKCMRI.
5. Interdisciplinary and translational research have long been at the core of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. GSK believes that the vision of the UKCMRI partners in ensuring that its researchers will be able to develop key interdisciplinary links is an exciting approach to the fostering of innovation in the biomedical sciences. Locating high quality research scientists adjacent to clinicians in the world class teaching hospitals to be found in London and the surrounding area will have a major impact on research into understanding disease mechanisms, and in translating these basic discoveries into clinical investigation. This is widely recognised as one of the major bottlenecks in the development of new treatments for unmet medical need.
6. The establishment of UKCMRI will be a major stimulus to the further development of the growing biomedical research cluster in London and the South East. It was recently announced that a new science park is to be developed at Stevenage. The Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst is a joint venture between the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, GlaxoSmithKline, the Wellcome Trust, the East of England Development Agency and the Technology Strategy Board. Construction on the £38m development, which will be an independent bioscience facility, has started on this site located next to the GSK R&D campus in Stevenage. GSK expects that tenants at the science park will be able to benefit from the networks and expertise of the sponsor organisations and will be able to establish close working links with other researchers in the region, including as and when appropriate with those at UKCMRI. GSK views the relative proximity of UKCMRI, the Stevenage
65 Bioscience Catalyst and the academic powerhouse of London, Cambridge and Oxford as an important factor for the success of each project. We believe that the proposed location of UKCMRI will be a major contribution to its success. It will enhance the capabilities and output of surrounding institutes and will become a magnet for high calibre researchers.
GlaxoSmithKline R&D
January 2011
66 Written evidence submitted by Professor Guy Dodson, FRS, FMS, ForMemINSA (UKCMRI 16)
1. My Background. I have been working in the bio-medical field since the 1960s, first at the Universities of Oxford and York and then NIMR.
In 1993 I went to NIMR to a position joint with the University of York, and established the Protein Structure Division. My experience here opened up to me the critical importance of institutes like the NIMR for effective bio-medical research.
2. My concerns
In this submission I will concentrate on the NIMR perspective in the arrangements associated with UKCMRI
2.1 The dissolution of the NIMR.
The plans for the UKCMRI mean the dissolution of the NIMR. However the Select Committee in its earlier deliberations on the future of the NIMR has always insisted that the research capacities of the NIMR (and the LRI) should be enhanced by the future arrangements at the UKCMRI. I see this as a fundamental commitment of the MRC.
I see some specific difficulties in achieving the enhancement in the research capacity at UKCMRI. These are addressed in the sections below.
2.2 Finance.
All the major issues raised by the Committee come down to the availability of funds. It should be noted that in the past the Select Committee has had reason to be critical about the financial management of the various MRC plans for moving NIMR to central London.
In the Terms of Reference the Select Committee asks whether the finance is robust and justified.
I take ‘robust’ to mean that the funds are securely available and that
67 they are fully adequate for the construction of the laboratories to the highest scientific and technical standards. I am concerned that £600million, the stated available funds for the building, will turn out simply not be sufficient. Secondly, detail is needed about the £100million per year for supporting the planned research level and for running and maintaining the building.
2.3 The building and the housing of research equipment.
2.3.1 Structural Biology laboratories.
I fear that the £600million funding will not be sufficient to meet the uncertainties in building and equipping the laboratories. For example the UKCMRI will contain such equipment as electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy and x-ray and NMR devices. For their effective operation the electromagnetic fields and vibrations generated by the nearby underground must be controlled to very low levels indeed. The engineering to solve these problems cannot afford to fail but the problems and expense here are hard, probably impossible, to predict. Failure to create a superb experimental environment for structural research would undermine the raison d’etre for moving. There is a need to see bulletproof engineering and financial arrangements in this area.
2.3.2 Category 3+ laboratory.
The funds needed to ensure the proper safety and advanced technical levels for the Category 3+ laboratory are very considerable and have unpredictable aspects; it is vital that the costs are identified as far as possible, but most important they need to be robustly funded for contingencies. With influenza and other fearfully problematic infections such as HIV and drug resistant TB now real threats, the Category 3+ laboratory is a critical and strategic element for the bio-medical research of the UKCMRI. Failure to fund the category 3+ laboratory on site would profoundly weaken the UKCMRI’s credibility in translational science and would undermine the scope of the UKCMRI concept. It would lead to the untenable and embarrassing situation where the facilities at UKCMRI were less fit for purpose than those currently available at NIMR.
2.4 Running and maintenance costs of the UKCMRI.
According to the information available there will be £100million per
68 year running costs to cover salaries, consumables, equipment purchase and maintenance. At present the NIMR gets about £40million a year for its running costs from the MRC. There is an increased salary cost in doing research in central London compared to outer London/Mill Hill; most estimates put the increase in total running costs (including salary) in central London at not less than 25%. Thus the Committee needs to investigate the MRC strategy on NIMR/UKCMRI salary and running costs and establish what its expenditure plans are and how these affect MRC-staff.
Obviously the MRC element of funding the UKCMRI will be critically important to the institute’s success and future development; this information is crucial in assessing UKCMRI viability. One should note that a running budget for the NIMR/MRC component limited to the present amount of funding would lead to fewer staff at the UKCMRI with a consequent reduction in the overall scientific output - not the expressed intention!
2.5 MRC policies for intra-mural research.
In the context of the NIMR/UKCMRI issue it is clearly important to know what the MRC’s longer term policies/intentions are for intra- mural (institute) funding. In particular the Committee might explore the MRC’s long term commitment to direct funding at UKCMRI; ie. is this commitment limited to 10 years or will it continue indefinitely.
If there is an intention to reduce intra-mural institute research I would be both disappointed and surprised; there is powerful evidence that bio-medical research gets important benefits from institute-based research. My own experience of institutes and universities supports this view.
2.6 The transition from NIMR to UKCMRI.
2.6.1 Research staff appointments at NIMR.
The career structure at UKCMRI is, I understand, not yet decided. It would be valuable to know what plans are under discussion, and what level of consultation there is, or will be, on this issue.
In the NIMR tenured research staff constitute about 10% of the institute’s complement. This seems to me to be a very successful
69 model that balances security and commitment.
2.6.2 The funding mechanisms for research in the UKCMRI.
The merging of the institutes will presumably be accompanied by new financial arrangements involving CRUK and the Wellcome Trust (charity funds), MRC funds and some University College funds. It is a worry that the funding complexity will interfere with its smooth integration and the seamless distribution of funds and resources needed for effective fast-footed research. I am not aware of any decisions on this fundamental matter but I imagine there has been discussion and it would be helpful to know whether some general principles have been established.
2.7 The future of the NIMR site.
There is also the question as to the future of the NIMR site. As a working institute it has immense value, as land however it is apparently worth only £40million. The site’s 40 acres allows all sorts of possibilities – including superb animal house facilities! I wonder if its laboratories can continue be used or leased, rather than sold.
3. Consultation and transparency
The magnitude of the investment and the acute shortage of research funding means it is inevitable that building and running the UKCMRI will impact on the nation’s research funding.
In this situation the biomedical research community’s view on the UKCMRI is an unknown and it ought not to be. At the time of the open consultations sponsored by the MRC in 2003 and 2004, the great majority of those who responded were against NIMR moving; many of those expressed concern at the cost consequences for extramural MRC-funded research. I strongly suspect that those concerns have not gone away.
I consider that transparency in the UKCMRI process is essential and that consultation on the investment is appropriate, helpful and important. This is an exercise that the Select Committee might want to explore.
4. Conclusion.
70 4.1 Financial pressures.
This enquiry comes at a critical stage in the development of the UKCMRI. The UKCMRI concept is ambitious and comes at a huge price. The desperate state of the national finances may well be with us for a considerable time, creating a danger that the bio-medical research goals will not be achieved.
I hope the Committee will be able to satisfy itself that the financial arrangements will allow the UKCMRI to be built and maintained to the highest standards. Otherwise a prodigious amount of research-directed monies will be wasted and two outstanding institutes lost.
4.2 Transparency and consultation.
I believe the momentum generated in the creation of UKCMRI has been at the expense of rigorous scientific evaluation and consultation. It would be hugely disappointing if this project failed to live up to expectations because of shortcomings in these fundamental processes.
Professor Guy Dodson, FRS, FMS, ForMemINSA
12 January 2011
71 Supplementary written evidence submitted by Professor Guy Dodson and Dr Tim Bliss (UKCMRI 16a)
I attach some comments on NIMR staff morale and in confidence some of the historical management that NIMR has experienced. These comments come from me and Tim Bliss, like me a retired NIMR staff scientist.
For me there are two questions. The first is not usefully addressed at your meeting tomorrow, the second is. Clarification on these issues are key to staff morale. Paul Nurse et al. should be able to provide some answers to question 2.
1. What do the staff know about the arrangements for their future? How will the quinquennial reviews impact on future planning and decisions?
2. What are the scientific strategies that will be followed by the UKCMRI and how do they relate to those existing at NIMR and LRI? How will staff from NIMR and LRI be chosen? How will the emphasis on translation be increased?
I write with a colleague, Dr Tim Bliss FRS, who retired as Head of Neurosciences at NIMR in 2006. We wish to emphasise the importance of robust funding arrangements for UKCMRI in order to maintain staff morale. The committee will be pleased to know that the Divisional quinquennial reviews have recently been completed; they confirm that the research continues to be excellent and there is much in these reviews to be pleased with.
The morale of NIMR staff is of critical importance, and although we are now retired from NIMR, we would like to make some comments based on our experience of the Institute. NIMR on its current site offers a superb scientific and working environment that is hugely valued by its staff. Nevertheless, those NIMR staff involved in the development of UKCMRI have shown a full and admirably professional commitment to its planning and design. They are motivated by assurances that UKCMRI will exceed the joint research capacities of the two institutes it will replace (NIMR and the London Research Institute, run by Cancer Research UK). It is essential that the commitment
72 shown by NIMR staff to UKCMRI is matched by equal commitment from the MRC and its partners to guarantee adequate funding for the new Institute.
In this connection it is essential for staff morale that they can have confidence in the scientific strategies at UKCMRI and we wonder if these are known and have been discussed. Secondly it is critical that funding for the NIMR by MRC is going to be properly preserved until the move to central London. The previous MRC CEO undertook to maintain NIMR funding until the move to central London. We assume that this policy will be continued. The MRC cannot afford planning blight at NIMR and such problems as retention and recruitment.
CONFIDENTIAL [xxx]
Tim Bliss and Guy Dodson 15 February 2011
73 Further supplementary written evidence submitted by Professor Guy Dodson (UKCMRI 16b)
I write having heard the recordings of the two sessions, one with John Savill et al., the other with Paul Nurse et al.
Some of my particular worries were addressed in the inquiry. Thus I was pleased with the questioning on the future of the NIMR staff. The outcome: "the vast majority" will be translocated, is exactly what the NIMR staff needs to hear and the future of the UKCMRI requires.
The explicit undertaking to maintain core support for NIMR until it moves - 2018 apparently – was also welcome. What did not emerge however is that the ~£40million that NIMR gets at Mill Hill gets in running costs does between 20- 30% less in central London. This implies either reducing staff, running resources or a reliance on outside funding. The deficiency in core funding that £40million implies will inevitably impact on the research funds for other research centres - especially the universities. So here is an important financial issue that remains unexplored.
I was disappointed to hear Paul Nurse dismissing the Mill Hill building as not up to standard, indeed in more need of refurbishment than LRI. This view of a dilapidated 1930s building was first put about in the early days by MRC. However the report from the structural and engineering consultants commissioned by the MRC, in 2005, was clear – the building was completely sound and was entirely fit for purpose for the next 30 years. The laboratory and utility spaces can be adapted easily to meet the highest current standards. If the arguments for the central London option are so good they don’t need misinformation about the Mill Hill building. This issue has already been addressed by the Select Committee in its earlier enquiries.
The category 4 issue has raised its head again. It is not at all clear to me whether the tensions here are financial, social or technical. There are certainly technical complexities* here and these were avoided in the rather muddled discussion. Maybe it is best to settle this issue by correspondence.
*The containment categories are regulated by two agencies: HSE and DEFRA. It is intended to merge the two systems and it is expected that the new category level arrangements will always be the higher between the HSE and DEFRA requirements, as is now the current practice. For example H5N1 avian influenza is regulated as category SAPO 4 by DEFRA.
Finally I was surprised by the claims that the Wellcome Trust steered the synchrotron to completion, under budget and early. The Wellcome Trust provided 14% of the funds, the government 86%. The project’s management reflected this.
74 Professor Guy Dodson, FRS, FMS, ForMemINSA
22 February 2011
75 Written evidence submitted by Camden Green Party (UKCMRI 17)
The following submission is made in particular to numbers 2, 3 and 4 of the inquiry’s terms of reference.
Regarding Term 2 What do the four partners hope to achieve from the project and what new technologies and innovations are being considered?
Site limitations 1. It might be assumed that, in light of the importance the partners place on the project, they would expect the UKCMRI to grow and expand in coming years, to continue to develop as an institution. In this case the choice of site would appear to be extremely ill-advised, given that the planned structure is already in planning terms a grow overbuilding of the site, and there is no room in the vicinity to expand. It is bounded by the British Library and St Pancras station to the east and south, which might be reasonably considered perpetual site occupiers, and to the west and north by densely packed social housing (in the case of the west Grade II listed buildings), and a park.
2. It has nowhere to go for expansion. If by contrast the institution were to be built on the existing Mill Hill site, there would be extensive expansion opportunities.
Scientific basis unproven 3. The consortium claim that there are benefits in efficiency and effectiveness of scientific research in concentrating researchers from different disciplines on one site, but despite consistent requests over a period of many months from Camden Green Party have failed to provide any research from a peer-reviewed journal or other appropriate source that there is any evidence for this claim. In an age of teleconferencing, or multiple choices, the claim that workers need to be in the same physical space to exchange ideas and work together looks very like a concept from another age, not an innovative (and cost effective) way forward.
Regarding Term 3 Is the financing of the UKCMRI robust and justified, with particular reference to the public support for the project and the knock-on effect on budgets for other research?
High spending on a building 4. At a time of severe budget restrictions, with the science community fearing a 25% reduction in funding for research, spending £600m (£220m directly from public funds) on a building (with a further estimated £100m annual running costs) is not a sensible allocation of resources.
Use of charitable donations 5. A significant part of the funding for the UKCMRI is through Cancer Research UK, which is heavily reliant on public donations. Camden Cllr Claire-Louise 1 76 Leyland told the council planning hearing that as a voluntary fundraiser and donor for cancer research she was gravely concerned to see funds to which she has contributed spent on such a grand and expensive structure, rather than on actual research. Public support for the charity is likely to be reduced as awareness of this use of donations spreads.
Private profit from public facilities 6. The UKCMRI has stated that the Centre will accept bids for facilities by outside bodies including pharmaceutical companies. This creates serious questions about the use of public facilities by private, for-profit companies, and given the many recent cases of pharmaceutical companies behaving in dangerous, illegal and inappropriate manners, is likely to significantly impact on public support for the project.
High-risk, high-cost site 7. The choice of site is high risk, given the need for huge, expensive excavations to a depth of five storeys in a densely packed residential/central London location. This will mean significant additional costs in managing the disposal of spill. Given the significant overruns in time and expense that affected the adjoining British Library, it cannot be assumed that this building project can be delivered either on time or on budget.
Harm to local community 8. The community in which the UKCMRI is to be located is a disadvantaged one, with significant existing health and welfare problems, one indicator of which is the fact that it has a male life expectancy 10 years below that of Hampstead, just a mile to the north. Placing the UKCMRI on this site, instead of other potential uses such as community facilities that could address some of the area’s deprivation, will have a negative effect on the health of the community, as will the loss of light, air and pollution that it will cause. The costs of this will be human but also financial – extra costs for the NHS and social services.
Regarding Term 4 What are the risk assessment arrangements to ensure the safety of the site?
Flu is dangerous 9. The UKCMRI consortium has frequently stated that they’ll “only be working with flu” on the site – that would be the virus that in 1918 caused a global pandemic that killed between 50 and 100 million people, and that twice in recent years, as bird flu and swine flu, has caused expensive global panics. To choose to place this high-visibility facility handling other dangerous infectious agents almost literally within spitting distance of one of Europe’s largest transport hubs, which carried people around the UK and across the continent (direct trains to Berlin expected to start soon, in addition to Paris/Brussels links), belies common sense. Yes, there are other labs in the area working on the same diseases, but they are far smaller, long-established (often the result of centuries-old historical development rather than any kind of planning) and not in such immediate proximity to such a significant link.
2 77 Will it be safe in 50 or 100 years? 10. It may be the safety precautions instituted now will be effective for the first period of the building’s use. But what about in a decade, in 20 years, in 50 years, even 100 years? Pipes rust, joints get loose, records are misplaced or lost, humans are fallible. As Britain expensively saw with the Pirbright foot and mouth outbreak, systems go wrong – particularly where as in this case a number of institutions are linked together over a long period of time.
Conclusion 11. The UKCMRI consortium has failed to show significant benefits for this particular site for its planned facility. But there are obvious and significant risks which mean the committee should oppose its placement on this site.
12. The committee should also be seriously questioning the use of public (and publicly donated) money meant for medical research on a mere building, particularly at a time of desperate austerity. The UKCMRI is a 20th-century idea that does not fit the realities of 2011.
Cllr Maya de Souza Natalie Bennett On behalf of Camden Green Party
12 January 2011
3 78 Written evidence submitted by Councillor Roger Robinson, St Pancras and Somers Town Ward (UKCMRI 18)
As one of the ward councillors for St Pancras and Somers Town Ward in the borough of Camden I wish to render my views as to why I and many local residents opposed the UKCMRI development of a medical research centre on the land behind the British Library.
1. The original planning brief for that land was not for a 10 storey building however one appreciates the need for medical research – the land was designated for social housing predominantly.
2. We have no land left in Camden to build new housing to meet the needs of the 17,000 plus on the housing waiting list - there is to be social housing on the adjoining Kings Cross Development but not enough to meet the needs of those most vulnerable in our community; elderly, disabled and large families.
3. The national government are imposing massive cuts on the local authorities which means the closure of Age Concern centres such as Hill-Wood in my ward; of possible closure of play groups like Plot 10 also in my ward; and closure of Families in Focus etc plus libraries, youth centres, voluntary organisations etc and yet are partly funding the UKCMRI centre to the sum of £220 million while Camden Council are having to meet massive cuts in all its services.
4. We need that land for housing and leisure facilities like sitting out areas - Somers Town is heavily built up and deprived - to have huge buildings now taking away light form surrounding flats like the Ossulston estate is simply not acceptable.
5. The land itself is small and yet the existing medical research centre in Mill Hill is massive - why transfer to Euston?
6. There is fear of security risks from those groups that might demonstrate etc on the site due to their opposition to animal experiments.
7. The traffic flow will increase into adjacent streets like Purchese Street; Ossulston Street, Midland Road etc.
8. There is probable loss of light to the estates nearby like Coopers Lane estate; Ossulston estate (Levita House and others).
9. I have an interest as a ward councillor representing the area of St Pancras and Somers Town.
I therefore oppose this development. Camden Council’s Development Control Committee approved it despite local opposition and they were told that if the council did not approve it then there was no doubt that the Mayor of London would.
I am concerned deeply - I have made the points regarding the massive sum allocated by this Government to it whilst massively cutting back on funding for local facilities and organisations. It is simply not what one expects from local or national government.
I hope the Science and Technology Committee will accept my views.
Councillor Roger Robinson St Pancras and Somers Town Ward
13 January 2011
79 Written evidence submitted by John Mason (UKCMRI 20)
Operation, role and purpose of the UKCMRI ‘super-lab’
I should declare an interest as a local resident and an opponent of the Brill Place development. However, during the campaign against building the new centre in Somers Town, wider issues came to light. In an ideal world, it would have been better had these been discussed within the wider scientific community and with local residents before the MRC and its partners helped themselves to a site already earmarked for another purpose.
1. Operational difficulties and risks associated with the Brill Place site: This is a building that will need to be fortified from within and without. The only breakdown of uses in Camden Planning Department’s report to its committee (Agenda 16 December 2010, p20) is between laboratory space (35,168 m2), plant & circulation (48,303 m2) and non-residential space (462 m2). The operational plant, taking up 57.5% of the total floor space against 41.9% laboratory space (with a mere 5.6% for other uses), makes this more industrial than anything else. Even the research to be carried out will be on an industrial scale. This suggests that industrial hazard with a range of risks including air quality, flooding, noise and vibration is more of a potential problem than biohazards or security. The extent to which this should have been discussed with regulatory bodies remains unclear.
2. Mix of activities within the new building and its public role: The move from Mill Hill to a more restricted site with a high plot ratio (4.5:1 as opposed to the 6:1 typical of high density London offices) suggests that room for other activities will be severely restricted. It is claimed that the project will be a world class research centre located close to a major national and international transport hub. But since less than 6% of its space can be devoted to public uses, there are doubts whether it can match this aspiration. The model it should aspire to is the adjacent British Library, which fulfils the dual roles of a specialist institution with a strong public role. The space available for public use in the Brill Place development precludes this.
3. Possible conflicts of interest arising from the MRC’s relationship with its new sponsors/partners: What are the implications of the effective merger of three bodies (MRC, UCL and Cancer Research UK, financed to a large extent by the Wellcome Foundation) for the role of the MRC as a public body? Within this network of relationships, what are the ethical risks? No-one disagrees with the consortium’s objective of speeding up the process of getting research ‘from bench to bedside’. However, the use of this phrase implies shortcuts at the expense of the longer-term goals of medical science and research practice. How closely are we prepared to allow the National Institute for Medical Research to become aligned to the pharmaceutical industry? And where and how will the demarcation lines be drawn?
One further mystery is the comparison with other international centres. The MRC and its partners give no indication of any plan or standard by which they will be judged at an international level. In the only brochure made available to the public, they cite the French research organization INSERM and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory at Heidelberg. Sir Paul Nurse has also mentioned the Howard Hughes Medical Research Center near Washington DC. But there is no mention of similar centres in Beijing and Singapore. American research enjoys immense philanthropic support and those in South East Asia receive equally generous state funding. Since neither of these sources of funding applies to the same extent in the UK, are we being short-changed?
John Mason 17 January 2011
80 Written evidence submitted by T Morgan (UKCMRI 21)
I am a long time resident of the London Borough of Camden whose main concern about the proposed lab is the use of animal models in scientific/medical experiments (terms of reference 2 - What do the four partners hope to achieve from the project and what new technologies and innovations are being considered?)
I will draw your attention to the UKCRMI’s Scientific Vision and Research Strategy which can be found on the UKCMRI website, dated June 2010. What is missing from this document is any mention of the steps the UKCRMI will be taking to reduce and eventually cease using animal models. It doesn’t mention ethics, it doesn’t mention public option or support (or lack of) for the use of animal models.
The Home Office Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate in its 2009 annual report, reported that: • There had been only a 1% drop in scientific procedures started. • The breeding of GM animals for procedures is on the increase. • The total number of procedures in 2009 was a third higher than it was in 2000.
I’m not against medical research and innovation, but do feel that ethics and growing public option against the use of animals in experiments should be taken more seriously by government, scientists and companies.
T. Morgan
Declaration of Interests: Independent, member of the public.
18 January 2011
81 Written evidence submitted by Frankie Biney of SPA (St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action) (UKCMRI 22)
For over twenty years I have lived in Somers Town and enjoyed life here because of the friendly community feeling even though it is an inner city suburb. But in the last five years, beginning with the re-building of St Pancras Station there have been changes and upheavals which are breaking up the community. I fear if the superlab comes it will break up the community completely. Science may be good for health. So is a good community.
I used to know people on the street and in the local pub. Now I will walk a long way and not recognise anyone. Now it will be worse with 1500 people working at the superlab.
Brill Place was supposed to have 50 percent of housing on it – now it will have a massive laboratory like a factory, and I can’t see what good that will do us. We need space to build homes on and for amenities. Space for young people to play together. That way you get less knife crime. If big buildings continue to crowd in on us, it will destroy the community completely. That is wrong.
UKCMRI say they will be good for our health but I don’t see why they have to destroy our community and take the last available space. I hear they have plenty of space up at Mill Hill. Why can’t they build there?
I used to run a cycle club and parents and youngsters could get together and repair bikes and recycle old parts. They got to know one another. Activities like that build a sense of community – caring for one another. That club lasted for five years. Then the council stopped it because of ‘health and safety’. That is ironic – when they are allowing a superlab to be built which, if there is an accident, could be very bad for health and safety.
I live in St Georges Buildings, built by Father Jellicoe and St Pancras Housing to replace slums. I hear it was Britain’s first all-electric block. They believed that good housing was the start for a good community, but UKCMRI are taking our last chance for good housing. We don’t want housing built in another part of Camden. We want to keep the community together.
The superlab will cost £660 million. The government will give £220 million of that. How is there so much money for buildings, and we can’t get proper funding for our Festival of Cultures. Plot 10 which is a wonderful after school play centre, especially for mums who have to work – Plot 10 is closing down after years of wonderful work. The superlab can’t make up for that. It will do nothing for us. It will take the last available space. Communities are more important than profits and big laboratories when you’re running out of space.
Frankie Biney
25 January 2011
82 Written evidence submitted by
Rt. Hon. Frank Dobson MP (UKCMRI 23)
Background
1. Ever since the decision was taken in 1976 to site the British Library on surplus railway land fronting onto Euston Road, I have hoped and argued for the surplus land at the back to be devoted to housing and other local uses. Part of that land was subsequently earmarked for housing with the remainder for commercial development.
2. The first I heard of the proposed Research Centre was when I was contacted by Lord Sainsbury, then the Science Minister, who told me that it was intended to re-locate the National Institute for Medical Research from Mill Hill to my constituency. Initially I questioned whether simply effecting such a transfer was the best use of the limited funds in the science budget. Following discussions about the need to rebuild, whether at Mill Hill or elsewhere, and about the advantages of co-locating the laboratory with other major centres of bio-scientific research in the southern tip of my constituency, I eventually accepted that on balance it might be a sound idea. I was told that it was intended that, to accommodate the new laboratory, the Medical Research Council should buy the site in Hampstead Road occupied by the former Temperance Hospital. I pointed out that this seemed to me unlikely to be big enough. Nevertheless the purchase went ahead. It was followed by a feasibility study which proved that the site was indeed too small.
3. I was subsequently telephoned by Professor Sir Colin Blakemore, then Chief Executive of the MRC, who rang for my reaction to the idea that the new laboratory should be located instead on the surplus land at the back of the British Library. I pointed out that half of that site was designated for housing for local people and that if it were to be taken up instead by the laboratory, then the National Temperance Hospital site should be used for housing. I added that a research centre would certainly be more useful to society than the likely alternative use of the non-housing part of the site which would
83 probably have been used for offices for bankers and management consultants. I said that I would support the scheme subject to the proviso about the release of the National Temperance Hospital site for housing and the direct provision of measures to improve the health of local people. I subsequently confirmed that this was my view with Professor Sir Keith Peters at the MRC, with Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz when he became Chief Executive and with representatives of University College London and the Wellcome Trust who were involved in developing the proposal for a collaborative project which also includes Cancer Research UK.
4. The promoters of the project later argued that, as their proposed use of the site was socially useful, they were not obliged to offer the alternative site for housing. They eventually secured planning permission from Camden Council and the Mayor of London without including an offer of alternative housing as part of the Section 106 planning agreement they reached with Camden. That does not mean that Camden, as the planning authority, cannot require the use of some of the National Temperance Hospital site for housing as a condition of any planning permission for the re-development of the site. I am arguing very strongly that they should, and I hope they will.
The Present Position
5. Somers Town, where the UKCMRI is to be situated, lies between Euston and St. Pancras stations. It is very densely populated and the population is one of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods in London with a high incidence of illness, low life expectancy, high levels of unemployment and related economic and social deprivation. I therefore believe that it is imperative that the UKCMRI contributes directly to relieving some of the problems of its residential neighbours – partly in compensation for the noise and other nuisance during the construction period and partly for the loss of housing. Most of all, it would be a startling criticism of our society for many impoverished people to be living cheek by jowl with a world class, state of the art research centre which could help them in so many ways and yet did not do so. In particular the nearby centre could provide a whole range of local jobs when fully operational as well as during the construction period, a top flight
84 clinic and other measures to improve health and life expectancy and contribute to the development of local schools as centres for teaching the biosciences and stimulating interest in science generally.
6. I therefore very much welcome the co-operative approach by those promoting the project and the inclusion of a wide range of practical measures to help the locality, set out in the Section 106 agreement to which the planning consent is subject. I hope that the Select Committee will feel able to endorse these measures and urge those involved to pursue them enthusiastically and consistently over many years.
7. The main proposals designed to benefit local people are: a) The Living Centre – to be located on the west side of the building and dedicated exclusively to improving the health and life chances of local residents, funded by UKCMRI, working to a set of priorities laid down by a community group representing local people, Camden Council, NHS Camden and the Research Centre and drawing upon the vast expertise available in the Research Centre. b) Jobs – a clear commitment to the local recruitment of as many as possible of the 300 non-research posts at UKCMRI with the annual funding of 5 relevant apprenticeships together with a contribution during the construction period towards 40 apprenticeships recruited via the King’s Cross Construction Skills Centre. UKCMRI would help develop a local procurement code to help local businesses get contracts to supply goods and services. c) Education and Local Schools – the UKCMRI will have its own teaching and exhibition spaces, including a teaching laboratory with priority given to local schools, and a staff member with the task of promoting the participation of local children together with a scheme for UKCMRI staff to volunteer and mentor. I believe it is particularly important that the presence of the Research Centre enables South Camden Community School, which is presently being rebuilt, to become a major centre for teaching bio-medical sciences.
85 d) Housing – poor, overcrowded or insecure housing is second only to smoking as a cause of health inequalities. So, particularly in view of the loss of housing land, I welcome the commitment of £3.8m to fund a district energy centre and over a further £1.5m on improving insulation in local flats.
e) General Impact – it is intended to invest around £1m in improvements to the public realm and measures to improve general security in the neighbourhood.
Bio-Security and Terrorism
8. However that brings me to what I believe to be the major outstanding concern of local people which is possible bio-insecurity from accidental discharges and the possibility of terrorism. I have been pursuing these matters with Ministers in both the present and previous governments. Most recently David Willetts, the Minister for Universities and Science, wrote to me to draw attention to the Select Committee’s current inquiry into UKCMRI and emphasised that your terms of reference included inquiring into the risk assessments of the safety of the site. Two of the terrorist bomb outrages on 7 July 2005 occurred nearby, as did earlier ones perpetrated by the IRA. So local people are acutely aware of the general threat of terrorism. Their particular concern is that a terrorist explosion might lead to dangerous discharges from the laboratory, thus posing a greater threat to them and their families than an explosion aimed at some other prominent but ‘non infectious’ target. I hope therefore that you will be able to use your authority to require those responsible, both locally and nationally, for bio-security of the Research Centre to put on the public record their technical assessment of the arrangements for bio-security in the event of any foreseeable terrorist outrage and that they are satisfied with those arrangements.
9. Subject to provisions of the Section 106 Agreement and the requirements on bio-security in paragraphs 7 & 8 above being met, I believe that the laboratory can make a positive contribution to the health, wellbeing, employment and education of local people as well as benefitting the whole of humankind with the product of its research. It would add to what is probably the biggest
86 concentration of biomedical research in the world already being carried out and promoted at University College, Birkbeck College, Cancer Research UK, the Institute of Neurology, the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the School of Pharmacy, the Institute of Child Health, the Royal Veterinary College, the Wellcome Trust and associated hospitals and clinics in the area.
Rt. Hon. Frank Dobson MP February 2011
87