House of Commons Science and Technology Committee UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) Sixth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/science Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 18 May 2011 HC 727 Published on 25 May 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50 The Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science and associated public bodies. Current membership Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Chair) Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central) Gregg McClymont (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Stephen McPartland (Conservative, Stevenage) Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock) David Morris (Conservative, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester) Pamela Nash (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts) Jonathan Reynolds (Labour/Co-operative, Stalybridge and Hyde) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/science. A list of reports from the Committee in this Parliament is included at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in printed volume(s). Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are: Glenn McKee (Clerk); Stephen McGinness (Second Clerk); Farrah Bhatti (Committee Specialist); Xameerah Malik (Committee Specialist); Andy Boyd (Senior Committee Assistant); Julie Storey (Committee Assistant); Pam Morris (Committee Assistant); and Becky Jones (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e- mail address is: [email protected] UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 4 UKCMRI and the consortium 4 The inquiry 5 The structure of report 6 2 The UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation 8 Expectations of the project 8 The Joint Venture Agreement 9 Preparations before the Joint Venture Agreement was signed 9 Potential new partners 10 The UKCMRI’s scientific vision 10 Development of scientific and innovation strategy 12 Attracting scientists from around the world 13 Science and technology at the UKCMRI 14 Conclusions 15 3 Benefits for the UK 17 Translation of health research 17 Benefits to the NHS 18 Pharmaceutical industry 18 Conclusions 19 4 Location 20 Introduction 20 History of the UKCMRI’s location 22 Why Central London? 24 Conclusions 26 5 Construction and management 28 Construction of the UKCMRI 28 Potential problems 29 Overseeing delivery of the project 30 UKCMRI governance 31 Track records 32 Government involvement 33 Conclusions 33 6 Financing the project 34 Introduction 34 UKCMRI’s business case 34 The project costs 35 Operational costs 37 2 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) Budgetary control 38 Other financial issues 40 Intellectual Property 41 National Temperance Hospital 41 MRC funding of other science projects 42 7 Safety and security 43 Biological hazards 43 The risks 44 Conclusions 47 8 The local community 48 St Pancras and Somers Town community 48 UKCMRI engagement 48 Local engagement criticisms 50 Conclusions 51 9 The National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill 52 The future of the NIMR 52 Arrangements for the move from Mill Hill 53 Conclusions 54 10 Conclusions 55 Conclusions and recommendations 56 Formal Minutes 60 Witnesses 61 List of printed written evidence 62 List of additional written evidence 62 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 63 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 3 Summary The UK requires a Centre for Medical Research and Innovation and we agree with, and commend, the scientific vision for the UKCMRI. This is clearly a project of national importance with the potential to deliver significant improvements in human and animal health. It is now over a decade since the idea of the UKCMRI was first suggested. Our predecessor Committee judged it an exciting project which could bring significant benefits to life sciences in the UK. It is not, however, risk free. We have examined the two areas which our predecessors considered needed careful monitoring: the management structure and the funding of UKCMRI. While it would be complacent to take the view that a project of this size, cost and complexity will not face problems, we took comfort from the reassurances we received during this inquiry. In particular, our concerns about costs was assuaged when we were told that the taxpayer will not be liable to any further costs should the project overrun. On the management, we were told that an experienced team with a proven track record were now taking charge. We have reservations regarding the project’s central London location near St Pancras station. We accept that co-location of the UKCMRI with universities and hospitals and access to good transport links are advantages and play a fundamental role in the vision for the UKCMRI. They come at a price: extra construction costs; a site incapable of expansion; and the concentration of medical sciences in the “golden triangle” in the south of England. In our view the case for a central London location was not overwhelming and the UKCMRI could have been sited elsewhere. Construction of the Centre is now beginning— and the decision cannot be reversed—but it is essential that the UKCMRI develop plans and put in place measures to ensure that those outside the South-East are part of the project and obtain maximum benefit. UKCMRI Ltd and the Government have told us that they have carried out the necessary risk assessments and can manage the risks associated with constructing, fitting out and operating the UKCMRI. They assured us that site safety risks have received suitable special attention both in building design and in operational planning and that work on viruses and bacteria will be carried out at the appropriate level of containment. While we understand and sympathise with the local community’s concerns about the project, we accept that the UKCMRI management has tried to engage with the local community. We were saddened that this appears to have not been as successful as it might have been. It is important not to ignore the effects of developments such as the UKCMRI on local communities. One way some benefit could accrue back to the local community is to ensure that the land released from the National Temperance Hospital site (the original site intended for the UKCMRI) is used for social housing. There is clear public interest in this impressive project. We shall continue to scrutinise closely all aspects of the UKCMRI and expect to carry on receiving six-monthly updates on the progress of the project. 4 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 1 Introduction UKCMRI and the consortium 1. In 2007 the former Government gave its backing to plans to create the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) at St Pancras in central London. The four founders of the UKCMRI were the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK (CR-UK), the Wellcome Trust and University College London (UCL) (“the consortium”). 2. As the UKCMRI’s website sets out, the “creation of UKCMRI has been made possible by an innovative partnership between a UK Government funding agency, two charities and a leading university”.1 The UKCMRI, when built and operating, will bring together science teams from the MRC’s National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), the CR-UK London Research Institute and UCL. The Wellcome Trust will fund scientists within the Centre, who will also be expected to work closely with researchers from other nearby universities and research-intensive hospitals. The Centre is expected to open in 2015. 3. The biomedical industry is extremely important to the UK economy, accounting for 9% of exports and 28% of business R&D (research and development) spending.2 The foreword of the MRC’s Final Full Business Case for the UKCMRI explains the rationale behind the project: “[the] UK is a world leader in biomedical research. [...] The MRC and UK Government recognise that it is important that this position is sustained in the face of increasing international competition.”3 4. The UKCMRI has provided a short description of each member of the consortium: x The MRC is a publicly funded organisation dedicated to improving human health through world-class medical research. It supports more than 4,000 scientists across a wide spectrum of research to find new ways to prevent, diagnose and treat disease on behalf of the UK taxpayer. x CR-UK is the world’s leading charity dedicated to cancer research, supporting the work of more than 4,000 scientists, doctors and nurses across the UK. It carries out world-class research to improve understanding of cancer and to find out how to prevent, diagnose and treat different kinds of the disease.